Thursday, December 31, 2009

The Long and Lonely Road – What Ought To Be Drivers’ Rules

Having spent a notable number of hours, perhaps it was days, on the road this month; I have decided to present the driving rules that ought to be part of every driver’s road awareness and traffic monitoring skill set. These rules are few and simple. They are meant to improve your travel experience, efficiency and safety. You will not find these rules in any state’s driver’s manual because they are not intended to define the control and flow of traffic within the situations that are being regulated by a state. Nor are these rules meant to be enforced by the local or state police forces or to be used to generate revenues for applicable jurisdiction.

These driving rules apply to the active state of driving on multi-lane roads and to how each individual driver should be reacting to the constantly changing situations on the road with the traffic with which they are confronted. If drivers followed these rules, they would find that their travels are faster, safer and less stressful than the experiences that they face today.

The Driver’s Rules:

1. If a car passes you in the lane to your right then you are in the wrong lane and should move to the right as soon as safely possible. This rule applies no matter which lane you are in on a multi-lane highway. It basically indicates that you are not driving at a speed that is sufficient to prevent other cars from approaching you from behind and having to go around you. When a car passes you on the right, your safety is being compromised; and if you had been farther to the right, it appears that your speed would not have been impeded and the other traffic would be proceeding at a better overall speed and with less overall congestion.

2. If you are not in the right-most lane and there is one or more cars behind you, but there are no cars even remotely in front of you then you are in the wrong lane and should move to the right as soon as possible. You could give some consideration to speeding up to pass the car(s) immediately to your right if that is the only way to get into that lane. The fact that you are traveling side-by-side with other cars and not really passing them is another indicator that you are in the wrong lane if those cars are to your right. Traveling side-by-side when actual traffic congestion does not require it increases your vulnerability to any traffic situation or action that could result in an accident.

3. As you drive the best place to be is in the pack-gaps between the groups of cars that are bunched-up together due to drivers that do not follow the above two rules. Your safety is maximized when you take every opportunity to isolate yourself from as many other drivers, and if possible all others, that these traffic pack-gaps provide. You can often see these gaps when you are behind a set of cars that are all driving at basically the same speed, side-by-side and with no discernable indication that the car farthest to the left is actually passing the car immediately to its right. You usually have to watch for the occasional car(s) that this front-group is approaching from behind (a slower than average car) that will force them to break ranks. At that time, if you are able to position yourself to take advantage of the open lane that will often be produced then you can slip into the pack-gap and immediately reduce the safety threat that those cars have created.

4. Whenever possible stay out of the left-most lane. This helps avoid the situations which create the need to react to Rule 1 and 2. This helps improve the flow of traffic around you and improves your safety.

5. Think ahead. Don’t just observe the cars directly in front of you. As you are driving down the road, you will have many opportunities to see the traffic minutes in front of you. Use that information to plan ahead, this information can be used to position yourself to maximize your opportunities to get out of situations that cause you to be in the situations where the above rules would come into play; and the longer you can avoid these rules being operative the safer you are, the faster your travel will be, and the less stress you will have from traffic.

6. Don’t be interested in observing an accident. Your job is driving. As soon as possible, as you pass the accident and the police and emergency vehicles handling it, you should return to the speed that you would have been driving at had then been no accident as rapidly as possible given the other traffic around you. After you are back up to you’re your cruising speed, it should be almost impossible for you to tell anyone anything about the accident other than that there was one.

The important aspect of these rules is that they are not rules that you expect to apply to other drivers. They only apply to you as an individual driver. Thus these rules are within your control and you can use them without any involvement or cooperation of other drivers. The rules when used this way will make small improvement in the traffic around you, and in your safety. If other drivers also use these rules then they also contribute incremental small improvements. And if enough drivers use them then the whole system of cars and drivers benefit from them.

Unfortunately, these rules are not taught or even acknowledged within the agencies that promulgate traffic education and training. So I don’t expect to see the general state of traffic and driving on the highways improve at any time in the near or distant future.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

An Immoral Morality: Anti-Abortion or Abortion Rights Legislation Without Responsibility

One of the big, if not the biggest, issues that must be contended with on the Health Care Reform bill is how the bill addresses abortions under the bill. The Pro-Life proponents are pressing to have restrictions on abortions expanded and if possible completely prohibited. To the fullest extent possible, the Pro-Life side is seeking to have abortion coverage completely prohibited from even co-existing with any government funded health coverage plan. The Pro-Choice advocates are obviously against any additional restrictions than current laws entail. Pro-Choice proponents would be eager to see increased availability of abortion coverage, but that is not the direction that the bills are tending toward. Finding an adequate compromise that will placate both sides appears to be an almost insurmountable task. Even holding to a status quo position that federal funds cannot be used to support abortions is not a guaranteed successful strategy.

At the heart of the issue is that moral proposition that Pro-Lifers make that abortion is the murder of a human life from inception. This position is usually linked to the religious orientation of the people taking the Pro-Life stance. In and of itself, there is nothing about their position that is immoral or contrary to the freedoms offered under our democratic government. No law can be made that would infringe upon their right to refuse any imposition of an abortion upon them or a family member over whom they have parental or guardianship responsibility. They may honor their beliefs and moral philosophy within interference from the Government or its agents. But that is not the extent of the Pro-Life position.

