tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1398861888677538322024-03-13T07:43:53.890-07:00Neither Left nor RightKelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-86734082674343168832013-06-09T16:09:00.000-07:002013-06-09T16:09:05.795-07:00My Dream of being "Trapped in Vietnam"We soldiers, both male and female, are penned inside a conference hall within a large building in Saigon. It is very crowded. No chairs. No tables. Standing room only.<br />
<br />
Mitt Romney had been elected president. His stated policy is to keep all of the US troops in Vietnam. "The war will never end."<br />
<br />
Huddled against the corner are a small group of visitors from the Tea Party delegation. They are very sad, reminiscing how candidate Newt Gingrich had made it a top priority to "bring the troops home." But because Romney is now our president, "the troops stay in Vietnam."<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, we soldiers are in a state of starvation. Inside my clothes, I have hidden gobs of rice for emergency food.<br />
<br />
Ann Romney happens to be visiting with us soldiers. She sees our anger, desperation, and hunger. To appease us, she forcibly administers a spoonful of rice into the mouths of each individual. She doesn't use a clean spoon, but reuses the same one for each person she feeds.<br />
<br />
I panic, trying to hide from her. Each time she moves closer, I jostle through the crowds to move away.<br />
<br />
In an adjacent hallway happens to be a cohort of civilians walking in a marched formation. Here's my chance to escape out of Vietnam. I have to join those civilians and pretend to be one of them. But then I realized that I'm wearing a military uniform. I must change into civilian clothes. So I happen to find a closet and search for civilian clothes. But the time ran out. It became too late. (Or so I thought.)<br />
<br />
In the conference room, the soldiers practically start to riot. The Romneys feel the heat. On the loudspeaker, we hear an announcement. In a dramatic "about face" .. the White House bows down to pressure, declaring freedom for us soldiers to leave Vietnam.<br />
<br />
<br />
***********************************************************************<br />
<br />
Interpretation of the Dream:<br />
<br />
President Romney is "Barack Obama."<br />
Ann Romney is "Marie Antoinette."<br />
Newt Gingrich is "Ron Paul."<br />
Being trapped in Vietnam is "ObamaCare."<br />
The spoonful of rice is the "individual mandate."<br />
Our hunger is the result of "rationing."Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-22755967753756111072012-11-17T10:48:00.000-08:002012-11-17T10:48:52.103-08:00Swiss View of AmericaLast night, I had a passenger from Zermat, Switzerland. He was a well-educated man, who keeps up-to-date on world events. (He also used to be a skiing buddy of Roger Moore.)<br />
<br />
According to him, the Swiss are very conservative. Looking at American politics, they tend to favor Republicans on economic matters; but favor Democrats on foreign policy.<br />
<br />
The Swiss regarded George W. Bush as a big embarrassment. They did not like his arrogance; they hated his Iraq war policy.<br />
<br />
My passenger stated that the United States accounts for 48% of the military spending in the <b>entire</b> world. He said that it's a joke that the US still has military bases in Germany, when the cold war had ended long ago. But the German people love it, because they're getting money from the United States. He said that the US is bankrupting itself via all the wars it is fighting.<br />
<br />
In Switzerland, everybody has health insurance -- but the people pay the same rate regardless of age. Whereas here in the United States under ObamaCare, older people <b>forced</b> to buy insurance where they're <b>forced</b> to pay 3x higher rates (and possibly 5x higher rates if the insurance cartel succeeds in their lobbying.) My passenger said that Obama (and his corporate allies) want to milk as much money out of the older people as possible.<br />
<br />
He said that in Switzerland, every household has a stockpile of guns and weapons. Young men are compelled to do 3 weeks military training per year, in the militia. There are hardly any full-time militia personnel (primarily officers) -- nearly everyone are the 3 week part-timers. It's all for domestic defense. (Switzerland does not have long-standing armies for foreign conflict.)<br />
<br />
My passenger said that very few Swiss emigrate out of the country. They stay in Switzerland because of the job security and the high pay. Every Swiss worker gets 5 weeks vacation per year. (For young men, it is 8 weeks "vacation" because of the extra 3 weeks for training in the militia.)<br />
<br />
My passenger was astounded that New York has not invested in building underground power lines. The state is like a third-world country, re-erecting above-ground power lines over and over again. So when the next "Sandy" hits, it'll be more misery.<br />
<br />
