Friday, November 11, 2011

The Canadians

Passengers from Windsor, Ontario:

The middle-aged couple gave a stern warning to us Americans regarding ObamaCare ... "Don't do it!" They stated that the Canadian system of single-payer is a disaster. Whenever people of their family need some kind of medical surgery, they'd have to wait for months within the Canadian system. So instead, they'd choose to cross the border, pay out-of-pocket, and go to a U.S. hospital in Michigan.

The husband stated that Stephen Harper is the best prime minister Canada has ever had ... and that "he is the best in the world." Harper is a true conservative and is pro-capitalism.

I asked about automobile plants in Canada. The man responded that Canadian workers are more productive than American workers. Manufacturing is thriving in Windsor. While the labor unions are strong in Canada, the workers also know they must work hard if they want the companies to stay in Canada. If they become lazy or spoiled like their American counterparts, then the plants would have to shut down (with the jobs to be outsourced elsewhere).

Passengers from Edmonton, Calgary:

I've had them as passengers more than once. They are an easygoing pair, with a relaxed, Western Provinces demeanor.

Both the man and wife are very happy with Stephen Harper as prime minister. But they also like President Obama. Their attitude toward Canadian HealthCare is not as negative as the folks from Ontario. But they do admit that for elective surgeries, they'd have to wait for several months.

The Edmonton man criticizes the United States government as drifting too much toward "corporate socialism." Whereas he feels that Canada is becoming a friendlier country for free market capitalism.

The Edmonton couple is a bit puzzled about American HealthCare reform, emanating from Washington D.C. In Canada, the provinces are in charge of their own single-payer HealthCare fiefdoms. The man stated that the population of the entire country of Canada is less than the population of California. (Canada's population is 35 million; California's population is 37 million.) So it doesn't make sense for the federal government to be dictating HealthCare reform when it should be more at the state level.

I asked the Edmonton folk about illegal aliens in Canada, "Is it a problem?" They responded that it is nothing like that in the United States. The Canadian government is very strict. If an illegal alien shows up for free HealthCare at a hospital, they'd still get treated ... but will then be immediately deported out of the country. Whereas in U.S. hospitals, the illegals give birth to babies (in maternity wards) without fear of deportation. (The baby is then granted U.S. citizenship, whereas the parents retain illegal status.)

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Passenger from Wasilla

As an airport shuttle driver, I had an interesting passenger from Wasilla, Alaska. She knows Sarah Palin as a casual acquaintance, as do many people in Wasilla. The lady was of similar age. She considered Palin as a regular person of the common folk, a fellow Wasillan.

While Sarah was governor, she was down-to-earth and easily accessible. They'd meet at the local supermarket and chit chat. But when she became running mate of John McCain, things changed. All of a sudden, she became surrounded by security people and hounded by the media.

My passenger identified herself as a centrist. Yet she loved Sarah Palin as a governor because "she is a fighter" who fought "for the people of Alaska" ... whereas the "special interests" were of no match to her. Sarah has moxie.

But when Sarah Palin resigned as governor, the native Wasillans were hugely disappointed. The successor Sean Parnell is "terrible" as governor. I asked my passenger ... why? She replied, it doesn't have much to do with his actual political positions ... it's that Gov. Parnell has no backbone. He is not a fighter like Sarah Palin. Special interests walk all over him. And Parnell caves in to Washington bureaucrats, not fighting to open up Anwar for oil. [This was my passenger's opinion.]

Meanwhile, the writer/publicist who moved next door to the Palins "to spy on her" is considered somewhat as a joke by the Wasillans. And so Sarah Palin no longer has any privacy. At the grocery store, people would know right away if Sarah happened to be shopping there. The half-dozen security cars parked in the lot would be the hint. (Presumably, they are scanning the premises for bad guys.) So when my passenger sees Sarah at the market, she still says hello ... but now seems more rushed. No time for casual conversation.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Danger in the City ... Phoenix Valley Metro

Part I ... Peoria to Gilbert

On Saturday, September 3 ... I had undertaken a journey from Peoria to Mesa-Gilbert via the Phoenix Valley Metro. The first three miles was the bicycle ride to the Arrowhead Town & Country Mall in Glendale.

At the mall staging area, a crazed man was shouting obscenities while the Glendale police were "babysitting" him. The lunatic wildly paced around and argued with the officers. There were roughly four Glendale policemen who oversaw the unruly man.

I was sitting at a bench nearby, whereupon a Glendale officer requested that I move to another spot further away ... for my own safety, since the man was acting rather unpredictable and might be dangerous. Not long later, the bus arrived. But to my shock, the police sent the wild man to the bus -- "dumping" him into the vehicle and "no longer their problem." As soon as the officers walked away, the man mockingly told the bus driver that the policemen needed to come back so that "they can kiss his ass."

I placed my bicycle on the front carrier of the bus. I then sat in the front while the crazy man sat in the back. The bus was filled roughly one-third of capacity. For the next several miles, the crazed man periodically shouted obscenities and let out some high-pitched screams. The other passengers were silent, uncomfortable, and appeared frightened. The bus driver spoke into the intercom, ordering the man to shut up.

Subsequently, the driver radioed for help. At the next stop, the authorities were going to come to arrest that man or take him into custody. But at that next stop, the wild man exited the bus, shouted more obscenities, then walked across a parking lot and toward a convenience store.

With the man gone, the rest of the bus ride was quiet. But it became crowded. Most of the passengers were very poor, wore old clothes, looked dirty, nobody talked, everybody looked sad. Virtually everybody were Latinos, with a few blacks mixed in.

On a positive note, the bus and the bus driver were very wheelchair friendly. A ramp and lift gently transports the handicapped person upward into the bus interrior. The driver then very dutifully assists the wheelchair person and straps him onto the seat belt contraption.

At 19th Avenue and Bell, I transferred busses with my bicycle. It was roughly a 15 or 20 minute wait in the oppressive heat. The temperature was about 110 F.

When the bus arrived, it was a long line to get into the vehicle. We were stuck there in the queue, as the bus driver haggled with boarding passengers over the price of fare and ticket disputes. After about another ten minutes, one young couple (who had already entered the bus) now turned around and came back out of the bus. I asked them why they now refused to board? They replied that they were 75 cents short. I gave them a dollar. (Their destination was to an apartment complex several miles to the south.)

The bus was jam-packed full. Again, everybody looked poor, had sad faces, and were very quiet. Nobody looked at nobody. The silence was surreal, considering how crowded it was in there.

Open containers of soda pop are prohibited in the bus. Yet passengers with open drinks would board, the driver would tell them no, they argue back, the driver caves in. Dogs (except for service animals) are also prohibited. One middle-aged lady disobeyed the bus driver, boarded the bus with her little pet dog. This reminded me of buses in Southeast Asia, where peasants would bring in their little chickens, too.

Again, almost all of the passengers were either Latino or African-American. But there was this one Anglo-white guy that was on board. He was particularly obnoxious. This man started berating the bus driver for his "violation" of Valley Metro rules regarding the driver allegedly doing the beginning portion of the bus route with an "out of service" sign on display. The passenger kept on haranging the driver, telling him that his report to the Phoenix City Transit Authority will result in his termination from employment.

The bus driver ordered the passenger to go sit down and be quiet ... because his tirade is causing a danger and distraction from driving the bus safely. But the man kept on his diatribe. (We passengers were ready to punch that idiot in the face.)

Fortunately, the next bus stop was the transfer to the Phoenix Light Rail. But that was where the obnoxious man also got off. Ironically, he happened to be another fellow biker. We both boarded the train. That man was no longer nasty; he suddenly became nice and polite. He helped me into the train and directed me into the bicycle section. (It's very strange, this Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde.)

The train journey was comfortable, not crowded, and had more middle-to-upper income folk as passengers. Most of them were now white Anglos. The end of the train ride was just west of Downtown Mesa. I transferred onto another bus for the ride toward Gilbert. Once in the bus, there was a small sprinkling of passengers.

Part II ... Mesa to Peoria

Boarding the Phoenix Light Rail at the Mesa Station was at around 10:00 PM. A few of us cyclists boarded into the center part of the train. It wasn't crowded at all.

As the train arrived into Tempe, throngs of college students boarded. Most of them got into the back compartment. They were loud and boisterous. Many of them were also drunk. During the journey, it felt like a party.

At the next stop, young Blacks and Latinos boarded. They entered into the front compartment. As we progressed onward to Central Phoenix, one middle-aged Hispanic woman started cursing at this one ornery hombre. She accused him of making some kind of sexually explicit remarks. She was lunging at him, in the process of punching him in the face. The other Latino women in her vicinity held her back and tried to calm her down. The Mexican man was smirking back.

At the next stop, more Blacks boarded, wearing clothes that suggest gang attire. They sat in the front compartment with the Hispanics. As the train then proceeded, the Blacks and the Mexicans got into a brawl. I pressed the red emergency button, delaring to the train engineer of "a fight that is now occurring in the train." Then immediately, the engineer spoke in the intercom, "Stop fighting." Fortunately, at the next stop, the fighters all disembarked.