Beyond the personal freedom to refuse to avail themselves of an abortion, except under any conditions or circumstances that their own beliefs or moral code would allow, most Pro-Lifers assert that their beliefs are societal in nature and required to be imposed upon every member of society. The right to life that they advocate is required of all citizens, regardless of those citizens’ own religious beliefs or moral philosophies. In this case, Pro-Lifers’ contend that their position supersedes the freedom of anyone who believes that abortion is an individual’s right to choose for their own person. Thus the abortion issue is one of the fundamental dividing lines within our legal system. Abortion rights or prohibitions squarely rest upon the separation of the Government’s scope of authority versus the individual freedoms and rights that each and every individual person has a legitimate claim upon based on the Constitution.

Unfortunately the founding fathers did not clearly or explicitly address the abortion issue within their writings; either the Constitution’s own wording or in extensive writing supporting and defending the text that they had written. And we are not only left with the basic issue of abortion within our current system; but it has now become a pivotal factor in the Health Care Reform effort.

There is no resolution of the question of who is right about abortion, as neither side can even comprehend the basis for the other side to hold a different view. Given this intransigence of position, is it any wonder that politicians cannot find a way to appease both sides?

My problem with the abortion issue is that it is always narrowly focused on a personal belief in the sanctity of life or the absolute right of individual freedom regarding one’s own person. I find this an irresponsible and an immoral view for either side to take. As usual in these situations, I find that the right answer is not the one or ones being espoused by these fervent and self-righteous souls who are willing to tell me what I must believe.

The true issue of abortion is not is it right or wrong; but what responsibilities are associated with the imposition of whatever societal laws are to be made and enforced upon the individuals and the public as a consequence of the chosen laws.

If you prohibit abortions, are you not responsible for the children who are born that would not have been?

If you allow individuals to self-elect an abortion, then who is responsible for the costs of a procedure that is elective and violates core religious beliefs of other segments of a society?

If you are a religious group that opposes abortion should you be exempt from the social costs that will come from this legislative act that your religious activities have help establish?

It is the responsibility that goes along with the consequences of your position that are lost in the discussion. If you do not stand up and accept your share of the consequences of your position, then your claim to a moral basis for your position is abrogated and you are not worthy to have anyone take any heed of your position. Politician should only agree to support your legislative agenda if you agree to accept the corollary legislation that addresses the social and governmental cost and tax burden or the individual monetary obligations that goes hand and hand with what you want.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

A Solution Path to Health Care Reform

If Congress wanted to be successful at Health Care Reform then they should look to use an approach that would be foreign to them. I don’t mean foreign as in a system perhaps more typical of international country’s form of health care. I don’t believe that the health care systems of other countries are founded upon a superior operating for funding approach. Those systems are simply structured to obtain their funding through their government’s own preferred forms of taxation.

What I mean by an approach foreign to Congress is one of which they could never conceive. An approach that implements a system and process that is not based on Congress’, or their supporting political staffs’, or lobbyist groups’ knowledge or ability; or more importantly their collective lack thereof. For such an approach Congress would have to pursue a creative solution; one that does not solely rely upon their power to tax, appropriate, or to earmark (graft) funds according to their usual methods.

Consider for example having Congress pass a Health Care Reform act that instead of just finding different groups to tax, or restricting the insurance plans and offers that can be offered in the marketplace, or creating obligations that do not contain future costs; would rather have Congress structure the reform act to motivate competition, reward effectiveness, and control costs. If instead of assuming that Congress is capable of creating a system that will work, why not create a process that will leverage the knowledge, abilities and innovation of the marketplace. Not only would such a creative approach stimulate the marketplace to find better ways to provide health care services than the current proposal. An innovative approach would also avoid having insurance companies, medical service providers and the other health care industry companies from investing their time and efforts in finding ways to leverage the loop-holes in the proposed versions of the bill, the misguided requirements, and the politically-intended abusive provisions to make their products as profitable for themselves as possible.

How would a creative approach differ from the Congressional approach(s)? In either case at the heart of the plan is a taxation funding method. You cannot propose to provide services that are not covered today if you don’t have a funding source, and the Government only has one funding source. But maybe the taxation method could be a reinforcing action rather than a punitive one. If the income tax rate schedule was appropriately calibrated to incorporate a minimal health care cost component then a health care tax-credit could be allowed for tax filers who have paid for an entire year of insurance coverage. This allows the Government to collect health care funding from individuals who would be ‘fined’ under the Congressional plan but would not require the Government to find and collect the funding. A similar tax provision for employers would also allow companies who do provide health care to receive a competitive advantage to companies that do not provide health care. On the corporate tax credit level, the credit would have to be based on number of employees and not total amount of insurance cost incurred; otherwise the gilded insurance packages granted to executives would be subsidized inappropriately.