He said that the middle class is the driver for a prosperous economy. Without a middle class, we then become <b>hopelessly</b> dependent upon the rich --> "who are the cows providing us the milk." But we then kill the cows ~~> No more milk.Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-52268488137602533532012-05-25T13:40:00.000-07:002012-05-25T13:40:42.361-07:00Naomi Wolf is Being Very Honest<div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;">Naomi Wolf's Tweets of May 25, 2012</span> </div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #0c343d;">I have to be honest about something. Some kind of evolution. I do still believe that women can never have social equality, if they can't terminate early in the first trimester. But I have been working and working on torture, extrajudicial killings, rights to freedom, issues of autonomy, issues of control and coercion. And I no longer believe that a fetus further along has no rights. I think it does. Believing otherwise would be terribly inconsistent for me at this point.</div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #0c343d;"> <span style="color: black;">Sources:</span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/206067639699775488" target="_blank">Tweet #1</a> </span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/206067731072692224" target="_blank">Tweet #2</a> </span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/206067830796455939" target="_blank">Tweet #3</a></span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/206067855735795714" target="_blank">Tweet #4</a></span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;">Naomi Wolf is an advocate for liberty and believes in the Constitution. (Her Twitter name is @naomirwolf with the link below.)</span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/naomirwolf" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/#!/naomirwolf</a></span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></div><div style="color: #0c343d;"><span style="color: black;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div>Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-9227608809867116682012-02-24T04:28:00.000-08:002012-02-24T04:28:44.336-08:00A Computer Revolution was Born<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Grassroots Capitalism:</b></div><br />
The counter-culture of the 1960's originally "scorned computers as the embodiment of centralized control," <span style="color: #666666;">[Pg. 58, </span><i style="color: #666666;">Steve Jobs</i><span style="color: #666666;"> by Walter Isaacson]</span>. But eventually, a small contingent of these hippies came to embrace the computer as a possible tool for liberation. Steve Jobs was among them.<br />
<br />
The establishment and the giant corporations were resistant to new ways of thinking. Whereas the younger generation had the propensity to imagine a world not yet in existence. Whether it was Bill Hewlett & Dave Packard in 1939 or Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak in 1976, they were able to make this new world a reality by starting their enterprises within a <b>garage</b>.<br />
<br />
During the early days of <i>Apple Computer</i>, Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak struggled, financially. To raise money, they didn't ask for government handouts. Instead, Jobs sold his Volkswagen bus for $1500 and Wozniak sold his HP 65 calculator for $500 <span style="color: #666666;">[Pg. 62, </span><i style="color: #666666;">Steve Jobs</i><span style="color: #666666;"> by Walter Isaacson]</span>.<br />
<br />
Eventually, <i>Apple Computer</i> became a <b>Fortune 500</b> company. It was through hard work, perseverance, and vision that made it possible.<br />
<br />
This type of capitalism rewards innovation. It also gives people freedom, choice and affordability.<br />
<br />
***********************************************************************<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><b>Top-down Corporatism:</b></div><br />
Now imagine a different scenario. Let's suppose:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>We had a President Mussolini in the White House in 1976. <i> </i></li>
</ul><ul><li><i>IBM</i> were a government-protected monopoly. </li>
</ul><ul><li>There were <i>certificate of need </i>regulations to prevent competition within the high-tech industry. </li>
</ul><ul><li>Government doled out huge subsidies to these corporate behemoths. </li>
</ul><ul><li>It was illegal for the layperson to tinker in computer technology.</li>
</ul><br />
Under the above scenario, Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak would have been arrested for practicing <b>without a license</b> computer<i> hardware & software</i> activities. Plus working in a garage would have been a zoning violation. Furthermore, they had obtained computer components <b>without a prescription</b>.<br />
<br />
Next, President Mussolini signs into law that every American citizen is <b>mandated</b> to buy<i> ComputerCare</i> insurance. His rationale is that without insurance, only the rich can afford computers. Everyone must have <i>universal </i>access.<br />
<br />
This type of corporatist model stifles innovation. It's also a recipe for inflation and rationing. <br />
<br />
***********************************************************************<br />
<br />
Now let's review. Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak had introduced the <i>personal</i> computer. This was something new. Their business had started in a garage. Initially, only computer geeks had any interest in the product. The established corporations were skeptical. But eventually, it became popular with the general public. The computer revolution was thus born.<br />