Once I got off the train at Montebello and 19th Ave ... I finally felt safe. Bicycling across North Phoenix into Central Glendale at Midnight was peaceful solitude. Whereas inside the train, I felt like a caged animal.

About the only incident I encountered on my bicycle that involved danger was these young teenagers who were drunk. They were driving wildly on Olive Ave. near Glendale Community College. As some kind of crazy stunt, they dumped off one of their buddies into the middle of the highway, who was then staggering on foot. The stench of alcohol was very strong. Then they double backed, skidding their vehicle while doing a u-turn. Whereupon I had to bicycle away from the scene, lest I become victimized by their antics.

At 67th & Thunderbird, I hung out at the Quiktrip (QT) from around 12:30 till 1:15 AM. I joined a small group of 20-somethings AND an off-duty policeman (from Tolleson) ... who was contracted for night security at that QT on the weekends. We were all loitering -- in front of the "no loitering" sign. So we were all breaking the law. The policeman was friendly. (Yet I was tempted to ask him why he wasn't arresting us for "loitering.")

The last leg of the bicycle ride was uneventful. Though it was the wee hours of the morning, the summer heat was still radiating from the concrete below. Once home, I was glad the day was over.

Phoenix Valley Metro (Wikipedia Link)

Friday, August 12, 2011

ObamaCare Mandates Fealty to Rent-Seeking Classes

The individual mandate of ObamaCare will force us citizens to use insurance as the conduit of payment for routine health-care. It will further erode the doctor-patient relationship. The third party stands in the way between doctor and patient.

The Byzantine nature of ObamaCare is to benefit the rent-seeking classes, not the consumer. Lobbyists and consultants of the health-care industry wrote the bill. In contrast, regarding the lawmakers who voted on the bill, most of them never read it! While the bill itself was over 2000 pages long, the regulations currently being written up by Kathleen Sebelius are even longer! (This means plenty of money for attorneys' fees in business law.)

ObamaCare takes power away from the consumer, who is coerced to make the insurance company his landlord over his own health-care. This will hurt the middle-class the most. The rent paid to the insurance company is a most regressive type of "tax." While the poor and the illegal immigrants (who are exempt from the mandate) will receive government subsidized health-care, the middle-class will bear the brunt of the burden. The premiums will be a huge percent of income for a typical John Henry; whereas for a wealthy person, it is only a miniscule percent of income.

ObamaCare also discriminates against people in their 50's, who will be forced to purchase policies three times more expensive than peope in their 20's. Yet (with the exception of smoking), it will prohibit insurance companies from rewarding people with lower premiums for living a healthy lifestyle (i.e. keeping their weight down, exercising, eating right, avoiding drugs and alcohol, not engaging in promiscuous sex, etc.)

Thus, the typical 55 year old is obese, has type-II diabetes, doesn't exercise, drinks heavily, smokes cigarettes, consumes super-sized soft drinks, eats greasy french-fries, etc. Therefore, his health-care costs will be quite high. But another 55 year old may be exercising regularly, avoids fast-food restaurants, doesn't smoke or drink, lives a chaste lifestyle, etc. But because he's in his 50's, he is forced to pay super high premiums to subsidize the couch potatoes of his age group. This isn't right. *See note below.

With auto insurance, you get rewarded for your lifestyle choices (i.e. no speeding tickets, no DUI's, no reckless driving citations, etc.) If ObamaCare were to be applied here ... those driving habits would be declared as "preexisting" conditions. (Good drivers would then be forced to pay the same high rates as the reckless drunks.) Likewise, ObamaCare for Autocare would mandate that insurance underwrite for our auto repairs and gasoline, too! People would purchase gas guzzlers and go on long joy rides. Whoopee! ... the gasoline is "free." With "no skin" in the game, costs will go up for the insurance companies. Then the premium rates will skyrocket. Eventually, there'd be rationing -- especially when the government imposes price controls upon the industry.


*Note ... ObamaCare does have a wellness program (via "The Safeway Amendment"), but it is only available to corporations that are self-insured and willing to implement it. The rules governing this program are quite complex, requiring the expertise of an attorney in business law. For those employees who participate in such programs ... they will have their premiums cut in half if they succeed in losing weight, get their blood pressure & cholesterol levels under control, and if they exercise regularly. (Under ObamaCare, the opportunity to join such wellness programs will be quite limited. Independent contractors are thus ineligible. The majority of Americans will have no such access, either.)

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Good Conservative Websites

1) Pat Dollard =============>

2) America's Watchtower =====>

3) American Thinker ========>

4) The American Conservative =>


Saturday, July 23, 2011

Pandering to the Older Boomers' Appetite for Medicare

Why do you suppose the Ryan Plan calls for the FULL funding of Medicare for those born before 1957? Why are these older boomers to get FULL Medicare for perpetuity? Why does the Ryan Plan promote the continuation of the Ponzi scheme for them, only?

It is because these Tea Party oldsters are not true conservatives. They are of the mentality, "End socialism, but do not touch my Medicare!"

Therefore, the likes of Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann carry the Tea Party banner, yet pander to these seniors' appetite for status quo socialism ... i.e. Medicare. (This Ponzi setup favors the older boomers; it discriminates against the younger boomers & Generation X.)

Friday, July 22, 2011

@LibertyLynx on Right vs. Left

1)  An intense hatred of the Right (some of it warranted) has allowed Democrats to fool their idiot followers into believing they're in it for the people.

2)  AND an intense hatred of progressives (most of it warranted) has allowed many in the GOP to pretend they actually care about the Constitution, debt, etc... HA.

3)  Both sides use the other to deflect responsibility and perpetuate their own lies. We are just so screwed.

[Edited for clarity.]

References ...


Permission from @LibertyLynx =>

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Paul Ryan and Healthcare Monopoly

His Medicare reform plan is NOT based on free market principles. It calls for the use of taxpayers' money to subsidize "government-approved" insurance companies. (Therefore, the lobbyists will influence the lawmakers which insurance companies will win and which will lose.)

Whereas the health-care oligopolies (such as the hospital & drug companies) benefit from limited competition. The overly stringent licensing laws, together with corporate friendly regulations and patent protections ... have the effect to thwart competition and maximize profits.

Paul Ryan is not a trust buster like Teddy Roosevelt. He, (like Obama and Romney) advocate government subsidized insurance to feed the appetite of the "too big to fail" hospital industry.

If Ryan were truly for free markets, he would deregulate health-care. (This would increase competition and break up the monopolies.) Patent laws would be loosened. Importation of drugs from Canada would be allowed. Insurance would be optional -- and not subsidized.

Let charitable foundations, religious groups, wealthy donors, etc. -- be the ones who play a bigger role in our local communities. This is far better than the corporatist models espoused by Ryan, Romney and Obama.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Ponzi Schemes Galore

The huge baby boom generation (those born between 1946-1964) fueled the Ponzi schemes of the late 20th Century within the private and public sectors. Around the globe, we are now witnessing the great unraveling. (Though people think of the boomers only with respect to the United States, the baby boom phenomenon had taken place in all the Western nations, ranging from Japan to Germany.)

The first major Ponzi scheme was the enactment of Social Security. Though its birth was during the 1930's, the Ponzi character of it became obvious when the first wave of boomers entered as taxpayers during the 1960's. This increased the coffers of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law Medicare. Because the boomers were already entering as taxpayers, Medicare was unquestionably Ponzi in character at the starting gate.

Beginning in 1977 and continuing into the 1980's, as the rest of the boomers entered their taxpaying years, the FICA taxes were increased to higher rates. This brought more money into the federal coffers (for Social Security). The boomers were being forced to pay these high FICA taxes allegedly for their own retirement. But this wasn't true. Those taxes were being used to finance the current retirees of that time period. (Surplus money accumulated into the Trust Fund which then helped to finance the debt.)

Within the private sector (and also for government workers) was another Ponzi scheme. Throughout the 20th Century, defined benefit pension plans were popular. This worked well, while the baby boomers were young. There was this surplus of young workers paying into the plans, whereas a deficit of old people drawing benefits out of the plans. But this was unsustainable.

Enter the 401(k)'s and the IRA's -- the defined contribution plans. This was a new type of Ponzi scheme. More of the risk was now tied to the account holders, themselves. The corporations wanted to dump their workers into these defined contribution plans, so that the corporation will be off the hook when the Ponzi bubbles burst.

The vagaries of the U.S. Stock Exchange, the insurance cartels, the housing market, the banks, and the pension funds are all tied together. For example, when the real estate market was booming, that too was a Ponzi scheme. Baby boomers were entering into the housing market during their prime years. But what followed them was Generation X and Generation Y. Thus, entering into the housing arena were declining numbers of younger replacements. Pop, the bubble burst. So with the pension plans tied to the stock market; the banks having engaged in credit default swaps; AIG having insured the toxic assets ... we have the great unraveling.

So we now have the Ryan Plan. The GOP wants to dump those toxic assets, the baby boomers, who will be going on Medicare. Otherwise, the United States may face bankruptcy. (Despite the rhetoric, I don't believe most Democrats want bankruptcy, either.)