Another area that a creatively structured act could improve upon the Congressional plan’s approach would be to specifically reward an insurance company that provides either more coverage in a market than their competitors at the same premium rate or who provide the same coverage at a lower rate. The Government could identify upfront the tax credit or exemption levels that a company can earn if they can achieve a superior cost performance than their competitors; and can provide an incentive formula that increases the taxes on insurance companies that generate additional revenues at a higher cost structure. Thus companies earning more but not improving the cost effectiveness of their products relative to their competitors will contribute more of their profits to the health care system. Such a design will make it obvious to insurance company executives where they are failing or succeeding, and their stockholders will be able to view an independent fiduciary evaluation of how well the executives are performing in maximizing their stakeholder value in the companies.

On the medical service providers’ side of the equation, a similar tax incentive can be created. A lower tax rate for low-cost providers and a higher tax rate for excessive-cost providers would incent the providers to find better ways to deliver their services.

The thing that distinguishes the Health Care system that Congress will produce from a better approach is that Congress’ plan does not recognize nor provide for rewarding that which works from that which does not. It does not generate an evolutionary force into the medical and insurance businesses but will stagnate the ineffectiveness that has produced the failed system we are trying to address and correct.

If you want to improve something then you have to change not how it is paid for, but you have to change what causes the providers and competitors to aggressively seek better costs, better services and better quality; and Congress’ plan does none of these.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Congress Versus You: American Intelligence Test # 4

Usually I oppose an unfair fight. Such a contest is after all, well just basically un-American. Not the McCarthy era un-American, but the kind of thing that goes against that deep in your soul John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis stereotype of American sense of what’s right.

But there are exceptions to every rule, even this one. Besides, it is not empirically clear which side the unfairness statement would be made against. If we are pitting Congress against the rest of Americans, we are faced with the fundamentally question: which group has the greater proportion of idiots, imbeciles and morons in it?

So this test is a variant of the previous ones. Unlike those tests, this one requires you to not only answer the questions for yourself, but to also make a decision about how you think Congress would answer as a collective body. You can choose to expand the basic challenge of the test by adding an additional set(s) of answers that you think your favorite politician or your direct representative would choose.

The basic rules:
1. You have to score the answers yourself and in this case that of your counter-part(s).
2. You have to depend on your own honesty, integrity and honor in regard to your answers and those you make for anyone else, and thus both answers are a vital part of the test. [How intelligent can you be if you lie to yourself or about others?]
3. Passing the test is no indication of valid answers. So agreement between your and Congress’ answers are no assurance of that you are any more correct.
This test generally is on how important a Health Care Reform bill is to the United States.

Question 1: U.S. Health Care reform not required. The existing private and public systems provide adequate support for Americans’ needs, is affordable, and is managed and run effectively for both the industry and consumers.
True or False or FTU (Failed To Understand)?

Being a very broad question you are expected to answer not solely in terms of just your own circumstances but are expected to consider the general state of health care for the populace as a whole. Of course, it is expected that your own situation will influence your decision; so remember that the answer you are providing for your Congress counter-part, who doesn’t know you or doesn’t think about you, may very likely answer differently.

Question 2: The investment of 1 out of every 6 dollars of our economy into Health Care related costs is a reasonable and productive investment for the United States’ economy?
True or False or FTU (Failed To Understand)?

Think about the amount of your income that gets directed toward Health Care. This not only includes any insurance premiums that you pay, it also counts employer contributions if applicable, any deductible amounts that come out of your pocket, medicine not covered by a plan you already pay for; but in addition you are also pay through your income taxes, Social Security, and other various taxes where portions of those funds are used to support Health Care services offered under existing programs.

So given all this, do you think that these dollars are better used for the current Health Care system than could be used in some other public arena that would improve the overall economy and thereby also consequentially make Health Care more affordable?

Question 3: Do you think that religious leaders should be playing a direct role in drafting provisions of the Health Care Reform bill?
Yes or No or FTU (Failed To Understand)?

Your answer on this question will supposedly reflect whether you think that a Health Care bill is an appropriate place for representatives of non-tax paying religious sects to propose how the laws of the United States should be crafted? Laws by the way, that will apply to all members of the society both those belonging to the same or similar religious orientations and to those who are members of very diverse religious groups or not religious at all. Note: Nothing in the bill restricts members of any faith from following their own beliefs as it applies to their own lives; nor does it give anyone else the right to impose their religious practices upon you.

Question 4: Who is responsible for a watered-down, compromised and lobbyist influenced Health Care Reform bill: the endorsing party that contorted the bill to garner sufficient votes to get something rather than nothing, or the party that did nothing but resist and hinder the bill?
Endorsing Party or Resisting Party or FTU (Failed to Understand)?

Assume for the purpose of this question that you agree that a Health Care Reform bill is a vital need for the United States. If you cannot do this, then your answer should be blank and scored as wrong.

Question 5: Which is greater?
A. The cost of providing universal Health Care
B. The cost of allowing between 15% to 30% of the population to not
have Health Care coverage
C. Failed To Understand

Consider in your answer that you have to include all consequential costs to the society and economy from your answer. Granted that this is hard to do, because the experts are not able to do this either. But I cannot exempt you from the responsibility of your decision, so you will just have to man/woman up and be held accountable for your answer, even if you do not understand those consequences. You know how they say “ignorance is no excuse” with respect to the law; well, in life, ignorance absolutely will punish you as surely as death for being wrong.