<br />
***********************************************************************<br />
<br />
<i>Whole Earth Catalog </i>redux:<br />
<br />
<b>Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. No insurance.</b><br />
<br />
Our next wave of liberation shall be <i>personal</i> ownership of #HealthCare. The new "garage" shall be from the home of Kevin Delaney.<br />
<br />
Please follow him at Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/yintercept" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/#!/yintercept</a> <br />
<br />
***********************************************************************Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-91214251699463407932012-02-09T14:55:00.000-08:002012-02-09T14:55:05.677-08:00EducationCare ~ A Hypothetical HistoryOnce upon a time, there was a President named Franklin Roosevelt. He imposed <i>wage and price controls</i> upon industry during the inflationary years of World War II. But companies needed workers. They couldn't attract anybody with the capped wages, so they put into effect a gimmick -- Free EducationCare.<br />
<br />
Subsequently, the Federal Government began to exempt education benefits from taxation. Thus, people became dependent upon their employer for the education of their children. If they lost their job, they then lost their insurance, and their kids couldn't go to school. It was too expensive.<br />
<br />
The premiums for Education Insurance were based on pre-existing conditions. If the person had children, this then meant insurance rates of $500 per month. If the person was childless, then the premiums were only $100 per month. The insurance policies were very generous -- unlimited free education for children AND adults.<br />
<br />
In the 1960's, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law SpryCare and SorryCare. The former was single-payer, government insurance for spry seniors wanting college education. The latter was a state-federal partnership of providing EducationCare for the sorry folks that are poor.<br />
<br />
As a result of these government programs, education costs skyrocketed. People (without good jobs) who didn't qualify for SpryCare or SorryCare were out of luck. Their children couldn't go to school.<br />
<br />
Then during the new century, thanks to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, the government decided to impose an <i>individual mandate</i> to FORCE all Americans to buy EXPENSIVE "education insurance." Liberals screamed, because they wanted <i>single-payer</i> EducationCare. The Tea Party screamed, because they hated the insurance mandate.<br />
<br />
As a result of the groundbreaking "reform" legislation, the insurance companies were no longer allowed to discriminate people by their pre-existing conditions. Therefore, single people now had to pay just as high premiums as families with children. But an allowance was made for age. Since younger people are more likely to go to school, their premiums are allowed to be three times higher than people in their 50's.<br />
<br />
<br />
********************************************************************<br />
<br />
The above scenario exemplifies DEMAND-side, insurance-mandated EducationCare. It is a failed model and does not work. (Just look at HealthCare.)Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-34796031135857363942012-01-21T14:05:00.000-08:002012-01-21T14:05:55.130-08:00The Pharma-Hospital-Insurance ComplexThe exploding cost of healthcare -- as a percentage of GDP in the United States -- is a cancer that is out of control. As of 2010, it was 17.3% of GDP. It's projected to be 19.3% of GDP by 2019.<br />
<br />
The bigger the healthcare sector, the more clout it has in government with respect to lobbying (i.e. bribery). The ObamaCare legislation was crafted behind closed doors -- all to benefit the industrial monopolies.<br />
<br />
Since the Wall Street meltdown of 2008, the United States has been in a biflationary economy. The inflationary sector (i.e. healthcare) has the most money to bribe Congress & the White House. The deflationary sector (i.e. "Main Street") doesn't have this kind of clout. Hence, the federal government will favor the inflationary sector with the subsidies, mandates and monopoly protections. With more money being pumped into the <i>overheated</i> healthcare sector, this actually fuels the inflation of <i>that</i> sector; whereas money is being sucked out of the deflationary sector. This exacerbates the dichotomy between the two economies.<br />
<br />
Government subsidies have the effect of fueling inflationary bubbles. It had happened with housing; it's now happening with healthcare. So when the healthcare bubble bursts, it shall be the aging Baby Boomers who will bear the main brunt. But who cares? The government? The old people will have their care rationed -- just "let them die."<br />
<br />
Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare are immoral. They force citizens to sacrifice their hard-earned income unto middlemen -- insurance companies and government bureaucrats -- who will then control people's healthcare. This is what I term as <i>demand-side, insurance-mandated</i> healthcare. It favors the industry, not the consumers. Likewise, it discriminates against old people with insurance rates three times higher than those of younger people. (In Canada, the healthcare tax is based <i>solely</i> on income.)<br />