The problem with the Ryan Plan is that Medicare would remain fully funded for the next ten years, thus prolonging the Ponzi scheme. This would continue the inflationary bubble for health-care. (I doubt that private insurance could last that long.) Then the well will be dry for the younger boomers, born 1957 and later. Theoretically, they will go on government-subsidized private insurance (via premium support payments).

It's not going to work. This will be another Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco. The insurance industry, expected to pay for the very expensive health-care of the aging boomers will suffer financially. The individual mandate of ObamaCare and the subsidies for insurance via RyanCare are only gimmicks.

The way to bring health-care costs under control:

1) Promote more competition amongst the providers via deregulation (like had been done with the airlines).

2) Promote more "skin in the game" for the health-care consumers by making them less dependent on comprehensive insurance and less dependent on government handouts.

3) Promote more emphasis on private charities and religious organizations to play a bigger role. (For example, the Mormon Church is extremely wealthy. If they engage in charity care for its members, they'd also attract newcomers to join their faith. And then there's Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Other foundations are sure to help, too.)


America has a choice. We can remain blind to the Ponzi schemes, or we can return to grassroots capitalism.

The Right Way to Fix Medicare

The Ryan Plan is the wrong way. It does not take the incremental approach. It fully funds Medicare for the next 10 years which merely prolongs the Ponzi scheme. The inflationary spiral of health-care costs (for the same decade) will continue unabated.

The incremental approach must begin now! Gradually increase the Medicare patient's deductibility and co-pay. Deregulate the provider-side of health-care to break up the monopolies. Allow physician-owned hospitals to operate. (Currently under ObamaCare, the giant hospitals [both corporate and non-profit] enjoy hegemony with severe restrictions against the doctor-owned hospitals. Monopolies hate competition!) Loosen licensing requirements for providers -- free enterprise will reward the good doctors (plus the bad doctors will be weeded out due to intense competition, negative publicity and lawsuits.)

The Medicare patient must have more "skin in the game." But his family must be active participants. Because of things like dementia, there must be mechanisms for power of attorney with loved ones (for dealings with the government bureaucracy and health-care providers.) Nevertheless, when the Medicare patient (or his family) has more financial stake in medical care, there is a less likelihood for the doctors to order unnecessary tests (to bilk more money out of Medicare).

Please read my other posts in this blogsite to get a more complete picture of health-care reform. Those other articles include further insights ... as well as my critiques of ObamaCare, RomneyCare and RyanCare. The purpose of my blog is to make people think "outside the box." Hopefully, it'll aid you to come up with solutions that may be better than my own.

Prescription Socialism and Side Effects

Drugs have side effects. The doctor may give you prescription A to treat one set of symptoms. It then causes you to have other symptoms which requires prescription B. But that then aggravates new symptoms which will require prescription C.

Socialism and Central Planning result in similar unintended consequences. The federal government, in cahoots with the insurance industry, has planned for the management of people's health-care. For many decades, corporations have been awarded tax breaks for providing health-care insurance to its employees. But those workers couldn't get that tax break if purchasing the insurance independently. This started Americans' mentality of dependency on others for health-care benefits.

The unintended side effect is the lack of portability of the insurance if you lose your job. So the government comes up with a new prescription called COBRA (enacted in 1985). Then it comes up with HIPAA (enacted in 1996). These new fixes treat the portability problems, but like the drugs from your doctor, they treat only the symptoms.

The original illness is ignored. GET RID of the tax break for businesses providing insurance. EQUAL the playing field for individuals who want to purchase policies on their own, independent of their employer. Wouldn't you prefer to be empowered over your own health-care, to choose your own doctor, for instance?

Just think how stupid it is, this expectation from our government or our employer to be the sugar daddy dispensing "free" health-care. Hypothetical situation ... would you want your company to siphon off a major portion of your salary for food-care insurance? So now you must go shopping in a company-approved supermarket? And then you have to show your insurance papers to the grocery clerk? And will the insurance cover the purchase of Cheerios? Does it include coffee or tea?

Why have we Americans gotten so duped into this insurance mentality for routine care? Perhaps it's because the elites in Washington D.C. want to use comprehensive insurance as the mechanism for social engineering. Whether its government insurance or private, that entity is in charge of our health-care: choice of doctors, pricing, rationing, etc. Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

Libertarian Solution to Health Care

Capitalism does not happen in a vacuum. Its participants are comprised of real human beings. They have empathy for one another. (Therefore, the profit motive is tempered by moral conscience.)

[Reference at bottom of page. "Royden" is a commenter who posted in The American Conservative blog.]


Royden told us about his father who "charged $4.00 for an office visit and $5.00 for a house call. Patients that were poor were treated for free. He didn’t use a collection agency and kept his own books and medical records with the help of two nurses."

"This is how things worked before the subsidization of medicine by the government destroyed the pricing mechanism. Who says the free market can’t work for medicine?"


Today, we have "corporate medicine." It isn't free market anymore. Monopolies dominate; prices are high; competition is squelched; insurance dictates.

The provider-side of healthcare is profited by the stringent licensing laws, the compliant medical boards, and the blessings of patent protection. These government regulations help to ensure tenure for the players within a monopolistic framework.

The American citizen is a serf of the insurance agency that rations care. The doctor has less of an interest in serving the patient's needs and more of an interest to engage the insurance company that pays the bill. (In some cases, this engagement with the insurance agency [like Medicare] involves fraud.)

Whether we are talking about private insurance or government Medicare, this type of setup undermines the doctor-patient relationship. The pricing mechanism gets distorted. There isn't any "skin in the game." Thus, the patient does not have any discipline to pay attention to prices or to stop wasteful practices.

The insurance industry is a de facto government. The premiums are like taxes. The policy holder is then governed by the insurance company (regarding that person's healthcare). It is the entity that negotiates prices and rations care -- just like the government!

But there are differences. The insurance company is answerable to its shareholders. The government is answerable to its citizenry.

So what is the libertarian solution? Get the American people away from its dependence on insurance for routine care! We need to be in charge of our own health-care again. This will be liberating, not only for the patient, but also for the doctor.

The purpose of insurance is for catastrophe. For example, when we purchase auto insurance, do we expect it to pay for the gasoline we put into our cars? Of course not! The insurance is for accident coverage, not fuel coverage. (Nor do we use insurance for routine auto repairs, either.)

This popularity of insurance for routine health-care fosters a welfare mentality. We expect "free" doctor visits and "free" drugs. The premiums are expensive because of this scenario. Likewise, in a welfare state, taxes are high for the same reason.


Saturday, July 9, 2011

GOP Strategy to Win the White House

The Choices:

1) Appeal to the disillusioned left.
2) Appeal to the center.
3) Persuade the center toward the right.
4) Appeal to the impassioned right.
5) All of the above.

Appeal to the disillusioned left:

The grassroots progressives are disillusioned with Obama. They are close to becoming disenchanted with Big Government, too. Tell them to connect the dots. (Big Government is in cahoots with Big Business.) Emphasize grassroots capitalism. Appeal to the progressives that we'll adopt Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting ideals. For example: by breaking up the healthcare monopolies, liberalizing patent laws, loosening licensing restrictions, allowing physician-owned hospitals ... the increased competition will result in markedly lower prices for the healthcare consumer. Then there wouldn't be this need for mandated insurance!

Appeal to the center:

This is what Mitt Romney is trying to do. But his flip-flops are counterproductive. (It would be so much better to be a consistent centrist.) The person who is a chameleon cannot be trusted. What is he today? What will he be tomorrow?

Persuade the center toward the right:

This is what @MrSimpleSense at Twitter suggests. It is an excellent idea. Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, accomplished this during the 1980's.

Appeal to the impassioned right:

This is the gospel message of the Tea Party. But if taken too far, it will backfire on us.

All of the above:

This is my recommendation. Appeal to the left by breaking up the monopolies. Appeal to the right by shrinking the size of the federal government. Appeal to the center by taking incremental steps to restore fiscal sanity. Persuade the center to the right by communicating effectively.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Ryan Plan not so Free Market as you Think

Paul Ryan keeps on claiming his Medicare reform plan is based on "free markets." He is even being endorsed by the libertarian Cato Institute.

To be fair, the Ryan Plan is preferable to ObamaCare.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be bad for old people. It will use an unaccountable medical board to impose price controls on payments to providers from Medicare recipients. This will result in denial of care for many seniors, as more and more providers decide to opt out of Medicare. (It'll be de facto rationing.)

Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform Plan

For those born 1956 and earlier, the Ryan Plan will fully fund Medicare. This will prolong the Ponzi scheme for the exclusive benefit of the older baby boomers. With money fueling the inflation fire of the health-care oligopolies, this will make things worse for the younger baby boomers. (Health-care costs will have skyrocketed.) So for those born 1957 and later, they will be mandated to purchase government-approved insurance lest they lose out on the $2500 tax credit.

Evidently, Paul Ryan and his GOP allies are counting on a "divide and conquer" strategy for the 2011 elections. They are willing to pander to the older boomers and to sacrifice the younger boomers. If this is true, it's very cynical.