You’re done! It’s over. You can relax and contemplate your score and that of Congress (or others).

For the voyeuristic among you, here are my answers.

--------- SELF --- CONGRESS
Question 1: F --- FTU
Question 2: F --- FTU
Question 3: N --- FTU
Question 4: R --- FTU
Question 5: B --- FTU

I guess you can all see that I fail to understand the ability of Congress.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Congressional Health Care Reform: A Fragment of a Vision

The Democrats abandoned the pubic option portion of their Health Care plan. They had already backed off of the more global universal health care proposal and were retreating to an expanded access to Medicare for people 55 to 64 years old. But amid concerns that expansion would drastically increase the Medicare costs above any funding increases, the proposal lost support among a number of Democrats. The Republicans were joyously sitting on the sidelines excitedly touting the problems and horrendous dangers that the Democratic Health Care Reform bill would rent upon America. Republican's were eager to join in and support a call by Howard Dean to scrap the current proposal and start afresh. In other words, the Republicans were busy contributing nothing useful to or supportive of a Health Care plan for American despite the dire straits that the populace agrees it is in. In short, the Republicans do not see any urgency to find a means to bring relief to the American public's need for health care reform.

The Democrats, while well intentioned, are apparently insufficient to the task of finding a Health Care plan that can garner the necessary support to either get all the Democrats and Independents to vote for it, or to draw in a very few Republicans who would vote for a bill that servers their constituents and is acceptable to their Republican principles. In other words, the Democrats are unable to think outside the box and to find creative solutions to the Health Care dilemma. The surprising aspect of this dilemma is that it's not just the politicians themselves who are unable to see their way through the fog of 'how things are always done'; it is also their staff and advisors, their experts, and the industry movers and shakers who are doing their utmost to guide Congress toward an acceptable solution.

But what has been proposed that is creative, what is innovative, what is new? And there is the crux of the problem. There are no new ideas, no insightful visions of how to re-shape the Health Care system to bring about a sea-change that will accomplish the goals of universal access and care. To bring economic sanity to the cost structure within the industry, and to provide a motivating force to move the industry to higher levels of quality and advances in treatments.

It would seem that if the American public wants Health Care reform, they will need to pick better Republicans and better Democrats then those they have done to date.

Monday, December 14, 2009

It’s Only a Trillion Dollars, and It’s Just Tax Dollars

Congress passed a $1.1 Trillion spending bill yesterday. It was mostly passed by Democrats but there were a couple Republicans who joined in. The Republicans did not support it because, well they’re Republicans, and since it was not their bill to spend a trillion dollars they put on their self-righteous suits and denounced the bill. Had the situation been reversed, I have no reason to think that the Democrats would have decried the bill against virtual unanimous Republican support. We all know that some of the items covered by the spending would have been on a few different things, but both sides would have found their cause célèbre with which to denigrate the other.

The public will predictably divide into their Republican and Democratic cadre and a few splinter groups all of whom will be taking positions on why it’s too much, too little, being spent on the wrong things and needs to be spent on other things, or is a conspiracy by their favorite scapegoat cartel. What will not be noted or talked about is that the Government doing nothing different than they have been doing forever. They are crafting spending plans, spending commitments, spending objectives and spending pay-offs. The bill is compiled by Congress, for Congress, and of Congress. And therein lies the problem. Congress has willfully deceived itself into believing that the Constitution gave it the right to decide upon how the taxes of the country are to be spent.

What the Constitution really provides for is that the responsibility for all appropriations of the federal government being vested in the legislature. And the salient term that the politicians have for their own convenience left unattended to is that Congress has the “responsibility” vested in their hands. And they do not recognize that they are responsible. Responsible in the sense that they are to held accountable to the public for the proper and appropriate use of these funds for the benefit of the nation and its populace.

How do we know that the politicians are not responsibly spending our tax dollars? If they were acting responsibly then they would be seeking better ways to ensure that every tax dollar that was spent was being used to its utmost value. A responsible Congress would find ways to get more benefit for fewer dollars, not the spend more dollars without any benefit even expected. Where is Congress even employing any of the successful capitalistic processes that have been so powerful in creating the enormous wealth of the nation? Congress has made itself an un-responsible assembly. Congress has neither leaders, members or supporters that understand or even recognize their moral obligation to public service for which they were elected and to which they pledged their lives and honor.

The huge deficit that imperils the United States is and has been dutifully crafted by each successive Congress regardless of party. And the public continues to place the blame on whoever is not their preferred political group. It’s always easier to blame the other side, rather than accept that the responsibility is your own. Kind of makes you wonder where Congress got the idea of abrogating their responsibility.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Let’s Have Another Round of Oversized Bloated Banking Bonuses

The public has generally been outraged over the Government’s bailout of the financial industry. The public’s major issues revolve around the CEOs and other executives of those companies not only keeping their jobs, but also receiving large bonuses after their stellar performance in bringing on the crisis. On top of this is the insult added to that injury, of the Government not providing bailouts for other businesses and industrial areas that were as dramatically impacted by the near financial collapse. Financial companies were assigned surgeons to help repair their life-threatening problems, while the rest of the economy was ask to handle their injuries with some band aids.