<br />
The healthcare oligarchs are greedy. They not only get subsidies and the insurance mandate, they also get the government to provide them monopoly protection via <i>certificate of need</i> (CON) regulations. This guarantees huge profits because these regs eliminate competition. But with the aging of the Baby Boomers, this will spell disaster with runaway inflation -- or with prices capped, then severe rationing.<br />
<br />
What's desperately needed is a new model -- <i>supply-side, consumer-driven </i>healthcare. This is how our foodcare industry is modeled after. There is a proliferation of supermarkets, people buy their own food with their own money -- no insurance required. A person who is poor, does not go into the store (demanding from the grocer) free food. Everybody is expected to pay -- including illegal aliens. Yet we do not live in a country of mass starvation.<br />
<br />
So with healthcare, we need to allow for grassroots capitalism to flourish within the hospital /medical industry. With the aging of the Baby Boomers, there should be no problem, whatsoever, for a proliferation of medical clinics in our neighborhoods -- just like grocery stores. But this cannot happen with the <i>certificate of need</i> regulations limiting the number of hospitals/clinics within neighborhoods.<br />
<br />
Likewise, the <i>Ryan Plan</i> talks of increasing competition for private healthcare <i>insurance</i>; but <b>not</b> for increasing competition of healthcare <i>clinics</i> and <i>hospitals</i>. This will still result in runaway inflation and rationing. The conservatives in Congress are just as retro in mindset as the progressives -- they're trapped in the mindset of <i>comprehensive </i>insurance (as the required medium) for access to <i>routine</i> healthcare. (The only difference is that the conservatives believe in <i>private </i>insurance, whereas the progressives believe in <i>government</i> insurance.)<br />
<br />
Another problem with the <i>Ryan Plan</i> is that it isn't based on "free markets." The insurance will be <i>subsidized</i>. Hence (like that of the subsidies for low-interest loans via Freddie Mac), it will fuel an inflation bubble. Plus the government is then put into the position of picking winners and losers. (Politicians will decide which insurance plans qualify for the the subsidies .. and which will not.) This is a recipe for corruption.<br />
<br />
The reason the insurance model worked okay during the previous decades was that the Baby Boomers were young, whereas the sickly old were few. The Ponzi nature of insurance (including Medicare) was in it's early, benign stage. Now that the Baby Boomers are getting old (with a scarcity of the young to support them), the Ponzi bubble is about to burst.<br />
<br />
<br />
References: (CBS News Website) <a href="http://bit.ly/yVwltd">http://bit.ly/yVwltd</a>Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-75870622892040956092012-01-16T00:38:00.000-08:002012-01-16T00:38:22.811-08:00Canadian HealthCareCanada has a population smaller than the state of California. Yet its socialized medicine is administered at the provincial level -- not at the federal level. (Whereas the United States, with its <b>huge</b> population, the ObamaCare will be administered at the federal level.)<br />
<br />
Each province of Canada has its own version of "Medicare-for-all." In British Columbia, every individual (whose annual income is $28,000 or greater) must pay a flat-tax premium of $57.00 per month -- regardless of age. In Alberta, there is no premium, but merely a progressive tax based <b>solely</b> on income -- again no discrimination based on age. (Under ObamaCare, the <b>mandated</b> insurance will allow insurance rates to be three times higher for the 50's + age group versus the 20's age group.)<br />
<br />
In all the provinces of Canada, the "Medicare-for-all" covers for basic healthcare, routine doctor visits and emergency care. It does not cover optional procedures (like plastic surgery) nor does it cover prescription drugs (except for seniors, who <i>do</i> get drug coverage.) But employers often provide supplemental insurance. These employer-provided plans are often "Cadillac plans," where they can include things like massage therapy and fitness clubs.<br />
<br />
Via my interviews with many Canadian citizens, medical clinics for "emergency care" tend to get overcrowded with young families <i>having only minor ailments</i> (like the common cold). Waits in Ontario can last for 3 to 6 hours.<br />
<br />
Primary care doctors and surgeons (covered under the government) are <i>forbidden</i> to privately contract with patients. In other words, patients are not allowed to pay those doctors for personal care.<br />
<br />
For things like hip-replacement surgery, it may be a wait of several months. But wealthier Canadians often travel to the United States or to Europe to <i>privately</i> contract with a hospital and pay cash out-of-pocket ... to "jump the line" and get instant surgery. (But doing that inside Canada would be strictly forbidden.)<br />
<br />
