Congress Couldn’t Empty a Boot With Instructions on the Heel

Take something simple. Then ask yourself how you could a way to make it difficult. If you can do this then you too may be qualified to be a member of Congress.

Need an example, then consider the Health Care Reform bill’s provision to require everyone to purchase health insurance. Certainly the intent would seem very simple. If you are an American citizen then you must buy at least a “basic” health care insurance plan (or have one provided by your employer, or be covered by someone else plan – like spouse’s or parent’s). And if you cannot afford even a basic plan, the Government will provide some subsidized packages so that your costs are less burdensome. Of course even here there will be people who fall through the cracks. It’s not that Congress is unaware of the cracks, it’s just that their definition of ‘everyone’ is not, you know, everyone.

So setting that minor point, the Health Care Reform bill is still nearly simple on this item. We can say that the new act will require “the vast majority of” citizens to pay for some health care plan coverage. We could say that Congress has managed to be generally simple on this area; but I don’t mean that in the good way.

But we are not done yet. This requirement that everyone (the sorta kind) have insurance presents an enforcement issue. To have any meaning, Congress realized (I know, it’s unusual that Congress is aware of a connection between their laws and paying for them; but someone screwed up and pointed it out) that there had to be some way to insure that people would actually purchase insurance. Otherwise Congress would have done it usual legislative abracadabra and produced yet another “here’s your next new law”; and could somebody please figure out how to implement it.

However, do not despair. Congress has stepped up to the task and is prepared to decree that they will guarantee enforcement by, now don’t hold your breath, imposing a “fine” on anyone who does not comply with the law. You may think that this sound simple, and let’s get the sense in which you versus I mean simple before we agree. If you mean this is a very simple way to compel people to purchase their insurance, then we do not agree. If you mean that Congress is being simple-minded again, then we do agree.

Creating a ‘fine-based’ motivational arrangement is not simple. It will require adding a responsibility to one or more (more is more likely) Governmental entity to come up with methods and procedures to find people who are not purchasing their insurance. And to make matters worse, these agencies will have to determine that someone is not providing the required coverage not only to themselves, but more difficultly that they are not providing it to their family members. This of course will require additional funding to such Governmental agencies, which will have to be borne by the tax payers. All this will be done of course to make health care less expensive. This is because spending money on things that do not directly fund actual health care activities always makes health care less expensive.

Now there are simple ways to make people actively seek out and purchase their health care insurance. And while we might expect the average American to be prudent enough to recommend one of these approaches; it is out of character for Congress to do something smart. One example of a simpler way to get people to pay for health insurance coverage is to make the purchase of health care insurance a tax deductable item. This approach incorporates both a carrot and stick mechanism within the existing reporting system that Americans engage in every year. By crafting the tax-deduction procedure properly, the Government would be able to make the current tax system directly support the self-same funding requirement that their fine-based approach would attempt to achieve.

If I expect nothing else from Congress, I expect that they do simple things simply; and not do stupidly simple things.

Solve All Our Problems: Say the Magic Words, and Get Elected/Re-Elected

It’s that time of the year again. Actually, it’s always that time of the year in the political arena. Another instance for your respective party leaders and elected office holders to assure you that there is only one way to fix most of our problems. Fortunately, regardless of the problems that are plaguing the nation, the solution is obvious to these forward looking Democratic or Republican luminaries. The solution of course is to reduce taxes. If we reduce taxes, the ship of state will right itself and we can all look forward to smooth sailing on our journey to peace, plenty, and prosperity.

Now, I am as big a proponent of paying as little in taxes as the next person, maybe even more than most; but hearing a politician tell me that they promise to work vigorously to reduce my taxes and thereby fix any number of social and national ills is not inspirational. It does not convince or even motivate me to want to vote for a particular candidate. Actually, it tends to prompt me to question the intellectual soundness of the politician. So what is the advantage to the politician to be constantly stumping the “Reduce Your Taxes” slogan?

It’s the electorate. Both parties have learned that substantial percentages of their bases and of the non-aligned independents are attracted to and respond to this Pavlovian tolling. Ring out that phrase at every opportunity and the party faithful will open their checkbooks, the media will sound-bite the utterance and replay it over and over, and voters will navigate their way through the voting booth for the opportunity to pull that lever to receive their conditioned reward. Add to this that the political pundits will be pointing out how the other side is deceptively planning to, or will have no choice but to, raise your taxes to fund their plans, and we have the perfect storm of positive and negative reinforcement.

If the politicians are unlucky, you might think about their message, and question whether it makes any rational sense. Thinking scares the hell out of politicians, whether it is on the part of the voters or if it is being required of them. This is because it would mean that they actually have to understand the reality of events and issues that affect the people and our society. This is not something that politicians what to have to waste their time on. It does not increase their political power, it does not line their pockets, and it does not require their ideas, proposals and positions to be better than their opponents.

Taxes are not the source of the problems that are the real issues and questions that America has to confront. Taxes may be a consequence of those problems and issues; but our taxes are just part of a cause-effect relationship within our Governmental system with the taxes being the effect, not the cause. The singular and sole purpose of taxes is to fund the function and operation of Government. So if a politician is telling you that your problems will magically vanish if you allow them to reduce your taxes, then why don’t they just tell you what they are really proposing to do? And, by reducing taxes, I mean actually reducing the total amount of your income that the Government takes from you. I don’t mean reducing say an income tax, but adding fees, surcharges, registrations, fines, duties, or other monetary acquisition forms that simply replace the manner in which you are taxed.

The issues that we, the electorate, need to attend to are what the politicians are planning to have the Government responsible for delivering that determines if our taxes are too high or too low. Now don’t go all postal here. There are circumstances and conditions where we should all recognize that our taxes are too low, or that we have demanded that the Government do something that we apparently are too stupid to see that we cannot afford. Taxes are after all nothing more than our collective budget to pay for what we have endorsed via our elected officials.

Our problems are not unsolvable. Our social issues are not beyond our ability to address. And our ability to pay for our aspirations do not exceed our means. We just have to be responsible to ourselves and accept that what you want you must be willing to fund, or you must be willing to go without.

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, or an Independent, you have bigger problems to deal with than that your taxes to high. In fact you have one really big problem. If you don’t know what the problem is, and don’t try and understand the problem, then you will continue to respond to that Pavlovian bell the politicians have trained you to attend to and to behave has they want you to. Or you can choose to do what a member of a free society needs to do and step up to your responsibility.

Our problem is not that we pay too much. Our problem is that we pay too little attention to what we are asking for and expecting from the Government.

Another Day of Thanks for Democrats and Republicans

As is the custom on this Thanksgiving Day, most Americans throughout the country take s short respite from the trials and challenges in their life to reflect upon the abundance that they actually have. While we are often more aware of and focused upon the difficulties we face and the things that we perceive that we lack or need, Americans can generally acknowledge that we still have more than the vast majority of the world if not actually than everyone else.

And while yes, it is true that Americans still have a host of ills and troubles that plague our nation; we also have a vital and vibrant social structure that enables us to strive for a future that is better than the best that we have accomplished since the founding of our country. So it is in this spirit that I am also aware of and thankful for the privileges and promises that America grants its citizens. I am particularly thankful for the freedom which we offer to each other in our acceptance of a society founded upon the rights possessed by all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is in that pledge we make, either explicitly or implicitly, as members of our democratic system to protect and defend our country and form of government that I believe is our best hope of success in assuring future generations of Americans their freedom.