Is the Ryan Plan based on free market principles? Not really! It is based on "corporate socialism" where taxpayers' money will be used to subsidize private insurance companies. The government will decide which insurance companies would qualify and which would not qualify. The corporate lobbyists will rule this chess game; the American citizens will be the pawns.

Both political parties serve the interests of Wall Street and of the insurance industry. Likewise, regarding ObamaCare: the interests of Big PhRMa, the hospital industry, the AARP, the medical device manufacturers, the AMA, the labor unions ... they all have their fingers in the pie. (The only person missing is the ordinary American.)

Please watch the video by a Russian television on the monopolistic nature of American health-care.


When you go into a supermarket, the business is happy to have you as a customer. As long as you pay for your purchases, they don't care if you are an American citizen or an illegal alien. The grocery clerk does not check your documents as to your citizenship. Instead, the bill is tabulated and the payment is processed.

Now imagine, instead of having a competitive market, you had a single food-care building in your community where you do your shopping. Because it's a monopoly, the prices are unaffordably high. Therefore, you need government-subsidized food-care insurance (which will pay for the food).

With this situation, it suddenly becomes an issue as to whether or not the person is a legal citizen. We Americans are forced to pay taxes (and/or comply with an individual mandate) to subsidize for others who'll receive free food-care. But this isn't fair. The taxpaying citizen is forced to pay for the grocery bills of the illegal immigrant who gets a free ride. (This causes resentment and stirs up hatred.)

With ObamaCare, the illegal alien is exempt from punishment if refusing to purchase government-approved healthcare insurance. Yet he/she will still receive free healthcare at the hospital ER department. Why are the illegals exempt from this mandate? (Many use the hospital as the locale to give birth to a baby so that it'll be granted citizenship.)

Now, wouldn't it be better if we had a truly competitive, free market of "pay as you go" hospital care. Imagine, if like your neighborhood grocery store, we had "charter" hospitals accepting people who pay cash for their care. Prices would be low because there would be competition. There wouldn't be the market distortions associated with insurance or Medicare. Consumers are in charge of their own healthcare, not the insurance company or the government. (And it wouldn't matter whether the customers are illegal aliens or not -- everybody pays for their HC out of their own pocket.)

Likewise, we could have "Salvation Army" type of hospitals for the truly indigent. Americans are charitable folk. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett could use their $$ millions to fund various charity hospitals. Then you have the very wealthy Mormon Church and also the Catholics. How about Jewish and Islamic foundations, too? This voluntary model of care-giving is so much better, so much based on love and generosity, than the coercive model of "corporate socialism."

Thursday, June 16, 2011

In Defense of Doctors

The doctors are not really to be blamed for the health-care mess. Instead, it is the intricate web of regulations, medical boards, AMA, lawsuits, insurance companies, etc.

The corporatization of medicine is reducing doctors and patients to mere cogs in a monster machine. Because the average American has become brainwashed to rely on insurance for routine care, the typical doctor's office must deal with mountains of paperwork involving insurance forms. The doctor, being paid by the insurance company, must abide by its restrictions.

The private insurance company is a defacto government. Instead of being directly financed by the taxpayers, it is financed by premium payments from the policy holders. But these premiums are akin to a tax. Plus the insurance company is large and bureaucratic. Whereas Medicare is answerable to the citizenry, the insurance company is answerable to its shareholders.

If people want to be truly free, they should not rely on either the government or the insurance company for routine care. It would be so much better for the patient to be a free agent, paying a doctor directly for his services. Then there wouldn't be this interference from a third party between you and your doctor.

On the other hand, insurance (whether government or private) would be important for catastrophic care. But having a high deductible in conjunction with a health savings account (HSA) allows the person to be in charge of his own health-care. So for the poor, charitable organizations will kick in to help. What is wrong with that?

Now what about the doctors? Are they the bogeymen responsible for ripping off their customers with high fees? Not really. They are merely small players within the monstrous health-care spider web.

Sure, there are bad apples amongst the physicians. But the system does not effectively weed them out. The medical boards -- analogous to school boards  -- are reluctant to delicense bad doctors. This situation is akin to teachers on tenure. So with the bad doctors still practicing medicine, the price of malpractice insurance goes up. In other words, the good doctors end up subsidizing the bad doctors.

Another reason why doctors must charge us high fees is due to the overhead costs of requiring several clerks to do the insurance paperwork. With ObamaCare, the requirement for comprehensive insurance for routine care will enshrine this costly arrangement. Plus the increase in regulations from the federal level will worsen overhead costs.

When the baby boomers were young, the public school system was swarming with huge numbers of new students. Yet the country did not go bankrupt.

So now with the baby boomers becoming old, the health-care system will be swarming with huge numbers of new sick people. The country can survive.

As a nation, we must get away from the notion of requiring comprehensive insurance for routine care. We must build new medical schools. We must have more doctors. We must have more hospitals (including physician-owned hospitals.)

With an increase in the number of providers, with the elimination of insurance for routine care, with a reduction in burdensome regulations for the private doctors -- healthcare will become cheaper. Unfortunately, things like ObamaCare and RomneyCare do the opposite -- healthcare becoming too expensive.

So which is it America ...  FreedomCare or ObamaCare?

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

True Healthcare Reform

With the health-care sector now representing over 17% of the U.S. economy, it is expected to grow to 19.3% of GDP by 2019. Likewise, while the real estate market is in a state of deflation, the health-care sector is in a state of inflation. Thus, the U.S. economy is schizoid.

Under ObamaCare, money will be sucked out of the overall economy, and will be funneled into the healthcare sector. This will exacerbate deflation of the overall economy, and add fuel to the inflation fire raging within the health-care sector. Under this scenario, the impact for ordinary Americans will be disastrous.

Within the health-care sector, there are two sides of the equation -- insurers and providers. Both involve monopolistic entities. The politicians -- Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama -- have devoted most of their attention to insurance reform. All three men are terribly misguided.

Whether we talk of RyanCare, RomneyCare, or ObamaCare ... none of these three reforms address the problem of the provider side of the equation -- namely the lack of adequate competition amongst the providers to help lower costs for the insurers (and for the patients, too). Paul Ryan brags about his market-based solutions for private insurance; yet he ignores the reality that the provider-side of the equation will remain monopolistic in nature.

The Rockefellers, during the early 1900's, were instrumental for having decreased the number of medical schools and thus, limiting the supply of doctors. Today, with the AMA, there has been continued pressure on Congress (via laws, regulations, and licensing restrictions) to keep the number of doctors below a certain level so as to limit competition and maximize profits.

Likewise, the AHA (and other hospital lobbying groups, too) had influenced the ObamaCare legislation to essentially eliminate physician-owned hospitals. The for-profit hospitals (and the giant non-profits, too) did not like the doctor-owned hospitals being able to compete against them. Now with those type hospitals to be phased out, this is bad news for the consumer.

Particularly with RomneyCare and ObamaCare, these reforms will result in an increase in demand for care from the providers, yet no increase in the number of providers. This is a recipe for higher prices, higher taxes, the rationing of care, and the eventual bankruptcy of the insurance industry. (We will wind up with single-payer.)

Meanwhile with RyanCare, a better solution for Medicare reform would be to focus on the provider-side of the equation first. Bust up the monopoly! We need an explosion of new medical schools, new doctors, new hospitals, etc.

The status quo is unacceptable. The so-called reformers are merely enshrining the sclerotic monopolies. This is a stranglehold that is killing innovation, competition, and consumer choice. The hospital industry is like the teachers' union. They resist the new charter hospitals (i.e. physician-owned). The industry wants to be "too big to fail." When a hospital serves a community without adequate competition, they cannot be shut down ... ever!

The other problem with RyanCare is his privatization scheme. Unfortunately, the GOP's version of privatization involves the conversion of a purely government agency into a private-public partnership along the same lines as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These type of entities invite corruption. Whenever you have the marriage of corporation and state, you have what's called corporate socialism.

Under Ryan's Plan, private insurance companies will be receiving taxpayers' money in the form of premium support subsidies. The government will be deciding which insurance companies would qualify for such subsidies. The politically-connected entities would get special treatment. You'd get such situations as regulatory capture. This would ensure oligopoly status for the big players. (It'd be bad for us consumers and taxpayers.)

Maybe we should regard health-care insurance in the same way as infrastructure. The public highways are payed for by our taxes. So why not insurance? Why not Medicare for all?

But if we were to have single-payer insurance, it must be the bare bones minimum with high deductibles. And the insurance must be for catastrophe only (i.e. hospital insurance). There must be skin in the game for the consumer. With the high deductible, it'd be used in conjunction with a health-care savings account (HSA). Likewise, charitable organizations would play an important role for helping out with the deductible for the lower income folk.

Then for those who want it, people can purchase supplemental insurance from private companies for comprehensive coverage. This would cover for things like drugs and routine doctor visits.

Now getting back to the provider-side of the equation, with increased competition -- there'd be a dramatic improvement in the overall economy. We'd be having a type of explosion in GDP within the health-care sector, lower prices for the consumer -- hence affordability.