When ObamaCare gets fully implemented in the United States, healthcare would become two-tiered. The U.S. citizens would be stuck in overcrowded waiting rooms; healthcare will be rationed -- especially for seniors. But the ruling class elites will be able to "jump the line" by traveling to Panama or Costa Rica for first-class healthcare down there. Whereas swelling numbers of ordinary Americans will be stuck in the U.S.A. within the Medicaid ghetto.<br />
<br />
But ObamaCare will be worse than Canadian care, in that the 50's + age group would be discriminated by their age via the higher "tax" they'd be forced to pay (otherwise known as an <i>insurance premium</i>.) This reduces the saving potential for that age group as they approach retirement. They'd be trapped in poverty.<br />
<br />
Whether it's Canadian healthcare, ObamaCare, RomneyCare or Medicare ... they all are based on the model of "Third-party Payer." The ordinary citizen does not have an incentive to economize. Whereas the healthcare monopolies become hooked to this arrangement of easy profit, guaranteed by the government.<br />
<br />
Under ObamaCare (and because of the "certificate of need" regulations), hospitals are going to be "too-big-to-fail" ... just like AIG and the investment banks of Wall Street. This will be horrible for the healthcare consumer. Welcome to our future nightmare.Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-15680981163112125332012-01-12T23:54:00.000-08:002012-01-12T23:54:53.640-08:00ObamaCare is Especially Bad for Older PeopleObamaCare is very costly for the folks mandated to participate in it. Those costs become higher, the older you get -- especially for the Middle Class (whose subsidies are less). People who approach 65 years of age, the higher marginal costs would have a most severe impact .. because of their diminished opportunities for savings.<br />
<br />
Kudos to Paul Gregory Matuszak and to Craig J. Casey .. who are among the smartest men in Twitter.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/pavelgregory">https://twitter.com/#!/pavelgregory</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/CraigJCasey">https://twitter.com/#!/CraigJCasey</a>Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-55841311332874612912012-01-06T21:36:00.000-08:002012-01-06T21:36:37.362-08:00Reihan Salam's Interview with Lou Dobb's on March 24, 2010Reihan Salam, the coauthor of a book "Grand New Party," was a guest on the Lou Dobb's Radio Show, March 2010. The subject was about the health-care bill that had just been signed into law, back then.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #660000;">5:26<span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #660000;">-5:40</span> <b>Lou Dobbs: </b>And this is the same President that has been out trashing, vilifying, demonizing insurance companies</span></span>; but as a result of this legislation, more than $300 billion will be put in their pockets because of the individual mandate.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #660000;">5:41-6:00 <b><span style="color: black;">Reihan Salam</span></b><span style="color: black;">: Yup yup yeah, I think that's absolutely right ... And I think that what we're likely to see, in my opinion, is that the individual mandate is going to get, quote unquote, strengthened ... Which means that you're going to see it get tougher ... You're going to see tougher, stiffer fines coming down the road ... And I think that, you know, it's likely that Republicans are going to be the ones doing that. I hope that's not actually the case.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #660000;">6:01-6:02 <b><span style="color: black;">Lou Dobbs: </span></b><span style="color: black;">Why do you think it'll be Republicans doing that?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #660000;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #660000;">6:03-6:55 </span> </span></span><b><span style="color: black;">Reihan Salam</span></b><span style="color: black;">: Well why? Because basically the Democrats had passed this bill that is unworkable ... And the Republicans are going to come in, they're going to find out that, you know, 'Guess what? ... We can't actually repeal this thing.' ... And so, you know Republicans who are cozy with the health insurance companies, just as you have got Democrats who are cozy with the health insurance companies, you're going to get a handful of them who are going to say, 'Well hey, you know we can do the health insurance companies a favor.' -- I'm not saying that's going to happen necessarily ... I'm saying it could very well happen ... And if you think that it can't, you're being </span>naïve. I think that you're going to see all kinds of ways this bill is going to be fixed at the edges: that are actually going to strengthen the hands of the big winners from this ... Which are either the pharmaceutical companies or the insurance companies. The Pharmaceutical companies had spent tens of millions of dollars to get this legislation passed ... And they're breaking out the champagne right now because they know that it's a big win for them.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
<br />
<b>My own commentary:</b> <br />
<br />