Now that the economy is beginning to show viable signs of a sustainable come-back, the executives of the financial companies are rewarding themselves with more super-sized bonuses. And we will hear from them the ever popular refrain about how these bonuses are essential to keeping these highly valued individuals who would go somewhere else if they weren’t paid these huge sums.

The Government’s solution to this is mostly non-existent because they are not allowed to directly interfere with the operation of a public-sector company. At least the Government does not intervene when it involves companies that provide large political contributions and funds very effective and well connected lobbyist groups. For those financial companies that are still holding Government TARP funds the Government has restricted pay and bonus amounts; but I am sure that this will be duly corrected when these companies pay back the bailout funds.

In an effort to ameliorate public discontent, the Government is proposing lots of solution to the problem the public sees. One of the easiest solutions that also offers the most emotionally satisfying reaction is to tax such bonuses. Of course, if we all step back and think about this for a moment we can see the fundamental flaw in this plan. Just as we all Government funds come from taxes, and all taxes come from the public; all bonuses come from the public’s purse also. So when we take some of their bonuses away, we are still the ones who paid the original price. This tax bonuses approach has been adopted by the European Union, so this simultaneous discovery of how to help protect the public and our economies from financial institutions’ abuse and greed will unquestionably work out.

Other Government proposals are to require the bonuses to be in the form of stock awards that have to be held for five years before they can be redeemed. This is really going to protect us, because as everyone knows this financial crisis was the result of things that were done in less than a five year period. And we won’t have to worry about these guys fiddling with the numbers or devising processes that will let them game the system (which they define) all over again. I don’t want to make you feel stupid or anything; but you only have to be of average intelligence and possibly are reasonably proficient with Algebra-level mathematics.

Our real problem is that the Government is still only able to understand and react to economic and societal risks with the same tools and concepts that they have been using for and from the last century. And given the empirical data from the 1900’s we can clearly see how successful these means and methods have been at averting these problems. In fact, since we are going to tackle these problems in the same way as before, they must not have really happened.

And why are we depending on the Government to have the brains and know-how to ensure that we can protect ourselves? Isn’t this another case of the same tool that just failed being the tool that is being recommended to solve the problem this time around? The politicians always talk about it being time for change; and I don’t just mean the present administration. Both parties and every administration says that they are going to change how we do things and make it work this time. It’s not that I don’t believe that they think they are going to fix things; it’s that I don’t think they understand how to comprehend the problems they are trying to solve. A prerequisite to solve a problem is to know the space in which a solution (if you believe that there is one) can be found.

What evidence do we have that politicians have demonstrated even a random chance at getting things right? I would contend that in some non-Las Vegas manner they cannot even win half the time when the odds are fifty-fifty.

Friday, December 11, 2009

The Triple Standard Replaces the Double Standard: The Tiger Woods Example

Most people are familiar with the Double Standard concept. If you are not, then I suppose you are either one of the many successful products of our educational system, or you are oblivious to the world around you. [I won’t slip in the obvious Samuel Clemens’ reference here.] In consideration of the membership rolls that these two groups represent, I feel obligated to provide a scant illumination. A Double Standard is a set of principles establishing different provisions for one group than for another; for example: having different rules for men versus women, native-born versus foreign-born citizens, blacks (or other racial group) versus whites (or other racial group, no redundancy allowed), or the wealthy versus the not-wealthy.

Double Standards seem to be a constant phenomenon in societies. Even where the society espouses views or even laws of equality for individuals regardless of which group someone belongs in, there is often a dissonance between the views/laws and the practices. In our society, we have been struggling with Double Standard problems since even before the founding of our nation. One might say that the Declaration of Independence is the original statement of America’s principle against letting a people be treated by a Government as an under-privileged class in their own society. This is true whether the people constitute the bulk of the population or a smaller group within that population.

I suspect that everyone can recount any number of stories where they see someone(s) being treated differently than they think they would be treated in the same circumstances. Usually, you recall that the person(s) is receiving a significantly better form of treatment than you would receive. On rare occasions, there are a few people who are actually aware that they would have received the better treatment. Let’s think CEOs of Financial or Banking corporations during the current economic catastrophe. You know, where the CEOs got big bonuses after having failed spectacularly in the very arena that these CEOs are the ‘most talented and gifted’ individuals that cannot be easily replaced if we don’t give them big bundles of cash. Although we never seem to have a lack of qualified candidates when someone is replaced, but that is another story.

But it is no longer true that we have Double Standards in America. We have Triple Standards today. The third set of principles have evolved to apply to those individuals who are celebrities, media sensations, and well-known authority figures (think: politician, religious notables, the ‘well connected’, …). The most recent example is Tiger Woods. Tiger is the Bill Gates or Warren Buffet of sports’ celebrities. Anything that happens in Tiger’s life is instantly a media event. And oddly enough the more divorced from Golf the events are, the greater the public interest and media attention. If the incident is personal, and better yet if it is ‘scandalous’, and news and media services will focus on this story as if it is the most salient and vitally important item of the century. And here is where the Third Standard comes in.

