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."