Capitalism works wonderfully for the computer/technology market. Consumers can afford high-tech gadgets at extremely affordable prices. This is what we want for health-care. Free enterprise is the answer.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Healthcare Scam

Buying healthcare is not the same thing as buying healthcare insurance. ObamaCare forces people to use private insurance as the vehicle to purchase healthcare.

Why is healthcare so expensive? The answer is simple. The healthcare providers were purposely designing themselves to become an oligopoly … so as to guarantee obscene profits. During the early 1900’s, the Rockefellers closed half the medical schools in the U.S.A. This reduced the supply of doctors in the marketplace, thus creating the conditions for super expensive healthcare. (Without competition, prices can stay high.)

Our healthcare system is a scam. We are being forced to use insurance as a mechanism to pay for the inflated costs of healthcare. The government uses overly stringent licensing requirements and red tape to limit the number of healthcare providers. Of course, this is precisely what the providers want … a captive customer.

The lobbyists for the healthcare industry had their fingerprints all over the place in the ObamaCare legislation. This bill was to benefit them, the providers … whereas the healthcare consumer is getting screwed big time.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Palin Tale

Once upon a time, there was a princess named Sarah Palin. She decided to tour the country. In a big bus, she went from village to village, visiting with the peasants.

In one town, a naughty boy named Ed Rollins taunted the princess for her lack of seriousness. He was the son of a nice lady, named Michele Bachmann. So what did Sarah do? She invited Ms. Bachmann into the bus.

Then they drove on. Upon arrival to a large castle, they met this king, Ted Turner. The people in the entourage cheered heartily. Then Ms. Bachmann invited Mr. Turner, "Come, let's roll on down the highway!" He agreed. (They went into overdrive.)

Then the trip ended. Sarah wanted to become queen. She chose Ron Paul as her partner. But she had an enemy rival. A prince, named Obama, connived with his brother Romney to put a spell on her. But Sarah became queen, anyway.

The neocons were happy. They thought they could control Sarah as a puppet. "We need a new war!," they shouted. "The kingdom in Arabia has great riches."

Queen Sarah got mad, "I quit!" So she resigned her post as "governor." Thus Ron Paul succeeded her to the throne. This was the beginning of the Ron Paul Revolution. Young lads enrolled in schools to learn "Austrian economics."

A gallant knight, by the name of Donald Trump, unleashed his sword upon the healthcare oligarchs. "In the name of the lord, and in honor of Teddy Roosevelt ... let the others in!" Thereafter, more boys and girls were allowed into the clubhouse. They all played doctor. But it got so crowded, new clubhouses were built -- tagged as charter hospitals. The monopoly was broken!

A jester, named Paul Ryan, jumped up and down in delight. He convinced the other kids to accept vouchers for admission into their clubhouses.

Meanwhile, the beloved Sarah Palin, she was sailing the seven seas in her boat -- christened as, "The One World Tour." So everyone lived happily ever after.

Bachman Turner Overdrive ... "Roll on Down the Highway"

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Socialism vs. Liberty

Corporate socialism is a war against consumers and small businesses. Progressive libertarianism is a war against corporate monopolies.

Separation of Corporation and State

I am against privatization of government agencies. We need a separation of corporation and state. When we have an unholy union between big government and big business, we have rampant corruption.

In the case of Iraq, private contractors were paid ungodly sums of money for doing the work that the military should have been doing. The “no bid” contracts being awarded to such corporations as Blackwater and Haliburton involved the transfer of public moneys into the hands of private companies in obscene $ amounts.

This Iraq War contributed to the squandering of the U.S. Treasury. George W. Bush turned the budget surpluses of the Clinton Administration into budget deficits. A good portion of that public money went into the pockets of the war profiteers.

Read about the aftermath of the Iraq War in the following link.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Monday, June 6, 2011

Provide-Side Economics must be Addressed

In the realm of healthcare, we have the suppliers versus the providers. The suppliers are the insurance companies which supply the customers to the providers (hospitals, doctors, nurses, medical device manufacturers, drug companies, etc.). With the aging of the baby boomers, we have the increased demand for underwriting from the insurance suppliers, thus decreasing their profits. Concurrently, we have an increased demand for services from the providers, thus increasing their profits.

Unfortunately, the providers being flush with money, have greater lobbying clout with Congress. Meanwhile, the suppliers are in the losing end of the stick -- yet still had enough clout to have demanded the individual mandate to be part of ObamaCare and RomneyCare. These healthcare reform bills were, in essence, a bailout of the insurance industry. But unfortunately, the private sector insurance companies (for healthcare) may eventually become extinct.

In order to save the supply-side of healthcare from its demise, the provide-side sector must be more firmly addressed. The corrupting influence of lobbyists and money from the providers had skewed ObamaCare and RomneyCare too heavily in their favor, and not enough in favor of the insurance industry. These "reforms" have been crafted with new laws and regulations that will exacerbate the oligopoly status of the providers. With less competition at the provider end, the price of healthcare will increase ... and the quality of care will suffer. If prices are capped, then there will be rationing.

When there is a limited amount of providers, it does not matter whether we have government insurance or if we have several private insurers -- the suppliers will be under the mercy of the providers. There will be an increased demand for care while the shortage of care becomes acute. This is a recipe for hyperinflation, bankruptcy for the private insurers, sky-high taxes for the American citizen, increased government debt, and the rationing of care.

The bozos in Washington D.C. are being duped into paying too much attention to the supply-side of healthcare (i.e. insurance reform) without being tough on the providers. We need a Teddy Roosevelt type of figure (like Donald Trump who does not bow down to anyone) and would then bust up the healthcare monopoly (on the provider side) ... or a Sarah Palin who had the guts to face up to the oil companies in Alaska (whereas the establishment Republicans were stooges for that industry).

The Ryan Plan for Medicare reform will not work if we continue to have an oligarchic system of healthcare at the provider end. The American Hospital Industry (AHA) are scoundrels in having crafted the ObamaCare legislation to include the severe restrictions against physician-owned hospitals. We need more hospitals in the marketplace, not less! Likewise, we need more medical schools and more doctors -- to hell with the AMA should they thwart this needed goal.

Please visit my related blog ...

Mitt Romney is worse than Obama

According to **The New Yorker** (“Romney’s Dilemma,” June 6, 2011) Mitt Romney was the mastermind of not only “MassCare” but also a key player behind the scenes for ObamaCare’s creation.

“If it were not for Mitt Romney, with assistance from the Heritage Foundation and George W. Bush, it is extremely unlikely that Obama would have passed his universal health-care law last year.” [Page 42 of the printed edition of **The New Yorker** (June 6, 2011)]

A choice between Romney and Obama is no choice at all! Hence, we need a third-party candidate (like Sarah or Trump) to give us voters a real alternative.

Saturday, June 4, 2011

The Insurance Highway

Imagine if all our roads and highways were owned by a few oligarchic insurance companies. For those of us with cars and bicycles, we must purchase an insurance plan to gain access to the roadway system. With one insurance company, you can use only certain roads within the network. (You will be denied permission -- or pay a hefty toll -- when using the other company's roadway system.)

This is how our healthcare insurance system is set up. With a comprehensive policy covering routine care, you are limited to the doctors within the network, and denied access (or pay out of pocket) to those outside of the network.

We have a horrible debt crisis. So if Paul Ryan were President, maybe he'd be calling for the privatization of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Then the federal government will hold a public auction. The Interstate Highway System would be sold off to the highest bidder. The remaining roads would be given as block grants to the states, for them to auction off.

Then for those of us with cars and bicycles, we will need to purchase a road insurance plan. But not to worry, Paul Ryan will provide us with taxpayer-funded vouchers (in the form of premium supports) to help pay for the expensive insurance.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Why Healthcare is so Expensive

If healthcare were truly based on free market principles, there would be no need for individual mandates! Why? Because healthcare would be extremely affordable.

It would be like going to the grocery store to do some shopping. (You do not rely on an insurance company to negotiate prices with the food providers; you do not use an insurance plan to pay for all your grocery bills; you are not under the mercy of an insurance policy that will ration your food consumption patterns.)

The problem with both ObamaCare and RomneyCare is that they do nothing to increase the supply of doctors in the marketplace. Instead it merely increases the demand for doctors. This is a recipe for disastrous inflation of healthcare costs for the consumer.

And did you know the Rockefellers (during the early 20th century) were instrumental in limiting the supply of doctors and medical schools … which is contributing to the extremely high prices for healthcare today? That’s why we “need” insurance for routine care (and for catastrophic care, too).

A Person's Defense of RomneyCare

While I am an opponent of RomneyCare, I would like for you to read the post by a supporter of RomneyCare at a discussion thread in the FrumForum. 

Be Brave and Speak Out

I encourage you all to exercise your right to free speech. Whatever your beliefs, do not be afraid to express them. Instead of helplessly watching events transpire around you, become proactive and take calculated risks to influence outcomes for the better. As with every enterprise ... there will be failures, there will be successes.

Start your own blog. Network with others; participate in their blogs, too. Debate ideas.