Fast forward to 2012. Why do you suppose Mitt Romney is a huge recipient of money from corporate donors? Why do you suppose Romney had recently stated his Massachusetts' Health Care Plan to be "conservative," particularly in reference to the mandate? Do you <i>really </i>believe that Mittens will <i>fully</i> repeal ObamaCare? (If Supreme Court rules the mandate to be constitutional, then Romney will have the green light to preserve the mandate, too.) That's why I very <i>strongly</i> oppose his candidacy.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
For the full podcast of the Lou Dobbs interview with Reihan Salam: <a href="http://bit.ly/wtqulp">http://bit.ly/wtqulp</a><br />
<br />
For info on Reihan Salam's book: <a href="http://amzn.to/zIbcBw">http://amzn.to/zIbcBw</a><br />
<br />
On Twitter, Reihan Salam is @reihansalam or go to: <a href="http://bit.ly/wHKblx">http://bit.ly/wHKblx</a>Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-13288529224737037962011-11-11T11:58:00.000-08:002011-11-11T12:12:25.292-08:00The Canadians<b>Passengers from Windsor, Ontario:</b><br />
<br />
The middle-aged couple gave a stern warning to us Americans regarding <i>ObamaCare</i> ... "Don't do it!" They stated that the Canadian system of <i>single-payer</i> is a disaster. Whenever people of their family need some kind of medical surgery, they'd have to wait for <i>months</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
<b>Passengers from Edmonton, Calgary:</b><br />
<br />
I've had them as passengers more than once. They are an easygoing pair, with a relaxed, <i>Western Provinces</i> demeanor.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>free market</i> capitalism.<br />
<br />
The Edmonton couple is a bit puzzled about American HealthCare reform, emanating from Washington D.C. In Canada, the <i>provinces</i> are in charge of their own <i>single-payer</i> HealthCare fiefdoms. The man stated that the population of the <i>entire</i> country of Canada is <i>less</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.)Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-30794021094773802352011-11-10T17:28:00.000-08:002011-11-10T17:40:29.239-08:00Passenger from WasillaAs 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 <i>regular</i> person of the common folk, a fellow Wasillan.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.]<br />
<br />
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.Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-84079450783017788212011-09-08T12:14:00.000-07:002011-09-08T12:22:03.980-07:00Danger in the City ... Phoenix Valley Metro<div style="text-align: left;"><b>Part I </b>... Peoria to Gilbert </div><br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Part II</b> ... Mesa to Peoria<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.")<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://bit.ly/pwBvh1">Phoenix Valley Metro (Wikipedia Link)</a>Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-28881490227565924192011-08-12T14:55:00.000-07:002011-08-12T15:45:45.140-07:00ObamaCare Mandates Fealty to Rent-Seeking ClassesThe individual mandate of ObamaCare will <b>force</b> us citizens to use insurance as the conduit of payment for <b>routine</b> health-care. It will further erode the doctor-patient relationship. The third party stands in the way between doctor and patient.<br />
<br />
The Byzantine nature of ObamaCare is to benefit the <i>rent-seeking classes</i>, <b>not</b> the consumer. Lobbyists and consultants of the health-care industry <b>wrote the bill</b>. In contrast, regarding the lawmakers who voted on the bill, most of them <b>never read it</b>! 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.)<br />
<br />
ObamaCare takes power away from the consumer, who is coerced to make the insurance company his <i>landlord</i> over his own health-care. This will hurt the middle-class the most. The <i>rent</i> paid to the insurance company is a most <b>regressive</b> 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.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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 <i>couch potatoes</i> of his age group. This isn't right. *See note below.<br />
<br />
With auto insurance, you get <i>rewarded</i> 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, <i>ObamaCare for Autocare</i> 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. <br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
*Note ... ObamaCare does have a <i>wellness program</i> (via "The Safeway Amendment"), but it is <b>only</b> available to corporations that are <i>self-insured</i> 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.)Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-67372561458127497562011-07-24T01:13:00.000-07:002011-07-24T01:16:47.482-07:00Good Conservative Websites1) Pat Dollard =============> <a href="http://patdollard.com/">http://patdollard.com/</a><br />
<br />
2) America's Watchtower =====> <a href="http://americaswatchtower.com/">http://americaswatchtower.com/</a><br />
<br />
3) American Thinker ========> <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/">http://www.americanthinker.com/</a><br />
<br />
4) The American Conservative => <a href="http://www.amconmag.com/">http://www.amconmag.com/</a><br />
<br />