Tiger is not engaged in a golf tournament or any related sporting event. He is not participating in any advertising or endorsement activity, nor is he helping in a charitable or public service campaign. Tiger is, well he is just living his life at home with his family. But because he is a celebrity, Tiger is treated to the insane and excessive scrutiny of the media, as if it is critical to everyone else’s life that we know everything about this inane event in lurid details. If we applied the same intensity of attention and interest to world, societal, or our own problems; many of these problems would be resolved or reduced in significance.

Compounding the dysfunctional attention we impart to Tiger’s life, we then fixate upon the really relevant issues of the day: Should Tiger’s sponsors terminate their business relationships with Tiger? The concern is evidently because Tiger has engaged in activities that some judge to be immoral, wrong, unacceptable, or detrimental to those who see him as a role-model. The public divides itself in groups that want Tiger to be treated according to some principle that is not only different than the principle that would be applied to us or to the principle for members of the other Double Standard group.

The Third Standard principles are created by the media, by the public, and by the interest groups that can profit in some manner from these distracting events. We obsess on whether we approve of the punishment the offender is or is not receiving. We compulsively place this issue ahead of our own needs and lives. But we do not choose to treat Tiger or any of the other celebrities du jour in the same way that we would treat others or they would treat us.

And where is the fault? We allow the special Third Standard treatment of such celebrities. We buy products and pay for tickets to support these celebrities. We accept the media’s coverage of these events on an equal basis with news items of greater relevance to our lives. If you don’t like the life-style of one of your celebrities, then you control the one thing that makes them a celebrity: the money you give them. Don’t be irate, don’t demand that others do something to address your issue; do it yourself.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Look Mom No Hands! – The Democrats’ Solution for Revolutionizing US Health Care

Today the Democrats demonstrated their deftness in the political skill of compromise. Not with the Republicans, but with fellow Democrats. The Republicans are staunchly against any action that would contribute to the establishment of a broader health care program for US citizens, so they continued to point out incorrect and irrelevant consequences to the Democratic plan. From the compromise reached among the Democrats, I would think the Republicans would be falling over themselves working to join the effort; since if there is any way to help insure that the Democratic plan will fail is to put this one into place.

What’s wrong with the Democrats’ compromise? The Democrats have discovered that in order to revolutionize and reform the Health Care insurance and medical care systems in the United States that the existing Medicare program and new nationwide private plans will work. The Medicare plan will be extended to folks in the 55 to 64 age range; and new nationwide plans will be created in accord with some Government oversight from the folks who run the insurance plans for lawmakers and their families. So clearly it is obvious why these approaches will succeed, while nothing we have done in the past has been adequate to the task.

If we are going to update and revamp the insurance and medical systems that everyone agrees are out of control and rapidly approach catastrophic failure in terms of meeting the health care needs of the US citizenry, then these two existing programs will surely solve our problems. After all, both Medicare and the Government’s insurance plans have been demonstrably successful in containing the health care costs associated with people under their coverage. I haven’t seen such data or assessments; but given my great trust in politician and government bureaucracies I imagine that this information exists. I don’t know how to reconcile this obvious truth with the fact that the Medicare program has in the past and is projected to be again in the future bankrupt. Well we don’t like to say bankrupt, we prefer the term insolvent. And the Governmental insurance program for the lawmakers, this program must surely be more cost effective than that of the average Americans’, those that have an insurance program at least. And data illustrating the lower cost for their plan should be readily available for the politicians to present as clear and unequivocal evidence of the effectiveness of these programs.

Now if by some chance it’s not true that, or if you don’t believe that, the Medicare and/or the Government’s own medical insurance plan are affordable plans then you probably don’t think these will solve the problems with the current system. And if you have doubts, you should also remember to consider whether you think a sizeable percentage of the uninsured citizenry will be able to afford that costs of these plans. The lawmakers can afford them because there are the taxes that they have around to help pay for them. Can’t remember where those taxes come from, but perhaps we can all get some tax dollars to help us with our insurance. It’s not like taxes are going to cost any of us anything, right?

To further alleviate your concern about this solution, we can step back and examine the evidence of the reduced costs in medical care that has resulted from Medicare and the Governments plans over the last 44 years, since Medicare was established. And given their examples, the private insurance industry has been able to learn how to control costs along similar lines, thus averting the Health Care crisis. Uh! Wait a second, none of that happened. In actuality, didn’t the exact opposite happen? Things have gotten progressively worse over the years, and we are not facing the real dilemma of an unaffordable Health Care system.

Well, I am sure things will work out ok. We have always been able to rely upon our politicians to solve our problems.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Out-smarting Republicans on Their Health Care Political Maneuverings

Republicans put forth an amendment to the Health Care Reform bill that would have eliminated cutting $42 billion in Medicare payments over ten years. Now the Republicans did not do this because they are interested in helping the Democrats or the American people to find a way to find the funding cuts that will make the Reform bill affordable. The Republicans are attempting to show the Democrats as willing to cut health care support for seniors even as they vote for costly programs. They are doing this in preparation for upcoming house elections next year and want to fill their bags of fun facts with such items.