One of the amazing aspects of American democracy is that it manages to thrive and persist despite the political parties that are consistently working to achieve only their vision of a free society. Now this partisan perspective has been, and in some cases probably still manages to be, instrumental in keeping the principles of freedom a basic element in our society; I think we are in urgent need for a “little revolution now and then is a good thing” as Jefferson said. The revolution that I think is necessary, and that I expect to eventually occur, is within the Democratic and Republican parties. This revolution would be one extending the principles of American back to the members of Congress. It’s not that I think that the Senators and Congressmen are deprived of the freedoms that the rest of the public enjoys; it’s that our representatives are increasingly being constrained by and bound to a smaller and smaller view of what is ‘acceptable’ doctrine within these parties.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, there seems to be an intolerance within the ‘core’ party faithful to any opinion or position that in any way deviates from their own. Now there is nothing un-American about people choosing to take as hard and rigid a stance on their political beliefs as they want. But the consequences of such rigidity is that it undermines the very dynamism of the American system. We thrive on differences of opinion, on the diversity of mind that brings new and better ways to address the needs of the day. We also depend upon the ability to recognize the error of our ways and to stand up and redress them. To realize the America dream that we were bequeathed, requires a liberty of mind and thought, a freedom of opinion and view, and an ability to compromise in order for us to achieve the happiness we seek in a free society.

Therefore the Democrats and Republican parties will either find their ways to prevent them from fracturing and destroying their selves internally; or a little revolution will have to occur. This would not be the first time that a party has been transformed or replaced because it lost it way. And there is much to be gained by the evolution of either party to something healthier and more dynamic then the dysfunctional collection of power-brokers and autocrats who strive only to retain position and privilege for themselves at any cost.

Let’s be thankful that we still have the privilege of the vote. And if we can accept the responsibility to use it wisely to protect ourselves and each other, then perhaps we can preserve the greatness of America. Let us all be thankful that we still have time to remember the promise. We can be thankful that we do not have to restrict the rights and freedoms of our fellow countrymen, in order protect our own. With just a little of the spirit of the American Revolution, we can make sure that on Government can deprive its citizens of their God given rights. We can be thankful for the blessings that we have received from every American who has stood up and defended the rights of everyone else.

A Public-Private Plan, A Private-Public Plan, or Something Stupid a Congressional Plan

As Congress and the public fight about the ‘public plan’, I would say debate but that would imply even a minimal level of cognitive thought, the American public will continue to be misled by one faction or another. Pathetically, the lack of awareness about the pros or cons of a public option does not originate from different groups which are actively engaged in deceiving or misinforming the public. The failure results from rigid mindsets on all sides that there is only one form of a public option. To help obscure this oversight, the American public is consistently ill-served by political parties that are only capable of seeking positions that support a core constituency’s emotional trigger issue regardless of its relevance to the question at hand. The politicians themselves are functionally useless leaders who are apparently unqualified and untrained in practical problem solving on any topic outside of funding raising, corruption or scandal. This self-imposed political imprisonment that restrains our government from seeking creative ways to address public needs and issues is produced by the ever increasing emphasis on turning every issue into some divisive election issue. Because as I am sure you all agree, there are no areas or issues facing the American people on which the two parties and their current cast of clueless clowns could come to a common cause.

The news media owns a disproportionate share in accountability on this problem. The media has turned more and more into reporting the news as a action only event. No analysis, no evaluation, no critical assessment of what the actions are purported to be about and whether there is a rational and logic connection to the issue. The news media has found that entertaining has become more profitable and less costly than informing the public and confronting the problems of the day.

And let us not pass over ourselves. The most egregious culprit is that the public, the folks who elect the politicians, because we collectively are turning our politics into culture wars. The important factor on any issue is whether it conforms to a party view point or not, or whether there is some way to cast the issue as an ‘us versus them’ issue.

The ‘public’ option is such an issue within the Health Care Reform bill. The word ‘public’ has been transformed into government-controlled, into socialism, and into more welfare. Why, because these are hot-button topics. Who doesn’t know that you can get people outraged and excited about anything if you say that it’s going to give the government control over your ___? So the public option is first characterized as an attempt to give the Government control over the health care system. Once I make that statement I can then extend the argument, and tell you that if this happens then the Government will start making decisions about what medical decisions and treatments you will be allowed to have.

So if this is your “big hot-button” issue with the public option, why not tell your representative that you are only willing to accept a public option if it doesn’t allow the Government to be involved in medical decisions. After all, it the bill explicitly prohibited the Government from that involvement, what would you be afraid of then? And I am sure that there will be another issue that you or someone will be able to raise; but the fact that you can raise the issue doesn’t mean that there is not a solution to your issue.

And that is the great failure of our politicians, media, and ourselves. We are not evoking the tremendous power of the American way of life, the creativity of our Yankee ingenuity, the vast innovative spirit that brought America to its prominence in the world.

Imagine a variant of the public option that would be:

• Sponsored by a Government agency but provided by private companies who compete for that business. An actually profit-motivated system.
  
• Sponsored by private companies and only qualified by and comparatively assessed for premium payments.
  

A minimal public plan incorporated into all private plans, and which can be offered as a stand-alone plan for anyone who elects to or can only afford the minimal offering.

In none of these of these alternatives does the Government control medical treatment decisions by design.

So if we cannot get a Health Care Reform act passed through Congress, it won’t be because there are no ways in which a plan could be crafted to satisfy the expectations of the American public, or the philosophies of the Republican or Democratic parties, or even the profit fixated health care industry. We will fail because the effort has become a political issue and not a health care issue. We will fail because of stupidity. The stupidity by the way, can be assigned to pretty much everyone.

Public Versus Private: A Spectrum Not Quantum States

Who do you think is at fault: the public or the politicians, the Democrats or the Republicans, or is it the current state of our political system or our societal fixation on a sport-like winner/loser mentality?

Alright, the question is too generic; it applies to too many issues. So I suppose it would only be fair for me to be more specific and targeted on the question. Then you would be able to allow yourself a proper amount of time to give yourself your considered judgment on the question. So here goes.

Why has the issue of a public option on the Health Care Reform bill been reduced to basically an either – or decision? Is the great American innovative spirit so diminished that none of the politicians from either party or on either side of the debate are so limited in their understanding that they can only conceive of the Health Care system being structured only with or without an absolute, indivisible, rigid, unimaginative, and bureaucratically operated public option?

I am not asking if you are for or against the public option, if you think that is the question, please follow the steps below:

1. Go back to the beginning of this text.
2. Read a little slower.
3. Pay more attention to the words.
4. Repeat until you understand the question.

OK! Now we are on the rhetorical same page.

The answer is pretty easy, it’s “All of the Above”.

The Health Care issue regarding a public option has been cast as great threat that will do any number of catastrophic things. It will destroy the private insurance industry and cost jobs. It will give the Government control over individuals’ health care. It will require everyone to pay more taxes, or at the least spend more of their money on mandated health insurance. It will use Government funds to pay for abortions. But if these are the issues, then why not create a Health Care Reform act that will not do this horrible things? And why not do it with a public option that is not of the type that those opposed to one assume it must be?

I’m sure that the politicians could find a handful of people that could note their concerns, I would say fears but we all know what courageous types politicians are, and present a number of different ways that a Health Care system could be structured to avoid these pitfalls. The politicians could also be shown how a public option can be offered without producing the dreaded consequences of the insipid approach that they are able to conceive of and that they would create on their own.

It would even be possible to explain to the public, no matter of what stripe, how a properly structured Health Care Reform bill would be better for their health and the purse than the fragile system that we all expect to collapse under its own weight and inertia.

Now there will be winners and losers here. The political parties will not be able to use Health Care as a divisive issue to pit one segment of the electorate against another. The lobbyist organizations will likely need to find other issues on which to raise money to line their pockets and garner influence and control over politicians. And the public would have to find some other issue to distract them from solving problems and doing something of value to the nation.

Separation of Church and Brain; or Principles, Principles, We Ain’t Got No Stinking Principles

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken its long standing anti-abortion position in the Health Care Reform effort consistent with its religious and moral position. There is nothing surprising here. This is not exactly a breaking news items, although it is a part of the debate that has been reported in coverage on the Health Care bill. The important aspect of the news reporting is that the Bishops are conveying their opposition to provisions in the Health Care Reform act from including any accommodation to abortion rights in the bill or even a status quo of existing provisions in current law. The Bishops are advocating the Catholic Church’s stance as one would expect, and they are conveying to lawmakers their disapproval of any position at odds with their own.