*************************************************************************Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-75893842090018948202011-07-23T20:52:00.000-07:002011-07-23T20:52:56.908-07:00Pandering to the Older Boomers' Appetite for MedicareWhy 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?<br />
<br />
It is because these Tea Party oldsters are not true conservatives. They are of the mentality, "End socialism, but do not touch my Medicare!"<br />
<br />
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.)Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-47874527840466801572011-07-22T13:38:00.000-07:002011-07-22T17:48:35.006-07:00@LibertyLynx on Right vs. Left1) 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
3) Both sides use the other to deflect responsibility and perpetuate their own lies. We are just so screwed.<br />
<br />
[Edited for clarity.]<br />
<br />
References ...<br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://bit.ly/nLoDoT">http://bit.ly/nLoDoT</a><br />
2) <a href="http://bit.ly/o4v4DG">http://bit.ly/o4v4DG</a><br />
3) <a href="http://bit.ly/o35eyS">http://bit.ly/o35eyS</a><br />
<br />
Permission from @LibertyLynx => <a href="http://bit.ly/pBpzzd">http://bit.ly/pBpzzd</a>Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-72305991710583678062011-07-12T13:44:00.000-07:002011-07-12T13:44:40.034-07:00Paul Ryan and Healthcare MonopolyHis 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.)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-41730703375534283062011-07-11T19:00:00.000-07:002011-07-11T19:08:46.378-07:00Ponzi Schemes GaloreThe 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 <i>great unraveling</i>. (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.)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law <i>Medicare</i>. Because the boomers were already entering as taxpayers, Medicare was unquestionably Ponzi in character at the starting gate.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
Within the private sector (and also for government workers) was another Ponzi scheme. Throughout the 20th Century, <i>defined benefit pension plans</i> 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.<br />
<br />
Enter the 401(k)'s and the IRA's -- the <i>defined contribution plans</i>. 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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>great unraveling</i>.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The way to bring health-care costs under control:<br />
<br />
1) Promote more competition amongst the providers via deregulation (like had been done with the airlines).<br />
<br />
2) Promote more "skin in the game" for the health-care consumers by making them less dependent on <i>comprehensive</i> insurance and less dependent on government handouts.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
**************************************************************************<br />
<br />
America has a choice. We can remain blind to the Ponzi schemes, or we can return to <i>grassroots capitalism</i>.Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-16574673790095498572011-07-11T12:39:00.000-07:002011-07-11T12:39:06.290-07:00The Right Way to Fix MedicareThe 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.<br />
<br />
The incremental approach must begin <b>now</b>! Gradually increase the Medicare patient's deductibility and co-pay. <b>Deregulate</b> the provider-side of health-care to break up the monopolies. <b>Allow</b> 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!) <b>Loosen</b> 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.)<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-21149331903866521312011-07-11T11:30:00.000-07:002011-07-11T11:30:15.442-07:00Prescription Socialism and Side EffectsDrugs 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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<i> food-care insurance</i>? 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?<br />
<br />
Why have we Americans gotten so duped into this insurance mentality for <b>routine</b> care? Perhaps it's because the elites in Washington D.C. want to use <i>comprehensive</i> 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?Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-69924583674721603712011-07-11T01:44:00.000-07:002011-07-11T01:53:29.341-07:00Libertarian Solution to Health CareCapitalism 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.)<br />
<br />
[Reference at bottom of page. "Royden" is a commenter who posted in <i>The American Conservative</i> blog.]<br />
<br />
************************************************************************<br />
<br />
<i>Royden</i> 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." <br />
<br />
"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?" <br />
<br />
************************************************************************<br />
<br />
Today, we have "corporate medicine." It isn't free market anymore. Monopolies dominate; prices are high; competition is squelched; insurance dictates.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
But there are differences. The insurance company is answerable to its shareholders. The government is answerable to its citizenry.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Reference:<br />