The Democrats react by essentially fulfilling the Republican agenda; they vote the amendment down and look as if they don't want to assist those seniors on Medicare or who will be on Medicare that would be served by home care providers. It seems to me that the Democrats are just not properly thinking through the opportunities that the Republicans are presenting to them. Now while I have no great regard for the intelligence of Democrats overall, and certainly do not assume that the Republicans are any more intelligent than Democrats, I think that these little intramural Congressional power-plays offer the powerful potential to be turned back upon the perpetrators. The supposed craftiness of the Republicans can become a dangerous morass that will bite them in their ponderous backsides.

[Note to the reader: the point of this entry is more generic than just the Republicans. From my perspective you can inter-change the Republicans with the Democrats and there is no difference in the outcome.]

The trick to the troublesome problem that the Republicans are foisting upon the Democrats is that most issues are complex and possess many dimensions. And unless the person presenting the problem thoroughly understands the problem itself, the factors and issues that relate to the problem; and possess adequate or extensive knowledge about the methods and means to apply effective solutions to the problem; they are stepping into the domain of those who can. And just like a lawyer is usually careful not to ask a question that they do not already know the answer to, a politician should not undertake to propose a solution to an issue that they do not understand. The only fortunate circumstance for politicians is that they are almost always competing with other politicians. Thus the risk of running into someone with even an average intelligence is pretty remote.

What should the Democrats do? They should look at the Republican proposal. Determine what the good or favorable aspects of the proposal are, assess the bad implications of the proposal, and assess if the proposal is more advantageous or not than their plan. If it is, then incorporate it into you plan so fast that you can thank the Republicans for helping you to define the most effective plan possible on a bi-partisan basis. If you do it fast enough you can even claim that it is an original part of your proposal since it was incorporated during the initial formative and creative phase of the effort.

If the proposal is not a net beneficial addition, then you can reject it if there are no unfavorable or unacceptable consequences to such a rejection; or you can find a counter-action that will negate the attack, or if it is more desirable to turn the tables on your adversaries then look for ways to show up the Republicans or to have them admit the stupidity and irresponsibility of their action.

Let’s take the amendment to eliminate the cuts to the Medicare home care provider coverage as an example. Now unfortunately, I am not a knowledgeable person about such an issue, and am certainly not a subject-matter expert on health care issues; so this could be a significant challenge for me.

There must be some consequences for retaining the cost of Medicare that are beyond just those related to not eliminated home care provider costs. For instance, what do the seniors on the current home care process do after the home care is removed? Do they wind up visiting or moving into partial or full time care facilities that are provided at a lower net cost? Do they require transportation to and from other health care provider facilities? Do fewer of them suffer more extensive and more costly health care support?

The thing that the Republicans overlooked is that we live in a world of consequences. They thought they understood that; but only because they have a simple minded understanding of the principles of Cause and Effect. They are not even like a novice chess player, they can’t see one or two moves beyond their own. And not be particularly adept at anticipating the consequences of what they cannot see for themselves, they are easy prey to those who can.

Would the Republican be willing to acknowledge their authorship of this amendment and their well-thought out responsibility for it, once the true consequences are understood? Are they willing to stand behind the intellectual might that they bring to their office?

Friday, December 4, 2009

Why is the Afghan War Not Fun Any More? – A Test

With President Obama’s recent decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan, surprise, surprise! There are lots of people who don’t agree with this decision. There are the folks who think that we have been fighting this war too long already, there are those who think it is too costly in both the lives of our military and in financial terms, some think that we should never have gotten into the war, and then there are surely various groups who have their own particular positions on why this was not the right decision.

Clearly this is another opportunity for an American Intelligence Test.

Let’s all remember the basic rules:

  1. You have to score the answers yourself, so we all know who you are deceiving.
  2. You have to depend on the honesty, integrity and honor of your answers which are your responsibility and thus are a vital part of the test. [How intelligent can you be if you lie to yourself?]
  3. Passing the test is no indication of valid answers

Time to turn on those thinking caps on. Minds, front and center. Let’s do it to it.

Question 1: Did you support and approve of the United States undertaking the Afgan war and forming the coalition of nations engaged in it, when it began under President G.W. Bush?
Remember this was after the World Trade Center Towers, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania plane crash terrorist attacks, and the Taliban were hosting Al Qaida training camps and operations groups. And you should try your best to recall how you felt at that time and not now 8 years later.

Question 2: Did you believe that creating a free democratic Afghan government and society were an essential part of our commitment to the war?
On this item you should consider that in the world community and in accord with United Nations agreements an occupying force is responsible for the administration and proper running of the society during the period of occupation. So the United States/Coalition Alliance had to either continue to govern Afghanistan as the official civil authority, or we had to establish an Afghani civil government that would be vested with that responsibility and authority.

Question 3: Did you understand that the cost of the Afghan war (and then the Iraqi war) were treated as an ‘off the books’ budgeting item for the US’s budget, and did you think that was appropriate and sound fiscal responsibility? Choices: A – understood and yes, B – understood and no, C – not understood and yes, D – not understood and no.