The dissonance that the Bishops’ involvement in the legislative efforts creates for me comes from two basic principles. One of the principles is a core tenet of our constitutional social agreement; that is the separation of church and state. The second is a Catholic Church principle that has been derived from the American principle. The Catholic Church has established a principle that its clergy are not to be involved in political advocacy and in leading political movements.

I applaud and admire the Catholic Church’s recognition that in a free society which aspires to accept and protect the freedom of religion and religious expression, that the Church has an obligation and responsibility to respect the separation of Church from State. I also acknowledge the thorny predicament that this principle presents to its clergy and its parishioners. Being a person of faith, you are faced with the dilemma that you believe that there are things that you should do and things that you should not do. The Ten Commandments are a small set of rules that exemplify such religious principles.

So the Catholic Church’s position that abortion is immoral and unacceptable and that it needs to be opposed is reasonable and appropriate. And for Catholics, it is their personal decision and responsibility to choose to understand and follow that direction according to their beliefs and understanding of their religious faith. And it cannot be a surprise that many Catholics, both American and those in other countries, do not either agree with the Church’s view or occasionally elect to act against the anti-abortion position. But the question of pro-life versus pro-choice while an difficult reality for Catholics is not a difficult choice for the Church with respect to political activism. At least it should not be. If the Catholic Church acknowledges its responsibility to abstain from political advocacy in the United States, then the U.S. Bishops should practice what they preach. The Bishops and their American clergy should be espousing their reasons why they are pro-life and why they believe that abortions are immoral. But they should not be advocating that the laws or programs of the United States be framed to be consistent with their views, their positions, and according to their faith. As important as their right to religious freedom is, it is less important and completely dependent upon the right to religious freedom of all people, of all faiths, and of all persuasions.

If you believe that your faith requires you to follow particular rules then follow them. But if your faith requires you to mandate others to do as you would dictate them do; then you are not accepting the principles that citizens of America are required to hold above all else. You are excommunicating yourself from membership in the society that has offered you its protection, and which has given you the very freedoms that you want to trample and sacrifice to a belief in your understanding of God’s plan.

Being a person of faith myself, I have to protest the efforts of any group who places their religious beliefs over those of others. And in accordance with my understanding of both my faith and my duty to the American system which provides all the freedoms that I enjoy, I have to resist these groups’ efforts to deprive the American people of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And since I am as sure of my God’s teachings as they are of their God’s, I believe that such groups are not only wrong in the context of the American social system, but that they have erred in understanding the teachings of their God. I am comfortable in allowing them to live their own personal lives according to their understanding and belief in their faith, for that is one of the blessings that the God I believe in has bestowed upon our country and contained within the doctrine of freedom that we established in our Constitution.

New Breast Exam Guidelines, or Just Who Are The Boobs Here?

I had one of those precognitive moments that I assume occurs to everyone from time to time. I do not actually know that others experience such moments, but it seems prudent to operate on the premise that in general things that I experience are natural and not unique.

The incident occurred when I heard on the radio that the Government had released a new set of guidelines on breast mammograms. I remember the news report noted that the new guidelines reduced the recommended age at which starting mammograms were effective, the frequency at which repeating mammograms would be beneficial, and a recommendation that there was no significant value in doctors instructing women on the method for self-examination. The new report mentioned that there were no oncologist on the committee and that some doctors and the American Cancer Society did not agree with the recommendations.

The prescient event was a simple thought-based monologue concerning my expectation that this was going to be a highly-charged media frenzy that would take on a life of its own, and would quickly lose any hold on rationality or connection to actual facts. I suspect that the slight mention that there were a number of groups that disagreed with the recommendations was the seminal information.

And I did not have to wait long to have the future thrust into the here and now. I noticed a couple of internet news items, and later in the day driving home I got to listen to “reaction” to the GUIDELINES! And sure enough, the townsfolk had collected their pitchforks and axes, lit the torches, and were descending upon the governmental gates of the ivory tower committee that had created that monstrous report and guideline recommendations. I mean ya gotta ask yourself: “Did you think that poking the bear was a good idea at the time?”. Because let’s face it, they had to know that if they didn’t make it extremely clear and easy for people to understand what the recommendations meant that there was going to be hell to pay.

Well, welcome to hell. And as Dante’s sign says, “All hope abandon ye who enter here.” Once the media momentum started, it was clear that we had a news story that would focus on comments and reactions from experts and the uninformed alike. And we could count on the media to ensure more grist for the mill, as it would be far easier to play up the anger and confusion than to take any time to analyze and assess what the new guidelines and recommendations were advocating, and determining whether people were reacting from a position of substance or just reacting in and to the moment.

The heated debate is still in full volcanic fury, but there seems to be some attempts to bring the clarity and perspective to the recommendations that we would all hope and assume that responsible parties would have taken from the start. Of course when did we last have had or seen government agencies and bureaucracies, media sources, health care groups and associations, and the public behave in a thoughtful and intelligent manner? I can’t really remember myself; but I think my later father once mentioned to me that he had heard from his father it he had seen it happen. But that may just be one of those urban myths.

I haven’t found the report on-line, but I expect that it might require people to read it before they actually know if it says what many are claiming/assuming it says. Unfortunately, I suspect that it is written for professionals in the field; and thus may be ill-suited for clarity of being understood by almost anyone. I also suspect that in their attempt to provide useful information that would be useful for women to be aware of, that they relied upon a rational and unbiased reader. Expecting that the information would be assessed impartially and incorporated into the information that the Health Care system and groups strive to make available to women, physicians, and other individuals involved in the medical professions and industries.

Naa! That’s not going to happen!

‘Poe-Tate-Toe’, ‘Pah-Tot-Toe’ or How To Confuse Americans with Words

Having been raised with English as a First Language (EFL), I have been and probably will continue to be at a distinct disadvantage in understanding why and what Americans understand about anything. This is nowhere more evident than with respect to politics and political issues. So I am asking for your indulgence and request that you will excuse me if I am a little confused about the confusion of other Americans’ comprehension of various issues. You will just have to rack this up to my EFL limitations; and thus please grant me the benefit of the doubt, if I have misunderstood your point. Also, please forgive me if I am about to insult you, should you feel that my comments about the levels of ignorance that are being exhibited on various issues of the day are applicable to or targeted at you.

For those of you unfortunate enough to have experienced a significant number of political or social issues, and are thus mature individuals (old fogies), you have had the opportunity to have lived through a number of significant issues of the day. When you look back on those days and issues; does it seem that people were as completely disoriented, misinformed, unaware, or need we say: stupid as they appear to be about today’s issues?

My first impulse is to decide that yes, today people are even more stupid than people have been in the past. But, if I give myself a little time for reflection and recollection, I suspect that this is mostly the recurring evaluation that mature individuals seem to predictably have with regard to subsequent generations. I remember the remarkable insight on “current society” oft attributed to Socrates by Plato or less frequently to Hesiod (8th Century BC) to the effect: “What’s the matter with kids today, they’re disrespectfully, disobey laws, frivolous, they have a deplorable mode of dress, and exhibit all manner of bad behaviors”. So in retrospect, with this wisdom in mind, I admit that citizenry of today are no more or less intellectually disadvantaged than they have ever been.

For those of you paying attention, you have undoubtedly noted that I have not implied that our American citizenry are at an acceptable or desirable level of intellectual ability or well informed state.

But so as not to mislead you by an act of omission, I don’t just attribute the paucity of intellect, knowledge and understanding to the citizenry of following generations alone. I am absolutely convinced that my own generation and the still surviving member of previous generations are equally as stupid and insipid as any other.