Please keep in mind that it is too easy to get into the trap of demonizing people (like those in the ruling class) as  some kind of evil monsters. In my case, it would be the personae of President Obama, Senator Paul Ryan, and Governor Mitt Romney. Yet they or their associates may be reading my blog. (Wishful thinking.) Nevertheless, the whole world can read my posts. I must be careful not to get too nasty when writing about the three bogeymen.* [see note]

While I am critical of these folks, I must have a dose of humility. What if I were President? Might I break campaign promises, too? If I were a Senator, might I be heavily influenced by the insurance lobby, too? If I were the governor of Massachusetts, might I have been deceived into accepting Ted Kennedy's healthcare reform, too?** [see note]

Yet, I would hope the people in power to read blogs like mine. I want these types to feel at least a little connected with those of us in Middle America. Otherwise, they would be blinded by their own circle of elitist friends and yes-men. As an example of cultural disconnect ... candidate Obama had once stated, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest ... it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion ..."

In contrast, you then have a Sarah Palin who does connect with ordinary folk. But because she doesn't act elitist, she gets trashed by the haute personalities in corporate media (like Katie Couric).

Participation in blogs is a safety valve for ordinary citizens. It allows us to express our opinions and our frustrations to the world. It also allows us to network with like-minded citizens. Lastly, it exposes us to alternative viewpoints via our interactions with those of an alien ideology. (We learn from one another.)

[Additional notes]

*   Big brother is watching!

** Actually, I later found out Mitt Romney was not duped by Kennedy. Governor Romney was the mastermind of MassCare ... more so than Kennedy. (Info was derived from The New Yorker's full article, "Romney's Dilemma." Abstract at ...

Thursday, June 2, 2011

An Independent will Win in 2012

It would be a most interesting Presidential campaign, if we were to have the establishment candidates of Barack Obama for the Democrats and Mitt Romney for the Republicans -- plus a strong independent running against the other two. Imagine if that independent were a Sarah Palin or a Donald Trump!

The independent candidate will win. Here's why:

1) Both political parties are poison right now. (Congress has extremely low approval ratings.)

2) A Palin or a Trump will suck votes away from both Obama and Romney.

3) Though Palin and Trump are flawed figures (we are all sinners, after all), their blemishes pale in comparison to that of Obama or Romney.

4) Palin had run against the establishment GOP candidate in Alaska and won the primary, eventually becoming governor.

5) Palin was actually a good governor, popular with Democrats, too. (Please read the Atlantic magazine article; link is at the bottom of this post.)

6) Trump has a strong business background. Capitalism is not evil. In a free society, voluntary organizations such as civic groups, charitable foundations, religious institutes -- and the fundamental unit of family -- all combine together to supplement capitalism that will restore prosperity and preserve liberty. (Otherwise, socialism will fill the void.)

7) With either Trump or Palin as an independent, neither can be labeled as extremists of the left and the right. The extremism that currently exists in America is the statism of the Democrat and Republican parties propped up by corporate money, banking interests, the insurance industry, big PhRMA etc. The Dems and the GOP serve the interests of Wall Street ... not Main Street. It is Orwellian propaganda that purveys the myth of Middle American values to be "extremism."

8) The American people were betrayed, when Obama promised transparency in the healthcare debate. He had also promised not to have lobbyists in his administration. Another lie.

9) Mitt Romney cannot be trusted over the issue of healthcare reform, either. His flip flops are not genuine; they are politically motivated. He advocated his Massachusetts healthcare reform plan as the paradigm for the nation, of which ObamaCare eventually became reality.

10) Paul Ryan may yet vanquish himself. With Palin or Trump in the White House, we will have an open debate as to the merits (or failures) of Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform Plan. (It will not be rammed down our throats like ObamaCare.)

11) I had been among the guilty, having made fun out of a Trump or Palin ticket. But either of them would be formidable against an Obama and Romney twofer. It wouldn't just be show business; this will be the real McCoy. (Remember when Ronald Reagan was underestimated as being merely a movie actor?)

12) Sarah's "shrill" voice belies her intelligence. She doesn't spend time reading romance novels; she instead studies the serious issues facing America. The elites in Washington may think she's a country hick, stupid and unsophisticated. Nothing can be further from the truth!

13) Palin is not as likely to win a majority in a two-way race between her and Obama, but she has an excellent chance to win a plurality in a three-way race of Obama, Romney, and herself.

14) A Trump-Huckabee ticket might be even better than a Palin ticket. (Sarah would then play an auxiliary, supporting role.)

15) Whom would you prefer ... the lies and broken promises of our beloved figure of Obama? Or would you prefer the slick spinmeister of Mitt Romney? Both are the darlings of the establishment. Let's have some real alternatives for a change.

Healthcare Bill of Rights

1) There must be equal protection under the law.

2) There must be respect for people's individual liberties.

3) There must not be obstacles in the way (i.e. insurance or government agencies) undermining the doctor/patient relationship.

4) There must be the freedom to choose one's own doctor.

5) There must be a break in the linkage between employment and the choice of healthcare and/or insurance.

6) There must be an increase in competition amongst the healthcare **providers** that will lower prices for the healthcare consumer. (Current regulations restrict competition via the licensing laws, the "ban" on doctor-owned hospitals and the limited number of medical schools.)

7) There must be the freedom for insurance companies to charge lower premiums to individuals who lead a healthy lifestyle (i.e. for those who keep their weight down, exercise, eat right, etc.)

8) There must be the freedom for individuals to purchase insurance from across state lines.

9) There must be tort reform.

10) There must not be an individual mandate for **comprehensive** insurance. (If there is to be a mandate, it should be in the form of a high-deductible **catastrophic** coverage or in the form of a flat tax.)

Monday, May 30, 2011

RyanCare is "Corporate Welfare"

Paul Ryan claims to be for "free markets." His Medicare reform plan is not based on the free market; it is based on the corporatist model akin to ObamaCare and RomneyCare.

Taxpayer's money will be used to subsidize private insurance companies (via premium supports). The government will then decide which companies would qualify for this subsidy. The laws and regulations crafted for this RyanCare will be heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists. Just as in ObamaCare (where we had the Corn Husker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Gator Aid), there will be corruption. Ordinary Americans, who do not have powerful lobbyists representing them, will be out of the loop. (The politicians tell lies when campaigning, then break their promises once elected.)

The "corporate socialism" (being espoused by the likes of Paul Ryan, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney) isn't good for the healthcare consumer. What is needed is more competition. The oligopoly status of the healthcare providers is aided and abetted by regulatory capture, discouraging new players from entering into the marketplace. The powerful American Hospital Association (AHA) does not want competition from the physician-owned hospitals. The ObamaCare bill was written to AHA's favor.

What is needed for the consumer is an unleashing of "charter" hospitals to enter into the healthcare field. This will help break the back of the AHA stranglehold against the new innovators who'd provide us with better care at lower prices.

The corporate monopolies do not want competition. They hate capitalism! These companies want to retain monopoly status and use socialism as a mechanism to thwart smaller businesses from invading their turf (via overly restrictive licensing requirements, for instance).

Another problem is the people's addiction to comprehensive insurance for routine care. Imagine how expensive food would be if we relied on insurance to pay for all our grocery bills. We shoppers wouldn't bother clipping coupons or pay attention to prices anymore. We simply wouldn't care ... because insurance pays for everything! (This would cause price distortions to market behavior -- costs would skyrocket.)

The problem with RyanCare, ObamaCare, and RomneyCare ... is that it further strengthens our addiction to insurance for routine care. And it weakens our empowerment over our own healthcare decisions. The doctor doesn't work for you, the patient -- he works for the insurance company. This undermines the doctor-patient relationship. In corporatized medicine, we simply become "a number."

Personalized care is gone, being replaced by standardized care. This is what to expect for our future. Tragic!

For a related article on charter hospitals:

To read more on the problems with comprehensive insurance (as opposed to catastrophic):

To read more on the problem with RyanCare:

Sunday, May 29, 2011

The Elites vs. Progressives & Libertarians

Think of American politics as being a battle being waged by three groups fighting against one another:

1) Libertarian Conservatives
2) Progressive Liberals
3) Corporate Elites

The corporate elites have succeeded to reign supreme over the other two factions by distracting the American people with issues of “left” versus “right.” As a consequence, we have big business in cahoots with big government — otherwise known as “corporate socialism.”

The progressive liberals hate the “corporatism” of government, but they love the socialism.

The libertarian conservatives hate the “socialism” of government, but they love the capitalism.

So basically, the progressives and the libertarians have a common enemy — corporate fascism. But the progressives believe the solution is more government (i.e. “democratic socialism.”) Whereas the libertarians believe the solution is less government — thus depriving the corporate behemoth its partner in crime.

Consumer Empowerment for Seniors on Medicare

The baby boomers have been paying Medicare taxes for several decades. Now the senior citizens, who are currently enrolled in Medicare Part B, are limited to seeing only those doctors who contract with Medicare. But the doctors get reimbursed with less money from the Medicare insurance versus from the other patients with private insurance (for equivalent service). Thus, more and more doctors are opting out of Medicare.