This questions contains two facets of the war that need to be appreciated and tightly linked with one another. One: there was and still is an implicit cost for these wars. If you believe that America had to undertake either or both of these wars then you should have understood that you were accepting the responsibility and obligation to pay for them. There is nothing about a war that is any different than any other effort or task in our society or the real world. This fact is that ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’.
Two: the cost of the war will come home to roost whether some governmental accounting slight-of-hand manages to make it appear to be invisible. Worse, by allowing the Government to temporarily obscure such financial liabilities, you empower decision makers to commit you to financial obligations that can have severe consequences to your economic security and to weaken the strength and stability of our society and therefore our nation.

Question 4: Given we have being prosecuting the Afghan war for over 8 years now, though we have to admit that we lost focus on the war, the objectives, and the responsibilities that were part of our mission; do you think that we have achieved any of our objectives?
These objectives included:


A. Improving our Civil Defense from the “clear and present danger” that the Taliban
Afghanistan represented.
B. Root out and capture or eliminate the al-Qaida leadership.
C. Establish a free democratic Government in Afghanistan, and help lead the way for democratic governments throughout the region.

Question 5: Which of the following is consistent with American values and is worth of the true American spirit with respect to America’s responsibility to the people of Afghanistan?

A. Pull out our troops as quickly as possible, such that we insure the safety of the troops during this pull-out.
B. Stay in Afghanistan and deploy sufficient troops so that we can establish an Afghanistan civil government that is sound, is an uncorrupt citizen-serving system, and that is able to provide adequate protection to its populace from terrorist and insurgent groups within their country.
Note: I make no assertion that the Afghan government need be a Democratic system styled after the American/Western form.

Extra Credit Question 6: You get a bonus on this one. If you get it right, then you can have messed up on a previous one and your score is restored to the higher level.
Ready?
If the cost of the war is too high, then do you abandon the Afghan people, or change your objectives?

A. Abandon
B. Change Objectives (this is not changing just the approach, it’s changing what you want to accomplish)

Test Over. You can put your minds back to where ever you usually keep them.

And how did you do on this one?

Should you have any interest in my answers, here’s how I did.

Question 1: Y Question 2: N Question 3: B Question 4: N Question 5: B
Bonus Question 6: B

Hope you did well on yours.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

You Can Have Anything You Want At Congress’ Restaurant

Ever wonder why the wealthiest nation and economy in the world has a deficit? It’s because the Republicans and Democrats have individually and collectively chosen to be the extreme versions of what they claim they are not. The Republicans claim that they want to protect the American people from Big Government and guarantee states and individual freedom from governmental bureaucracy, and low taxes. The Democrats claim that they want to ensure equal treatment under the law and protect individual rights, and to have affordable government.

The problem with these parties’ objectives is that the politicians of both stripes completely abandon and disregard the fundamental responsibility that is essential to any viable system of government. That is, the parties do not hold themselves responsible to insure that the Government that we have is the Government that we can afford. The parties and politicians are so greedy and self serving that they sacrifice everyone and everything to their view. We establish government programs that commitment the Government and therefore the citizens to fund and pay for ever increasing items. Whether these are social programs to guarantee that members of the society are kept out of poverty, even thought we have poverty that is not addressed by these programs. We have programs committed to keeping the nation secure and strong even as they weaken the economy and the strength of our social system. We feed the insatiable hunger of each little political idea that belongs to some special interest group which is constructed to benefit them not for the sake of the society but for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Can you really say that you don’t understand what it means to fund US war efforts off-the books? Can you not recognize what accepting unfunded mandates will require of you eventually? Do you really think that promising to pay-out pensions and benefits based on future revenues does not require you to understand the price you will pay when (and I don’t mean if) there is an economic in-balance between the revenues coming in and the expenditures required to go out? And do you truly believe that you do not actually understand the ultimate responsibility that you will be called upon to stand up and deliver?

Well, if you haven’t accepted or understood that everything that the Government does is dependent upon you paying for it via your taxes. There is no money but your money. Whether you want the Government to provide security and military capabilities to protect the nation; to provide a social safety net to prevent the elderly, retired and children in our country from falling into crushing poverty; to subsidize one industry or area of the economy or another from some threat or to insure a level of independence to that area; or to provide basic social services such as education there is one fact that you can hide from or refuse to acknowledge but you cannot avoid. The Government is no different than you home. You have to pay for everything you want in your home.

And it is this responsibility that the Democrats and Republicans have purposely chosen to turn a blind eye to. They are afraid of and dumbfounded by the issues that this responsibility presents. These politicians have no courage to confront this issue or the integrity to put this issue before the voters in a clear and honest manner. We are already seeing the consequences of this cowardice.

And at the very heart of this irresponsibility is the public. The politicians’ failure is only possible because the public allows them to be unaccountable. The fault and guilt stands before you each and every time you stand before a mirror. The failure is the populace and its irrational desire to get more out than you have put in, or worse to get something for nothing. America can no more afford to operate as if we were fools or stupid as Congress.