Now finally to the topical point I intended to discuss. The Associated Press released an article today about the impact that the different wordings of questions had in a poll which they conducted on Health Care Reform. Now it has long been known and understood by psychologists, linguist, political strategist, statisticians, lawyers (well some of them), physicians, news editors/reporters, and let’s face it a whole lot of people that people answer questions differently depending on how the question is phrased. So we can now all be amazed and surprised that people polled with differently phrased questions about the Health Care Reform bill give different answers depending on the way the questions was asked.

This differential response to the wordings of questions reveals a facet of confusion in Americans’ understanding of the true/actual issues about which their positions and decisions should be being made. In the context of Health Care Reform, our societal need is to accurately understand the true facts about the issues that will matter and affect us. These issues include the true costs of the plan to both ourselves and to others in the society, the reality and implications of having or not having ‘governmental control/decisions on care’, or whether the system will be truly national or whether states could opt in/out.

Here is where our politicians, our political parties, our news and media sources, and our public and private institutions fail to provide or deliver fair, honest, unbiased, and useful analysis and assessments of the proposed plan or the issues. We have come to expect and accept that our political leaders and their talking heads are lying to us. Well, not ours but surely the other side’s people. And it is true, they are lying to you; except it’s not the other side, it’s both sides. It’s this assurance that if it’s a Democrat, a Republican, or some other third-party affiliate telling you something, that you can be positive that you are being lied to. Fortunately for the politicians, Lincoln was right: “You can fool some of the people, all of the time.” And it’s not totally the fault of the politicians, though they are insatiable in their capacity to say anything that they believe will frighten you away from even thinking about or evaluating what the other side is saying. The fault is that Americans don’t think about what they are hearing, they don’t question the people that they consider on ‘their’ side, and they don’t seem to understand that there are not two or more different sets of facts about an issue.

So here is how you confuse Americans with words. You consider what will either frighten or will anger them; and you then find some words and phrases that will evoke that fear or anger, or both. Then craft your message and speeches and answers to include those words and phrases. It’s also quite effective to ask questions to groups that are keyed to those same fears and hot points. You have all seen or heard politicians doing this, as if they are incapable of telling you anything before they have confirmed that you are already supporting the positions they are getting ready to tell you that you should be concerned, angry, or upset about. If you hear questions like: “Do you want the Government involved in your ____?”, or “Are you already over [taxed / regulated / … ] by the Government?”, or “Do you want your right to/freedom to ___ taken away from you?”.

Then all anyone has to do is state that the issue that they are supporting or opposing will cause what you like or dislike to happen. Fortunately for the politicians and their ilk, the news media is either directly involved in supporting a particular view, or there are no particularly competent people in the media that can figure out that the politicians are full of crap. Nor can the media’s professionals apparently provide a critical assessment of the issue, the facts and report upon and illuminate the disgraceful disparity between the facts and positions that the politicians and partisans present and the reality that pertain to the issues and the public interests.

You confuse Americans with words by just telling them what you know they want to hear and what you want them to believe. This way we can continue to have an America where the citizens are separated from each other by lies, misinformation, hatred, and well stupidity.

Keeping Your Eye Off The Ball, or How Congress Plays

I don’t want to be hard on Congress, but could they possibly be any worse at their job? Let’s pass a Health Care Reform bill that protects Americans and insures that they have access to basic medical care. OK, good idea; now what’s your plan? Oh, the plan is to make everyone have to get insurance and conveniently make it cost less. Sounds like a Plan!

And to support their plan, Congress has worked out estimated costs and figured out how to pay for it, sort’a. There may have to be some extra taxes here and there, and mandated obligations on employers to provide a plan for their employees. But not to worry, Congress has arrived in their shiny armor astride their war chargers, and only need to collect the harvest from us peasants to ensure that they can pay for the war they have decided to wage.

As we all agree that having 30 to 40 million Americans unprotected by some insurance system is bad, and given we have a $420+ Billion annual Medicare and $200+ Billion annual Medicaid programs plus all the private and commercial insurance plans, we are clearly spending a ton of money on health care. To make things more interesting, the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud (a bunch of insurance companies, non-profit groups and agencies, and community organizations) have estimated that these programs provide $60 Billion a year in fraud funding. That’s one dollar out of every ten being wasted, and even worse than wasted, it reduces the support and services that the rest of the funding can effectively deliver through work and effort spent on handling and processing illegitimate claims and supporting non-productive tasks.

That 10% of fraud ($60B) would be close to what the uninsured would need to provide the health care that they need. Interestingly, we are already close to funding the uninsured. Our only problem is that we are spending it on the wrong group of people (well there may be some overlap but only a small one).

Makes you wonder if Congress considered that their biggest problem, how to fund the act, would be virtually solved if they worked on a plan to prevent most of the fraud, waste and abuse that is already being funded. Now don’t worry, there are some initiatives in the Health Care Reform bill to reduce abuse/fraud. And we can expect the same brilliance and expertise from Congress on these efforts that we have always relied upon to solve all our other problems. You can almost taste the victory, can’t you?

Affordable Health Care: Let’s Use Dad’s Credit Card

In a recent AP poll out today, it appears that Americans are confident about two things. First that the Health Care Reform bill will be more expensive than they can afford; and second, that they want someone else to pay for it (preferably all those rich people). I think what we have going on here is the ever popular, but so unfortunately mathematically invalid, the “large number of idiots law”. While I am sure that you are all familiar with the LNOIL, it would be best to state it here for those of you who are new to Government program funding methodologies.

The LNOIL is the political strategy used by your representatives to explain how they are going to deliver on their particular campaign promise or in supporting their party’s initiatives. Our august leaders will explain that they will guarantee that their constituents will not have their taxes increased; and if there is no way to avoid taxes (which there never is) they will either just make it an unfunded mandate, or they will tell you how they are going to only tax a group that you don’t belong to. The only thing that is required to make this legislative approach work is a large number of idiots. Astonishingly we would expect that there must be a significant proportion of the population who are idiots; since it is mathematically very unlikely that we could achieve the numeric representation of idiots in Congress itself, if it were not for there being a statistically large proportion of the population who are in fact idiots.

This political strategy relies on citizens who are foolish enough to think that you can always get something for nothing. A mindset that you and everyone else can actually get more than the average amount of something that is limited by either its natural quantity or by the sum total contributions that everyone has made into the pot. This is the monetary equivalent to the “ Lake Wobegone” of Garrison Keillor fame; “where every child is above average.”

So applying this mentality to the Health Care Reform Act will lead Congress to focusing on only taxing the rich to cover the additional cost of the program that is not within the current budget. Defining who the rich are will be an exercise in covering their asses, but they at least have the real statistical reality on their side as long as they make sure that to be rich you have to earn over the average income level.

But here is where it is really annoying. Congress will never consider or conceive of any alternative to funding the program via any approach other than lets just take the money from everyone like we always do. After all, if we have a Health Care system today that is too expensive and inefficient, fraught with fraud, and built upon a publicly funded methodology; then piling another layer on top will surely be the right medicine to fix the problem.

No thought will be given to tackling the problem with another solution or another way to provide an improved operating environment that will support the American Health Care system into the future at lower costs rather than higher costs. We don’t want those idiots in Congress to be required to challenge the status quo, the tried and true governmental way of doing business, or to actually serve the public.

So get ready America, you are going to get exactly what you can expect from your party leaders. And don’t worry, that hand in your pocket is the one that you shook standing in the political rally where you made the contribution to their election campaign fund.

Confused Colors: Liberal Red and Conservative Blue

As the Health Care Reform bill careens its way through the legislative process, it is encountering several unusual obstacles. The unusualness of the obstacles is that they are those rare and often presumed mythical creatures that we believe have gone extinct, if it’s true that they actually ever really existed. I am of course speaking of the Conservative Democrat or the Liberal Republican. It is the very oxymoronic nature of such beings as to render them elusive and ephemeral.