So the patient on Medicare Part B may want to privately contract with a physician who doesn't accept Medicare. But that senior citizen would have to pay for the full cost of care from out of pocket, with 0% reimbursement from Medicare. Otherwise, with a shrinking pool of doctors still accepting Medicare, the patient would be forced to go to a crowded clinic of old folks, waiting for care from the "Medicare" doctor.

The Medicare Patient Empowerment Act would solve this problem. If passed in Congress and signed by the President, the person on Medicare Part B would be allowed to privately contract with the doctor to pay a surcharge on top of the puny reimbursement from Medicare. (Remember, the doctor makes more money from private insurance reimbursement than from Medicare reimbursement.)

Otherwise, the senior citizen on Medicare would be relegated as pariahs for healthcare. The doctor wants to make money. Treating younger people with private insurance is more lucrative for primary care physicians. Meanwhile, ObamaCare in its present form, exacerbates the payment differential between Medicare versus private insurance on reimbursement rates to healthcare providers. (The Independent Payment Advisory Board -- or IPAB -- is a 15-member panel that will be authorizing caps to Medicare spending. The IPAB will worsen the quality of care for senior citizens.)

Below are the links, for more info:

Paul Ryan has an important ally ... Bill Clinton!

“Former president Bill Clinton and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan were unwittingly caught on camera at an event discussing Medicare cuts.”

Saturday, May 28, 2011

ObamaCare is not good for New Hampshire

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations." [James Madison]

The above quote is displayed in the masthead of the blog America's Watchtower. (Despite the name, the blog has no affiliation with Jehovah's Witness. The writer is a conservative who lives in Kingston, New Hampshire.)

Concerning the issue of the ObamaCare waivers, its lack of equal protection, and the impact upon the state of New Hampshire ... please visit the link below.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Lively Discussion on Healthcare Reform

Please visit the blog webpage "HBO Takes on Wall Street" and read the comments section afterward. It evolves into an informative debate on healthcare reform. Rabiner and I really go after one another ... but in a civil manner.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Flat Tax for Healthcare

Money we are forced to pay to the government is called a tax. Money we are forced to pay to the insurance company is called a premium payment. If we were to think of the insurance company as the government, then we’d call the “premium payment” a “tax.”

So think of Obamacare and Romneycare as examples of a mandate to pay a regressive tax into the governing authority called private insurance. I say its regressive … because a middle class person pays a much higher percent of his income for the premium than a wealthy person.

So instead of this regressive tax into the insurance cartel, why not a flat tax instead? Many right-wing conservatives preach the virtues of the flat tax as the Holy Grail. So why not?

Monday, May 16, 2011

Divide and Conquer

I do not trust either the Republican party or the Democrat party. We need a constitutional convention to address the needs of ordinary Americans.

The unholy alliance of Big Government and Big Business is destroying the middle class. The Democrats use identity politics to divide and conquer; the Republicans use the culture wars to divide and conquer; the corporate elites use money and lobbyists aimed at both parties as their form of divide and conquer.

Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plan is a perfect example of divide and conquer. He is pitting the baby boomers born 1956 and earlier against the boomers born 1957 and later. The one group gets full Medicare benifits; the other group gets thrown into the arms of the insurance cartel.

[The above text happens to be my posted comment in the FrumForum. The link is below.]

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Changes to Medicare

[Note: Capitation means setting caps to Medicare reimbursement rates.]
The Medicare cuts involving capitation would result in healthcare providers to prefer younger patients with private insurance — more money to be made off of them. Already, the Mayo Clinic here in Glendale, Arizona rejects Medicare patients.
A solution, to empower Medicare patients from the negative consequences of capitation, is the Medicare Patient Empowerment Act. This will allow the Medicare recipient to pay extra money out of his/her own pocket to the provider … to help boost the stingy Medicare reimbursement and equalize it to the market price levels. Otherwise, the elderly will become pariahs and be viewed as indigents by the healthcare providers.
Already, the kidney dialysis patients — under Medicare — receive horrible treatment. The Atlantic magazine did an exposé on this in the December 2010 issue. With the capping of Medicare reimbursement rates, the quality of care will only worsen.
Below are the links:
The Medicare Patient Empowerment Act (bill’s summary) …
“God Help You. You’re on Dialysis” …


The above text was written by me in the FrumForum as a comment in response to an article written by Eli Lehrer.

"McConnell Gets a Chance for Medicare Cuts" 

Friday, May 13, 2011

The Oligopolies of Education and Healthcare

The oligopolies within healthcare -- hospitals, drug companies, and insurance -- are analogous to the teachers' unions. They resist competition. With their power and influence, they use the Federal Government to help maintain their monopoly status.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) has succeeded in having gotten the Obamacare law to severely restrict the operation and construction of physician-owned hospitals within the communities. Likewise, the teachers' unions have been lobbying against charter schools from being able to operate within their turf.

Yet for the consumer, higher satisfaction ratings have been expressed for the smaller physician-owned hospitals (vs. the giant corporate hospitals) and for the charter schools (vs. the traditional public schools). The oligarchs oppose capitalism because they hate competition.

The drug companies also want to maintain their monopoly status. The Obamacare law includes the provision to continue the ban on prescription drugs from Canada. The law also includes the deal to provide seniors on Medicare Part D with subsidies for brand name drugs, not the cheaper generics.

The oligarchy of healthcare providers fosters the American people's dependence on comprehensive insurance for routine care. With an oligopoly thwarting competition, prices are sky-high. The consumer then cedes power to the insurance company who'll make decisions on his/her behalf -- negotiating prices with the providers and deciding whether or not to provide care.

Just as parents who want better education at lower prices (and want charter schools in their neighborhoods) ... we healthcare consumers must demand the allowance of charter hospitals (like doctor-owned hospitals), charter healthcare clinics (which accept cash payments from the uninsured), and a stronger voice of our own regarding healthcare reform.

President Obama had broken his promise to conduct the negotiating and crafting of healthcare reform in an atmosphere of transparency (and be broadcast live on C-span). He instead did it behind closed doors; the participants were the oligarchs of the healthcare industry.

By the way, read the article about the education monopoly, the teachers' unions, the resistance to true reform, etc. in the latest Atlantic magazine.

"The Atlantic" Magazine

The Atlantic is a centrist magazine that has been publishing excellent articles on the topic of healthcare over the past several years. Below are two examples.

On the government boondoggle of the Medicare kidney dialysis program:

On America's addiction to comprehensive insurance for routine healthcare:

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Finland harboring terrorists?

Pastor Juha Molari has been defrocked by the State Lutheran Church of Finland, because of having criticized the Kavkaz Center as being a terrorist organization inside Finland. The Kavkaz Center is an Islamic group, promoting jihad against Russia on behalf of Chechen Rebels. (The Kavkaz website server had been kicked out of other countries, before finding a refuge in Finland to host its site.)

This is currently causing friction between the governments of Russia and Finland. Listen to Russian television:
An earlier broadcast is:
The Russian Pravda newspaper reports:

The print version of a web page of the Kavkaz site urging Muslim rebels to fight for Allah is:
Another web page excoriates President Obama for the assassination of Osama bin Laden:

Please keep in mind, both the Russian news and the Kavkaz content disseminate propaganda. And also be aware that Juha Molari is affiliated with Johan Bäckman, a neo-Stalinist Finn who is also a Russophile. Meanwhile, Finland itself is a socialist country.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Obamacare is Bailout for Insurance Industry

Obamacare is a government bailout for the insurance industry, based on a Ponzi scheme. As with Medicare, Social Security and [defined-benefit] pensions -- the healthcare insurance market suffers from a shrinking pool of healthy, young clients coexisting with a ballooning of sick, aging baby boomers. This is a recipe for fiscal collapse (i.e. for the insurance bubble to burst).

As George W. Bush had advocated the ownership society, as Bill Clinton had pressured Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to offer sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn't afford a home -- Barack Obama is mandating expensive comprehensive insurance upon the financially-squeezed middle class, whereas the low income people will be relegated to the Medicaid ghetto. This will add millions of new customers to the private insurance companies -- with taxpayers' subsidies in the form of premium support payments. (Isn't this also Paul Ryan's plan in his proposal to "privatize" Medicare?!)

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are beholden to the private insurance industry. With Obamacare in place, we American citizens are forced to participate in this Ponzi scheme via the individual mandate.

But as the housing bubble had burst a few years ago, the insurance bubble will burst within a decade. Obamacare and RyanCare will be the new Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

RomneyCare is a Failure

The health care "reform" bill for Massachusetts that Gov. Mitt Romney had signed into law in 2006 is a failure. Today, with everybody forced to buy insurance in that state, the "universal" coverage has resulted in a severe shortage of primary care physicians. There are long waiting lines to see a doctor. And now, more than before, folks are swamping the emergency rooms of hospitals to receive care. Please visit the links below:

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

My Criticism of Ryancare

I had written a review for on the book Why Obamacare is Wrong for America. Here is the excerpt, concerning the authors' endorsement of Ryancare.