<a href="http://www.amconmag.com/blog/libertarian-moment/comment-page-1/#comment-62583">http://www.amconmag.com/blog/libertarian-moment/comment-page-1/#comment-62583</a>Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-75617530313276781982011-07-09T14:56:00.000-07:002011-07-09T15:17:18.223-07:00GOP Strategy to Win the White HouseThe Choices:<br />
<br />
1) Appeal to the disillusioned left.<br />
2) Appeal to the center.<br />
3) Persuade the center toward the right.<br />
4) Appeal to the impassioned right.<br />
5) All of the above.<br />
<br />
<b>Appeal to the disillusioned left:</b><br />
<br />
The grassroots progressives are disillusioned with Obama. They are close to becoming disenchanted with Big Government, too. <i>Tell them</i> to connect the dots. (Big Government is in cahoots with Big Business.) <i>Emphasize</i> grassroots capitalism. <i>Appeal</i> 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!<br />
<br />
<b>Appeal to the center:</b><br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<b>Persuade the center toward the right:</b><br />
<br />
This is what @MrSimpleSense at Twitter suggests. It is an excellent idea. Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, accomplished this during the 1980's.<br />
<br />
<b>Appeal to the impassioned right:</b><br />
<br />
This is the gospel message of the Tea Party. But if taken too far, it will backfire on us.<br />
<br />
<b>All of the above:</b><br />
<br />
This is my recommendation. <i>Appeal to the left</i> by breaking up the monopolies. <i>Appeal to the right</i> by shrinking the size of the federal government. <i>Appeal to the center</i> by taking incremental steps to restore fiscal sanity. <i>Persuade the center to the right </i>by communicating effectively.Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-64802030933279624432011-07-05T15:47:00.000-07:002011-07-05T16:01:33.504-07:00Ryan Plan not so Free Market as you ThinkPaul Ryan keeps on claiming his Medicare reform plan is based on "free markets." He is even being endorsed by the libertarian <i>Cato Institute</i>.<br />
<br />
To be fair, the Ryan Plan is preferable to ObamaCare. The <i>Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act</i> 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.)<br />
<br />
<b>Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform Plan</b> <br />
<br />
For those born 1956 and earlier, the Ryan Plan will <b>fully fund</b> Medicare. This will prolong the Ponzi scheme for the exclusive benefit of the <b>older</b> baby boomers. With money fueling the inflation fire of the health-care oligopolies, this will make things worse for the <b>younger</b> baby boomers. (Health-care costs will have skyrocketed.) So for those born 1957 and later, they will be mandated to purchase <i>government-approved</i> insurance lest they lose out on the $2500 tax credit.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
Please watch the video by a Russian television on the monopolistic nature of American health-care.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://bit.ly/lHZEQs">http://bit.ly/lHZEQs</a>Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-21946447218758357612011-07-05T10:07:00.000-07:002011-07-05T10:21:49.443-07:00FreedomCareWhen 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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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 <i>voluntary</i> model of care-giving is so much better, so much based on love and generosity, than the <i>coercive</i> model of "corporate socialism."Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-139886188867753832.post-26347305423678125112011-06-16T18:34:00.000-07:002011-06-24T15:28:33.963-07:00In Defense of DoctorsThe 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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>routine</i> 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.<br />
<br />
The private insurance company is a defacto government. Instead of being <i>directly</i> 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.<br />
<br />
If people want to be truly free, they should not rely on either the government or the insurance company for <i>routine</i> 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.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, insurance (whether government or private) would be important for <i>catastrophic</i> care. But having a high deductible in conjunction with a <i>health savings account</i> (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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>comprehensive</i> insurance for <i>routine</i> care will enshrine this costly arrangement. Plus the increase in regulations from the federal level will worsen overhead costs.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
As a nation, we must get away from the notion of requiring <i>comprehensive</i> insurance for <i>routine</i> care. We must build new medical schools. We must have more doctors. We must have more hospitals (including physician-owned hospitals.)<br />
<br />
With an increase in the number of providers, with the elimination of insurance for <i>routine</i> 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.<br />
<br />
So which is it America ... FreedomCare or ObamaCare?Kelly Rekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08200396961788675978noreply@blogger.com0