In an equally odd circumstance, it is these same rare members of their species that present the most challenges to the potential success of making the Health Care Reform bill a reality. And more significantly they are perhaps the only members of Congress that could help ensure that the American people are not left with yet another well-intentioned but outright unsustainable government program that will undermine the very security that it seeks to deliver.

The problem is that the Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats usually find themselves at odds with everyone else, whether Republican or Democrat. Amazingly, the Republicans have transformed the term ‘liberal’ into a brand of dishonor, a mark of the devil. To be liberal to a Republican is to be against a strong defense of America and to be against American family values, and to want to take away people’s rights to any number of things; religion, guns, business, …

This apparent reversal of some of the very core tenets of liberal philosophy would seem to contradict either the very positions expected of Republican views or of the ability of the Republican party to be inclusive of differences in opinions about how to achieve the protection of individual freedom from tyranny of Government or the majority. Being a liberal would include being a staunch defender of individual freedom and liberties. It may include other goals, like: being progressive toward change and being open-minded and tolerant. But it is essential that a liberal incorporates a guarantee of individual freedom within its scope. For the Republican party to consider a liberal view-point a sufficient reason to castigate and spurn someone is antithetical to their own dogma.

A complimentary relationship appears to exist for Democrats with regard to their ‘conservative’ brethren. Evidently being a person who believes in preserving traditional institutions, limiting governmental activism, and adhering to sound fiscal policies. It’s a wonder these people weren’t run out of town on a rail. How could you be a Democrat, and also be concerned about affordability of Government programs.

The intolerance of the ‘core’ party membership, often that small minority within the party that is radically tied into one or two issues that over-ride all other considerations, produces a dysfunctional and tunnel-visioned organization. The vitality of the party is threatened, and the organization is depleted of diverse views and contributions that would allow the party to be more creative and flexible in being able to confront new issues and situations and thereby be a party of leadership rather than a party of holding ground.

On the Health Care Reform bill, both parties have more or less demonstrated their failed visions of leadership. They cannot think outside their own framework; they cannot understand the concerns and needs of their counterparts in the other party;, and they cannot work out a consensus plan that while perhaps not what each side believes is everything that it should be, at least is what meets the general needs of members within both parties. Since politics is the science of compromise, it would appear that on the Health Care agenda that both parties are unprepared and uneducated in the scientific arts. This gap in their education is perhaps a result of the American Educational system on which Congress has done another of its admirable jobs. We all might hope that Congress will be as effective and successful with the Health Care system as they have done on Education. So we will only have to see a large portion of the population failed by the system. But don’t worry both parties will throw our money at different wasteful solutions to the other party’s wasteful solutions.

How To Tell If You Are A Media News Idiot: A Test

Considering that we are all presently alive and therefore living in the Information Age, it is not inappropriate to ask whether we as individuals or we as a collective society are benefiting from the almost unlimited and unprecedented access to information that is promoted and advertised as the essence of the “Information Age”. This access has certainly not just changed our society; it has redefined almost every aspect of our lives which our society has established as the aspired to norm. We communicate with each other in forums and formats that did not even exist only a couple of years ago. We shop virtually, we entertain ourselves both singularly and as groups, and we work at home in our underwear conducting official functions on behalf of our corporate, public or governmental employers.

Among all this information that is available to our finger-tips, viewed on our screens and heard via our media players are a cornucopia of news purveyors. This veritable horn of plenty presents news outlets that are not actually any different than they have been in the past, there is just an over abundance of different voices harkening for our attention. Talking heads that are presenting the ‘news’ with any number of objectives and motives of their own divorced from insuring that you are being given facts as opposed to ‘spin’. This includes news celebrities and personalities that are perceived by many of their viewers as more important than the news or the validity of their representation of the information that they are presenting. While we have always had this aspect to our news distributors, I am not sure that it has been as callously and heinously abused within the American journalistic industry as it is today. But I can accept that it may only seem worse, since there is just more of it; rather than that the level of disreputable behaviors exhibited by the individuals, companies/corporations, and institutions constituting the news media is any greater than it has ever been.

So what’s a person to do? Who do you, or can you, rely upon to provide you with access to accurate, honest, and dependable news and information about your world? Well, the answer to that question is another American Intelligence Test. And as I have done before, you have to score your own test; and you have to rely upon your own self-respect and integrity to decide if you answer correctly or not. Just like with the ‘news’ media, you have to decide if you trust the source; and you will notice that this issue is part of the test itself.

So quills to the ready. It’s Test Time!

Question 1: Do you watch the News (A), or do you watch a News-caster or News show (B)?
The context of this question is whether the news is important to you because it is vital to insuring that you are aware of what is happening in the world and our society. And, that the news is not just reassuring you that the way you see the world is being affirmed by the broadcast; or that the news is a form of entertainment that you enjoy without any consideration of what the news reports are about?

Question 2: Do you find that you agree with and like the statements made by the news reporters/anchors regarding their news reports? [Y/N]
When you are listening to the reports (and interviews) are you usually on the side of the reporter, and agree with what they are saying? Do you think to yourself: “Yes, that’s the way it is.”?

Question 3: For the primary News show(s) that you watch regularly, do you trust that the news/information being presented and accurate and reliable account; and is the news being presented without the reporter’s/anchor’s position/opinion also being expressed? [Y/N]
Is the reporter/anchor telling why the new item they just mentioned is a good or bad event, that they agree with or disagree with the position depicted in the news, or that the news item is something that you should support or resist?

Question 4: Do you think a comedy show, like the Daily Show on the Comedy channel, could possibly provide better insight into issues in the news than the more traditional news broadcasts that you watch? [Y/N]
If you have ever watch one of these shows, has it ever seemed that the comedy show brought the events, issues or information into a better perspective and demonstrated a superior presentation of the new items to you than was done by the “real” news reporters, anchors, shows?

Question 5: For the news broadcast that you would consider your favorite, do you trust the reporter/anchor or new show? [Y/N]
This question is asking if you would place the judgment of the new-casters above your own? Do you think they have asked the right questions, done the right research or insured that the research was properly done for them; and that they have understood the event, issue and the news itself better than you?

Test Over. You can place your News IQ quills back in the old inkwell.

How did you do? And, oh yes, the most important of all the questions is: are you being honest with yourself?

If it’s of any interest, here’s how I did.

Question 1: A Question 2: N Question 3: Y Question 4: Y Question 5: N

This is your second opportunity to determine if you contribute more intellectual value to the American collective brain-bank than your fellow Americans, or if you are a millstone pulling us asunder.

Darwinian Health Care, or How the Government Should Kull the Herd

Consider how the Government typically sets up and manages one of their programs. They either create the agency that will administer and operate the program or they establish a regulatory body that will oversee the operation of the program across the industries that provide the products and services of interest.

In the former case, the Government creates the team of experts and professionals that are responsible for delivering the products/services required of the program. The long-term destructive motivator contained within this approach is that the agency becomes oriented toward increasing their scope of responsibility, their staff and their budgets. They lack any basic economic feedback control mechanism that motivates the agency to seek more efficient, effective, innovative, and economical methods of operations or for superior and higher quality deliverables and satisfied clients. Over time the bureaucracy evolves and morphs into a self-serving and administratively heavy organization that could not compete against a public sector organization that would have to function strictly upon a profit-motivated operation.

The latter case: regulatory bodies, are (incredible as it may be to imagine) even more ineffective, inefficient, stodgy, and uneconomical than the Government agencies manage to become. They will have either a head or board that contemplates what will be the best way for the public, commercial or industrial sectors under their sway to operate in order to satisfy the inspired visions of their lords and masters: Congress. But once again, the regulatory bodies have no reality-based, real world economic dynamics that affect their decisions, policies and actions. In other words, they are disconnected from reality or accountability. The consequences of their actions are not their responsibility, and the most likely outcome of their failures and incompetencies is the expansion of their budgets and scope of interference. Thus, they grow if they waste your money, and are rewarded with more funding if they screw-up.