But there is one section that befouls the book. It is the key chapter, "What we should do instead to get reform right." The authors endorse "The Ryan Roadmap." They claim it'll put the consumer in charge of his own health care, not the government.

Actually, the Ryan Roadmap does not do that! The individual would be given a voucher, not for health care at his own choosing, but for the insurance company that will be his new master. In other words, the Ryan plan merely perpetuates the third party payer system (which acts as a gatekeeper between the health care consumer and the health care provider.)

Paul Ryan wants to preserve original Medicare for those born in 1956 or earlier. But for those born 1957 or later, we will be expected to purchase private insurance (with these "premium support" vouchers.) What insurance company would sell policies to old sick people?! It'd be like expecting homeowner's insurance to be sold to a person whose house is guaranteed to burn down within a decade or less.

The authors, Grace-Marie Turner, James C. Capretta, Thomas P. Miller, and Robert E. Moffit -- together with their hero Paul Ryan -- should read the article "How American Healthcare Killed my Father" in the Sept. 2009 issue of The Atlantic magazine. (Insurance, by definition, is for catastrophe, not routine care!)


Ryan's Plan Becoming More Unpopular

As reported in Frum Forum News, Paul Ryan's plan is becoming more unpopular. Please visit the link below:

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

More on Paul Ryan's Plan

 Please click onto the link below to read a blog by Brad Schaeffer in the Frum Forum. Particularly, be sure to read the interesting thread discussion below it.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Computer Care

Warning: This is a parody.

During the 1940's, the United States was at war against the Axis powers of Japan, Italy, and Germany. There was inflation in the domestic economy. President Franklin D. Roosevelt imposed price controls on goods, services, and pay. Shortages of commodities thus ensued. Roosevelt, to combat the shortages, then imposed rationing of food and certain essentials.

Because corporations were prohibited from raising pay to entice new job applicants, many of these companies then used the gimmick of providing free computer care as the enticement. The "computers" handed out to the workers were of two types: the abacus and the adding machine. Whenever an employee's gadget broke, the company would fix it for free.

During the 1950's, financiers got excited and started insurance agencies to underwrite adding machines. The Federal Government gave tax breaks to corporations that willingly provided computer care insurance to its employees.

By the 1960's, employee benefits often included families (i.e. the worker's spouse and the children, too). Soon, it became commonplace to see these adding machines on children's desks in school.

When Lyndon Johnson was president, he signed into law Gadgetcare, the single-payer computer care for senior citizens. Now old people can be part of the action. The Gadgetcare brochures from the Federal Government depict geezers as number crunchers, happy with their little machines.

By the 1970's, the computer care policies now included calculators. They became popular with young children; so the grade school teachers quit drilling the kids to learn their multiplication tables. Why is it necessary to memorize that 7 x 9 = 63 ... when the calculator does it for you?

Whoop-de-doo! The 1980's is the decade of the PC revolution. Computer care suddenly became expensive. The insurance industry needed to adapt to this changing environment.

A new entity arose -- the Computer Maintenance Organization. These CMOs ration computer care to its customers. Depending on the plan, an individual may be limited to only owning a calculator; another may own the latest PC. But unfortunately, the CMO makes the decision as to what kind, color, size computer you'd receive.

For the following decades, various interest groups sought special favors from the Federal Government. It was primarily a battle between the computer insurers and the computer providers. The ordinary citizenry, meanwhile, were spectators and susceptible to propaganda from both sides of the conflict.

The Federation of American Royal Computer Analysts, a lobbying group (known as FARCA), represents the interests of prescription software manufacturers. They have a heavy influence upon the Font and Code Association (the FCA) which is the Federal regulatory agency that approves and disapproves the release of new software.

Big FARCA has succeeded in persuading both Democrat and Republican lawmakers to continue the ban of cheap software from Canada. Without the competition, American software makers can charge exorbitantly high prices.

Under pressure from FARCA, Congress also passed a bill outlawing Open Source software. As an example, the GIMP software application is now declared illegal because it is "unlicensed." The proprietary product Footychop of Stucco, Inc. has just gained monopoly status. (Likewise, the web browser Firefox is banned by the government; only Internet Explorer and Safari are allowed for the people.)

Both computer hardware and software are extremely complex for ordinary Americans to understand. Thus, the need for:

     1) Computer Care Insurance
     2) Computer Doctors
     3) Government Regulators

The lay person does not have to think for himself; the other players do the thinking for him.

When a person needs a new computer, the clinic provider (as authorized by the insurance company) will send one of its general practice geeks to the person's home. First, this geek will perform some expensive tests on the old computer. Then the geek will conduct a psychosocial examination of his human client. According to guidelines from the insurance company, the client gets a navy blue computer if he's a macho man, a pink computer if she's a dainty lady, a rainbow computer if he's a homosexual, a psychedelic computer if he's an aging hippie.

Likewise, an I.Q. test is to be administered upon the client. Should he score high, then the new computer will have 100 gigabytes of memory in the hard drive;  low scorers are relegated to having only 10 gigabytes. If the psychological test reveals him to be sociable, then Facebook, Twitter, and should be part of the software package. If he is the restless type, then fast action games need to be included.

The psychosocial examination must be done very carefully! Otherwise, the human client may hire a tort lawyer to sue for computer malpractice.

The uninsured folk cannot legally own computers or software. But they can purchase these products from the black market.

March 2009, President Obama signed into law the United Socialist Computer Care Act. This draconian measure will authorize the IRS to enforce the individual mandate -- by the year 2014, every American citizen will be forced to purchase computer insurance.

In the Obama administration, the Code and Computer Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has appointed a "Juan Perón" as the new Computer Czar. He will dictate the price, quality, and rationing of widgets for our computer care.

By executive order, Obama has declared LINUX as an illegal operating system. The American consumer has only two choices, MACOSX or Windows.

Kathleen Sebelius has been busy, making lists and picking winners vs. losers. There are two code categories: illegal language and government-approved language. A few examples are listed below:

JavaScript ... Illegal                              Jscript ... Approved
LISP ... Illegal                                        AppleScript ... Approved
REALbasic ... Illegal                            Visual Basic ... Approved
Java ... Illegal                                        C# ... Approved
Ruby ... Illegal                                      Objective-C ... Approved

Of interest, the United States government has accused Mr. X, the creator of Ruby, of being a "software pirate." Mr. X has refused to denounce the Ruby language; his protégés in the U.S.A. (and in Asia) continue to use it in their computers. (Ruby on Rails, one of its applications, remains popular.)

In retaliation, Kathleen Sebelius has dispatched the United Nations Code Law Enforcers (known as UNCLE) to collaborate with Interpol and go arrest Mr. X (who is hiding in the Far East somewhere).

Meanwhile, the software cartels in Mexico are fighting for supremacy among themselves. The smuggling of illegal software into the United States is extremely profitable. The uninsured Americans (without computer care) are hungry for cheap, illicit software.

Likewise, the underground computer economy in the U.S.A. has generated a crop of illegal programmers who write code without a license. The Federal law dictates that only graduates of the computational schools and who have passed the American Code Association exam are allowed to write computer code.

The United Socialists Computer Care Act (that Obama signed into law) does not address the computer doctor shortage. The American Code Association (ACA) has always lobbied to limit the number of computational schools and the number of graduates, so as to limit the number of computer doctors in the marketplace -- with a shortage of these geeks, they can then charge super high prices to their clients (because there "ain't no competition.")

Another flaw in Obama's computer reform measure is the use of Federal funds to finance porn on demand. For decades, there has been heated rhetoric over porno rights. On one side is the National Organization for Men (NOM) and on the other side is the Christian Right. Back in the early 1970's, the Supreme Court Decision in Bro versus Vade, the justices ruled that men have the fundamental right to pornography. This generated a backlash and the pro-family movement began.

Then during the Obama Computer Care debate, a significant number of pro-family Democrats (in the House) balked at supporting the bill. They were against the use of Federal funds to be used in insurance plans that provide pornography software into the men's computers.

President Obama solved this impasse by promising the pro-family Democrats that he'll issue an "executive order" to contradict the language of the bill. Therefore, the militant masculinists of the NOM organization became furious at Obama. (The Planned Manhood clinics across the country also joined the fray.)

Yet another flaw in the bill is the unfair advantage given toward labor unions. Many have what's called Cadillac plans. Because the insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines, the monopoly firms (like United CompuCare and BlueCode BlueLaw) offer only Windows PCs or only Apple Computers -- but not both simultaneously. Now with those people belonging to labor unions, many of them have luxury insurance plans that dish out both Windows and Apples! This will continue under the new law.

The computer market is a big mess. The new reform law will not solve anything. The American people do not know how to shop for computers; they do not know how to negotiate prices with the providers. It's the insurance company that does everything. Thus, the typical client does not know how to think for himself.

The few who dare to think for themselves, face the wrath of the Federal Government. These citizens are labeled as pirates. They use illegal programming languages; they write code without a license.

The Code Enforcement Agency (CEA) and the SWAT teams are busting down doors, raiding people's computers to see if there's any Open Source software such as Gimp or Firefox.

Welcome folks! This is corporate socialism for you.