How then is the Health Care Reform bill to accomplish one of its major goals: to make health care more affordable? If we rely on the Government’s standard methods, we will literally be killing people by destroying the system that keeps some of them alive today.

The answer is to learn from the past, from our history, our experiences, and from our founding principles that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests. In a more explicit and direct explanation; the Government must create not one agency or regulatory body to oversee and execute their Health Care system, it must create at least two. Three would be better.

The rationale for multiple entities is to establish one single and overriding principle that guides these organizations: Competition. The different organizations would be charged to delivery on the goals and objectives of the Health Care Reform act, and they will be rewarded based on their competitive success in achieving those goals at the lowest costs and the best quality with the highest success rates. Inserting this competitive factor into their operational environments creates the equivalent capitalistic motivation that the private, commercial and industrial markets contend with every day; and which either rewards them for their successes or culls them from the herd for their failures.

This competitive principle will provide Darwinian opportunities for these organizations to choose among every day. The organizations that select wisely will be able to leverage the wisdom of their decisions into both more rewarding compensations, and into a longer guarantee of continuity. Those organizations that fail will be neither rewarded in benefits nor in continued existence. In effect, the Government organizations will bred true to their purpose, or die; a Darwinian evolution of health care that will improve the quality of care at ever more efficient costs. The principles of competition will provide an American Health Care system which the rest of the world will continue to point to as the example for all to achieve.

How to Terminate the Abortion Issue on the Health Care Reform Bill

Once again those clever politicians and their staffs have managed to confound themselves with an issue that has become entangled within their positions on Health Care Reform: namely abortion.

The crux of the problem is that the pro-life abortion opponents are dead set against allowing government funds from being used to support abortions; and pro-choice advocates are firmly entrenched on the side of ensuring that a woman’s right to choose are not restricted by the bill. As we all know, these are two irreconcilable positions/factions that cannot be mutually appeased. With the potential advent of a Health Care bill that would establish or promote health insurance plans some of which would use tax payer money to supplement or provide health care services to a portion of the population there is a move by the right to life side that abortions must be prohibited from coverage on such plans. The pro-life sides insists that there cannot be any diminishment of the current rights to choose.

So it appears that there is no way to have any kind of Government sponsored public-option or Government subsidized funding of health care plans that can accommodate both sides. This also appears to be a bigger problem and issue for the Democratic party than for the Republicans. Not true. There are any number of ways to handle this issue, including ones that would be as problematic for the Republicans as abortion is for Democrats.

The most effective way to neutralize the abortion issue for the Health Care Reform bill would be to require that abortions not be contained in the coverage of any Government sponsored or supported health care plan. [Finish reading before you jump to the wrong conclusion; no matter which side of the abortion issue you are on.] In addition to this prohibition of abortion coverage, the insurance companies and/or exchanges must offer an independent offering for a self-funded abortion coverage package. This imposes not restrictions on private plans and does not alter the non-Government funding of abortions. This approach can allow the individual freedom, free market, capitalistic society we all strive to preserve, to well, preserve.

But we ought to seriously consider adopting a Health Care Reform bill that actually does ban the use of public funds to be used to support abortions. However, in addition to the ban on abortions; the new Health Care Reform bill must impose the appropriate obligation on the Government, and thereby on us all, to be responsible for the consequences of this commitment (that is the children brought into our society under its protection). We cannot mandate that a child must be born, if we are not also going to guarantee that that child will be feed, sheltered, protected, clothed, educated, and provided with adequate resources to make their way in our society. Thus in order to ban abortions, we must include a funding source that can step up to providing the moneys that will be required to either completely cover these costs or to supplement these costs depending the parents means, or willingness to provide the funds. Perhaps a tithe on religious organizations, as they are prime movers in the societal decision to ban abortions. This should even be considered a reinforcement of the separation of church and state principles. If the religious communities are insistent that the Government adhere to this moral position on behalf of the religious groups then to properly insulate the Government from involvement in and support of religious doctrines all the funding should come from the religious communities.

Now the fact that the cost of rearing these children will almost surely be enormous, we will need to start accumulating the funds at least 10 to 20 years in advance of the prohibition. We need to be able to insure that we have adequate funds before we incur such an irrevocable obligation. This will be particularly true to the children that are born but who are not acknowledged by their parents as their responsibility. Additionally the standard of living that these children must receive will have to be demonstrably above the poverty level. And if this causes children whose parents are below the poverty level to abandon their children then the system will have to become equally responsible for them.

The abortion issue is not a problem for the Health Care Reform bill, it is a great opportunity to raise the standard of child care in America.

How the Government Could Avoid Failing at Health Care

Many people are afraid that the Government will take over / control the Health Care system. And that with this Government control, they will lose their ability/freedom to choose their doctors and treatments. Some think that the Government will ruin the Health Care system and transform a health and medical industry that can deliver the best medicines, treatments, facilities, and research in the world, into another also-ran, bureaucratized, lowest common denominator health care system. And these fears are justified given the Government will use the tried and untrue approach to Government sponsored programs that they have advanced and failed at for generations.

The pity is that the Government could set-up a Health Care program that would operate in fashion that would not be doomed to failure and would not be degrade the health of the average American. The Government would even be able to learn from the success of a viable Health Care system to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of other Government programs in other areas completely unrelated to health care. The requirement for the Government to be able to achieve an approach to health care that does not insinuate the Government into the Health Care industry as a corrupting and destructive entity is to change from a player that dictates and controls facets of the health care marketplace. This Governmental intrusion into the industry would affect the health care system by influence or control over factors like: price of policies/premiums, coverage requirements, compensation amounts for provided treatments, and other regulatory and policy controls that can be imposed upon various elements of the industry by a governmental entity that has no responsibility or accountability for the results or consequences of their policies, decisions, processes, or oversight activities. None of these controls provides productive and effective management for Health Care. They focus energy and efforts on accounting, on procedural reporting and administrative tasks, and on pursuing methods to leverage the loop-holes and gaps within the rules to game the system for the most money that can be garnered from the system.

The new approach to Health Care that the Government should be applying would be a competitive provider reward program. The Government should establish a health care insurance taxation system that reduces the tax rates for insurance companies that provide coverage plans that deliver the health care for lower costs than their competitors, conversely; insurance companies that average higher cost plans for covering the same treatments would pay a higher tax rate on their revenues. There is not incentive in the world more effective and motivating to corporations or individuals than a tax advantage to be better at your business than your competitors. The same approach can be applied to other members of the Health Care industry. Pharmaceutical companies would be likewise rewarded for providing lower cost products for treatments and dis-incentivized for higher costs for similar treatment products. Hospitals and doctors would have the same opportunity. If you can deliver the better results for the same treatments and services than your competitors then you get to make a higher profit then they do.

Isn’t this the way the America made itself great? We let people find ways to do a better job at a lower price and they won the competitive war. I don’t buy a more expensive car when I can get a better one for less money. People can go to any doctor they want, and the doctor can charge whatever price they want; but the doctor will pay into the Government coffers more than his peers that charge less for the same service.

This fundamental free enterprise, free market, capitalistic methodology to leverage a better priced product into the Health Care system would help transform the system and the industries to become better than they are today, and certainly better than they would become under a controlled Governmental bureaucratic program. The Government’s role here should be stimulative with oversight and assessment of performance; but not guiding. The experts or political influencers that the Government would manage to put into positions of power and authority would be the same incompetent players that screw-up everything else the Government does.

Do We Know as Much about Health Care as We Do about Finances?

An article came out today in BusinessWeek about Americans’ “Financial Literacy – The Time is Now”. The article summarizes that Americans are, well for the most part, illiterate with respect to understanding much about the financial concepts and processes that infect every aspect of our lives. The article presents a view that most people are not only unaware of basic financial principles, but that they are completely unprepared to make or assess financial decisions that are essential in their own personal lives. To further bring home the point, Americans are not behaving in financial ways that critical to their own interests and needs.

So I think we can boil this down to: You are neither qualified nor capable of being trusted with your own money. I would extend this statement to a significant proportion of the very rich. Thank god they either can hire financial managers (except those who hire scam artists) or they have enough money in their inheritance to require them to make such huge and numerous missteps that they are unlike to lose it all in one generation.

If most people are so bad at understanding finances, what would make us think that Congress is going to come up with a financing plan for the Health Care Reform system that they are moving forward toward passage into law. Now it may be that I missed the explanation Congress gave about how the cost of the new system will be provided. Let me see if I can remember the basic principles of their plan:

• Everyone must purchase health insurance or be fined (taxed)
• Employers (with more than 100 employees) must offer health care insurance programs to their employees or be fined (taxed)
• For anyone who cannot afford a health care insurance program there will be a public option sponsored by the Government which they will be able to enroll in

Looking at these requirements, the new Health Care system appears to be in line with the financial astuteness of the American public. The new system will be able to cover more people than it does today because they will be compelled to purchase it. Employers not offering plans today will be required to offer a plan and so they are all but required to pass these costs on to their customers. So the cost of services and produces will rise. This won’t be any problem at all, because people will have less money in their bank accounts given they have spent more of that on buying the mandatory health insurance plans that they were not purchasing before. So those individuals who could not afford a health care plan before will now have less personal funds available to afford the new health care plan that they are required to have.

But not to worry, if you have a good plan today then the Government will tax you for the extra value that you are provided with and this will make it more affordable to you.

The logic of a “more affordable“ plan is of course a Government concept. The financial expertise and acumen that is required here is nothing more than an extension of the financial knowledge and skills that the American public reportedly possesses. The Congressional approach of making people pay for their mandated policies will clearly result in lower health care costs for the nation. I don’t know why this is true; but apparently the wise and intelligent servants of the people in Congress have it all figured out.

An American Intelligence Test: How Do You Think You Would Do?

A lot of fuss and fluster about the Health Care Reform bill today. Protesters rallying to decry the Government takeover of the health care system.

Now surely you regard yourself as an intelligent person. After all on average half of us are smarter than the other half. But do you think your intelligence is being applied to the Health Care debate and the issue? Well then how about a test? It will be a strange test, but one that many of you might have probably had a version of before. This test will have to be self-graded. So you can decide that you passed regardless of the validity of your judgment. Of course, isn’t willfully deluding yourself a significant measure of your actual intelligence? It’s not a long test, I only had a few minutes to put it together; but I hope it is an illuminating one. Oh, and if you wonder whether I think I would rate myself in the intelligence arena, I have to rate myself as only average. Therefore I would conclude that well more than half of you should be more intelligent than me. The unusual aspect of the test; the question is simple but there is a context that goes along with it. Your answer is to be considered in the context of (and I do like it when I can do this) the context. So pencils up, it’s test time!

Question 1: Do you trust politicians?
Here’s the help on this one, consider what this questions is actually asking you. You have to consider the politicians to be a member of your own preferred party (if you have one). So if you’re a die-hard Democrat/Republican then your answer is about do you trust Democratic/Republican politicians. If you’re not affiliated then pick the politicians of the party you last voted for; and if you voted for more than one party’s candidates then answer about how those individuals would pan out in your mind. The trust question should really boil down to this: Do you truly, absolutely, swear-to-god believe that they would not lie to you; and will always put your interest ahead of their own?

Question 2: Do you believe that the politicians that you have voted for are smarter than you?
This one really is simple, do you really think they are smarter than you? Now you do have to remember and consider all of the things that we all see on television or the internet, hear on radio, read in newspapers and magazines, and discussed with our friends and associates about innumerable politicians. If you need some help, go look up on the internet all the politicians that have been charged with a wide range of intelligent decisions that they have made.

Question 3: Do you believe the Government regulates and influences the insurance and medical industries?
The Government here would include the Federal, State and local governmental groups. It includes the regulatory agencies that well regulate insurance companies and medical companies, and requirements on both that must abide by to operate as businesses. It even includes agencies that you probably don’t think about being connected to insurance companies like the IRS and the FDA. Oh, and don’t forget the politicians themselves. You know those folks who take very large pots of money from insurance and medical companies.

Question 4: Do you believe the insurance and medical industries influence and manipulate the Government?
Read the last two sentences in the context from Question 3.
Also consider, do you believe that the insurance and medical industries place helping you above their profits?

Question 5: Do you believe that any and all Government controlled, provided and paid medical programs should be prohibited, and that the Government should have absolutely no involvement in directing and making any insurance and medical decisions?
In this area you think that the free-market, public sector, corporate sponsored medical and insurance businesses are going to be the safest way for you to protect your health care.

Test Over. You can put your mental pencils down.

Well how did you do?

If it’s of any interest, here’s how I did.

Question 1: No Question 2: No Question 3: Yes Question 4: Yes Question 5: No

Of course, I don’t think I am as smart as most of you; so my answers are only indicative of my own intelligence.

What Congress Hasn’t Gotten Yet: It’s The Economy Stupid!

The results are in. The electorate has spoken. And apparently the public is unhappy about the economy. How anyone could have discerned that before this election, I cannot imagine. Thank God the Republicans are going to save us and return the economy to a robust and dynamic state. Because we know that Republicans would never be fiscally irresponsible, they would never spend money that we don’t have, or allow the financial industry to engage in risky and irresponsible investment and monetary policies, and they would never allow international trade policies and agreements to threaten the long term interests of the country.

Wait! I forget; didn’t the Republicans actually do all these things? These stalwarts of conservative philosophy and America First posturing, aren’t they as or even more responsible for the atrocious financial situation that we find ourselves in then the Democrats? Who else could have funding a war on “off-the-books” budgeting? Or, who could have deregulated banking and blindly assumed that the banks and financial institutions would be focused on the national interests before their own? And has anyone done a better job in supporting the ever growing trade deficit with the rest of the world, and devaluing the dollar against other currencies?

I don’t mean to say that the Democrats haven’t demonstrated the same levels of incompetency in their skills and expertise. They have been the prime movers on any number of Governmental programs that have managed to completely hose up Government budgets, taxes, regulation, trade, and all the other elements of our national economy.

All that aside; we can all look forward to the Republicans arriving as the saviors of the economy. And because Republicans are the defenders of citizens who seek individual freedoms, small government, the efficiency of the free market system, and a strong defense; we can expect them to step up and force America to face the hard facts. The Republicans will bring a strict monetary accountability upon not only the Government, but upon corporations and upon the populace. The new leadership (it must be a new leadership, because the old leadership couldn’t do it) will expect Americans to live within their means, and will require companies to be prudent with and tie bonuses to long-term delivered performance and not short-term promised future value.

The way that we know that Republicans are up to this task is that they have never demonstrated any indication of being aware of such responsibilities, and they are only interested in protecting campaign funding sources to keep them in office. In other words, they are just like the Democrats. Promise with is easy, and what people want but don’t want to have to pay for. Blame anyone else for the problems, and accept none of the responsibility. Yes, be a politician.

So whichever party you are expecting to return America to its strong economically dominate position in the world order, what do you expect them to do? Do you expect them to strengthen the dollar, to stop borrowing money from the rest of the world (reverse the trade deficit), and prevent corporate and business leaders from funneling the value of companies into their own pockets? Do you think they are going to make executive be accountable for and paid according to their mis-management, high risk bets that are unprofitable, and for self-interest directed fiduciary irresponsibility?

Do you really think either party even knows how to do this?

Election Night – Vox Populi or Voters InAction

Another, albeit small, election night is upon us. And we have the usual context of “don’t vote for the other guy because he’s/she’s [______] (fill in the blank with whatever horrible statement you think will evoke anger or fear with the regional voters related to the particular contest).

The electorate will have the usual two parties’ candidates to choose between. While in some cases there may be some other listed candidates, the two parties have to have done a particularly bad job of selecting their respective candidates. I don’t want you to be disheartened about the ineptitude of our two major political parties; Yes, they have managed to lose various elections to outsider candidates because they are still unable to provide a motivating reason why anyone should actually intentionally vote for them, as opposed to against the other guy.

Now there are a sizeable number of people that are committed members of either the Democrat or the Republican parties. These are folks who will vote for their party’s candidate no matter how heinous, odious or useless the candidate is. These candidates don’t have to have any value that they will bring to government, or any intention of helping strengthen America, or any fortitude to stand up for and serve the electorate.

You would think that as low as American’s hold politicians in regard to trust, honesty or integrity that there would be a massive landslide to choose any other candidate except a Democratic or Republican.

Why is this, because the American people have turned elections into sporting events. They treat the parties as competing teams, and are fanatic about supporting that team and winning regardless of the caliber of the players on the field. Even if they reluctantly admire a player from another team, they still support their team because they have always support their team. And winning the election is the prize. They are successful and proud if they win the election, and it doesn’t matter how badly, irresponsibly or stupidly the winning politicians act afterwards. They cannot connect the problems in their lives, the burdens placed upon them and their children and their children’s children, and they cannot see the blind arrogance and greed in their ‘champions’.

If the candidates and parties provide someone or something to fear, hate or condemn and blame the country’s problems on then the people can be at ease that they have voted for their team and all will be well in the world if they just win the election.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

Vaccinations: Being Held Responsible for Irresponsibility – A Case for No Legal Immunity

Ok, you’re free to choose to not get an H1N1 vaccination. At least as long as the Swine flu does not evolve into a highly fatal plague that would actually threaten the continuity and existence of our very nation. You know, that point when everyone who doesn’t want it would be willing to kill everyone else if they got in the way of them getting the vaccine. But that is the most extreme case. Under that circumstance, no one would be looking to figure out how to protect the rights of everyone else from the folks who decided to not get the vaccine. After all, most of them would be dead; or those few who are not would be lucky Darwinian survivors, who might possess useful genetic traits that can be harnessed to protect the public in the future.

But what about a mid-way scenario, a circumstance in which everyone who would want to be vaccinated is not able to because there is just not enough supply. This could be a transient condition, where eventually the supply will come to meet the needs of anyone who wants it; and where those in need haven’t yet succumb to the disease. In this case, there are individuals who will contract the flu from others, and as likely or not and most probably from the very group of individuals who choose not to be vaccinated. If you are one of these flu-stricken individuals who is sickened and even killed because of the inaction of others; don’t you or your survivors have a legitimate claim against the people who contributed to the spread of the infection? After all, if I knowingly spread the AIDS virus to other, isn’t there case law that says that I am guilty of attempted murder? How is contributing to the spread of the H1N1 flu not an analogous action? Why aren’t non-vaccinated by choice individuals culpable of their decisions.

If you don’t get vaccinated and through that decision you effectively allow yourself to become another carrier of the H1N1 flu when you become infected, then why don’t you have a responsibility to the consequences of that decision?

You can claim that there is no way to show a direct link between their decision and my contracting the flu. And let’s face it, there isn’t. But it is also true that the H1N1 flu cannot spread without hosts that carry and disseminate the virus. By not vaccinating, these individuals become the very vectors that propagate the disease to others. Thus the very fact that the disease is spreading is proof that individuals who are not protected are spreading it to others, and they are doing so at a multiplicative rate. One of them spreads to flu to two, three or even dozens of others in the population. And were it not for those who are getting vaccinated, the virus would be spreading even more rapidly throughout the populace. Your guilt is because you actively supported the spread of the flu; and you are therefore responsible for the impact that the disease has upon people who were placed at risk because of those actions.

In a free society where you have the right to decide to be vaccinated or to not be, you should also have the responsibility to account for your choice and to be held liable for it. The important question is what are the consequences to you for having placed others at risk? Today, there are no consequences imposed by our social system.

But if your son or daughter, your husband or wife, your brother or sister, or your friends and neighbors were harmed or killed by such actions; would you find people who promote and advise others to not be vaccinated completely free of responsibility? Would you think it was their right to contribute to this result?

I am sure of my position which is: if you demand the protection of your rights and freedoms from our society that you are also responsible and required to protect that system, and that you will be held accountable for failure to do so.

Voting on Vaccinations: Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down. It’s Your Life

CBS’s 60 Minutes did a segment on H1N1 flu and the vaccine. The segment extended the coverage they had done previously, and was one of their traditional follow-up stories providing an update on the Arkansas boy (Luke Duvall) who had come down with the flu. In their story, CBS brings up the issue that about 40% of the population has indicated that they won’t get the vaccine even if it is available to them. Public Health officials, of course, express their concerns that these people are placing themselves at risk by not availing themselves of the protection the H1N1 vaccine will offer them.

What is being overlooked here is a great scientific and medical research opportunity; and I would suggest an intelligence test as well. Consider the following: we are at a point where the Government could institute a program to enable each citizen to opt-in or opt-out of the vaccine program. It would be similar to programs that many school systems have begun to employ with regard to vaccination efforts. Children are being required to obtain their parents’ consent before the school allows them to be vaccinated at school. Some local school efforts have been mentioned on the news in my area and the news reporters seem a little surprised that a large proportion of the parents have refused to give their permission.

I am not going to spend a lot of time pointing out that the reporters have not looked into a very interesting possibility with respect to these schools’ approach to their vaccination programs. After all, how many of the children, who did not return a signed parent’s permission slip did so because the child did not ask the parent to even decide. Not that any child might not have wanted to get a shot or that they just forgot.

But the schools’ have illuminated a process that any of the various Government agencies could leverage as a means to create a grand experiment. We could set up an Opt-In or Opt-Out H1N1 vaccination program. Given the current limitations with supplies this would even help in focusing the need for the vaccine into areas that are seeking it and to avoid distributing the vaccine to locations where the need is not as great. The program would be very simple; if you want the Vaccine for H1N1 you can register for eligibility – Opting-In. A web-site could be set up to make this registration easy and readily accessible. And for anyone who doesn’t have access to a computer, registration at doctor’s offices, pharmacies, public health office and other public centers could be offered. Not only could individuals register to be eligible to be vaccinated, they could register to not be eligible – Opting-Out. Parents could obviously register their children according to their preferences.

Now come the tricky part. If you register to Opt-Out and then later change you mind, you have to wait until the people who Opted-In to receive their vaccines before you would be able to get vaccinated when supplies are no longer limited. It is not clear that the Government would be able to not allow you to not change your mind and prevent you from getting vaccinated. This would be ideal from an experimental perspective, but it would be difficult to keep the lawyers from trying to sue everyone they could think of when an Opting-Out individual dies or is seriously impaired from the flu. Some family member will then insist that it was the Government’s responsibility to give them access to the vaccine.

With such a self-directed Vaccination choice program, the Government would be able to collect an enormous amount of data about the consequences to the different groups from their decisions. This experiment would help the Government assess the efficacy of their H1N1 flu information dissemination efforts. It would provide an insight to different social groups with regard to their decision making on matters from health care to other social issues. It would even allow the public to determine the impact their personal choices can have and in the significance that the religious, political, and social leaders that they are placing their trust in.

It could be a grand experiment. How many more people from what groups lived or died because of their choices. It would even provide proof for how efficiently diseases are spread in populations that are composed of mixed vaccinated and un-vaccinated groups. It would be a great waste of data and understanding to be gained from a situation that is going to be taking place anyway. Why not use this opportunity to learn and help our society in the future. It will also be a more definitive teaching lesson if we have the data to show people that there are real consequences to such decisions. And isn’t it the obligation of the Government, the health care system and the public itself to help insure that we are provided with the best information possible in matters of life and death?