Politics

Vladimir Putin is a war criminal.

by asmwizard

A war crime is defined as an action by an individual which goes beyond the rules of warfare, whatever they are, particularly as actions against civilians.  War Crime described by Wikipedia.

Russia’s war against Ukraine contains countless war crimes, such as shelling, bombing, and firing rockets into civilian residential areas.  Thousands of  civilians of the Ukraine have been killed by the Russian military.

Even though Ukraine has been a part of the Soviet Union and the people are not very different from the Russian population, there have been several attacks by Russia against her. 

In 1932-33 Joseph Stalin demanded the ‘collectivization’ of farms in the Ukraine.  Farms were taken from their owners, by force, and organized into communes.  The result was a deadly famine which killed an estimated 3.9 million people in the Ukraine.  See Holodomor: the Great Famine of 1932.

 In 2014, Russia invaded and annexed the Crimea, wresting it from Ukraine by force.  This followed resistance in Ukraine against Russian domination.   See Revolution of Dignity.  For a more complete story of the annexation, see Annexation of Crimea.

The current war against Ukraine is a war against a civilized, peaceful people, initiated  for no real reason.  Vladimir Putin, dictator of the Russian Federation,  is solely responsible for the killing of thousands of women, children, and peace-loving men, and the wrecking of homes and schools, and  the disruption of water, power, and the economy.

The full military power of a huge country is directed against an independent territory the size of Texas.  Russia has employed warplanes, cruise missiles, long range artillery, drones, and tanks against the Ukraine, which initially had none of these weapons.  The brutality of this is off the charts.  I therefore declare Putin to be a war criminal.  I wish the rest of the international community would follow suit.

In my opinion, as a war criminal, Putin should be subject to arrest and prosecution if he ever steps outside of Russia.  The verdict of the prosecution should be guilty, and he should be sentenced to death. 

What to tell a young liberal.

by asmwizard

Son, you’ve chosen to become liberal.  Liberalism isn’t easy to live up to.  You need to understand it in all its facets, and know the attitudes you must take.

Liberalism, or progressivism, is primarily a push for power.  Your side wants to destroy conservatism and eliminate all conservative tendencies in the world.  Your push, carried to complete success, will ultimately result in a communist society, where everyone is equal, (except for members of the government, all of whom are top party leaders.)

The objective of progressivism is ever greater control of the people by the government, and the first milestone for them is achieving control and administration of all major businesses and the economy.  This is accomplished through laws and regulations.

The next milestone is socialism: (Merriam-Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods).  In other words, government takes over the businesses.

Progressives are never satisfied, however, and after achieving socialism will try to push on to communism.  (No one has a very concise definition of communism, but in short, it’s a socialist state in which the government owns all property and controls all assignment of labor.  It is totalitarian by nature.)

The progressive/liberal (Let’s call it P/L) push for power is an intellectual scam which succeeds because most people are either: incapable of reasoning, or refuse to do so because they have already formed their belief system.  Your side uses words as weapons.  Words can mean different things to different people, and your side takes advantage of that.

P/L’s use the same tactics over and over again.  In any society other than the perfected communist state, there are rich and poor, and likely a group of people who are more than poor but not wealthy enough to be called rich: the so-called “middle class.”  There are never more than a few “rich” people, and thus in a republic or democracy where people have one vote per person, they can successfully attack the rich, and claim to aid the poor, which simultaneously scamming the middle class into thinking they will be helped as well.

P/L’s always want to tax the rich, and finance benefits for the poor.  They also heavily tax the middle class, for the same reason.  As long as the poor are receiving benefits, they will tend to vote for the P/L’s, thus enhancing P/L power.

In essence, P/L’s tax the rich and the middle class, and subsidize the poor.  This formula never varies.

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of, especially when the poor don’t have to do anything.  They don’t have to work for a living.  Thus, the numbers of poor voters who give power to P/L’s increases.

Whatever you tax, you get less of.  P/L controlled governments overtax the rich and the middle class, which holds their numbers down.

P/L’s run a constant propaganda machine to confuse people and persuade them to support the P/L’s.  The use emotion-grabbing words such as “fairness, equality, and a living wage for everyone, regardless of race, creed, or color, (except for conservatives or Christians)”.  Of course, there is no precise definition for any of these words and they mean whatever P/L’s want them to mean.

Another P/L tactic that never varies is to divide all people into categories, each of which might be considered a group of victims, then gain their support by claiming to be advocates for their benefit.  P/L’s claim to be the champions of blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, union employees, the handicapped, the old, and so on ad infinitum.  However, they never actually do much to help a group out of the “victim” category, because then the former victims might feel free to vote for someone else.

P/L’s need big, powerful government to make lots of rules and spend lots of money enforcing “fairness”, “equality”, and “living wage”.

P/L’s believe their own words, and they consider themselves on a higher moral plane than conservatives.  They are always right, conservatives always wrong.  For some reason, most of them see no evil in following the recommendation of Saul Alinsky, who taught that lying, cheating, and stealing, or any other non-violent behavior, is perfectly OK to advance the P/L cause.  The only difference between Alinsky and Marx was that Marx preferred violent revolution to achieve the communist state.

What’s wrong with the above?  If you’re a normal person, incapable of thinking logically, the above must have sounded pretty good.

There is a flip side.  There is a reason why conservatism is better.

First, the objective of conservatism is to achieve a smooth-running, capitalist, democratic society where the government is small, efficient, non-corrupt, and lawful, and all the people are responsible, law-abiding, and willing to earn a living.  They want to be free to choose what they do.  They want the opportunity to build a better life for themselves if they work hard or take risks to earn it, without being unfairly taxed.  Socially, they want structure, stability, and morality.  They want reasonable laws and regulations, and they want the laws based on a sound constitution.  They want a strong, happy economy.

Communist societies deny freedom to the individual.  They flatten prosperity, because wealth is shared.  It doesn’t matter that you work harder than others, you get only whatever food, housing, and transportation the government gives you.  Everything is rationed.  The economy is planned, and since the government must control every aspect of life, there is no private ownership of land or business.  The government owns everything.

For most of America’s history, our nation has followed the conservative model.  We had an expanding, strong economy and built the best lifestyle (for many) and the best overall standard of living in the world.  Our poorest rank with the middle class of some countries, (where there may be no running water, electricity, television, and little food.)

Existing communist countries (China, North Korea, Cuba) have subjugated their populations, keeping them in institutionalized poverty.  No rational person would want to live in any of them.  Russia, having encouraged some capitalist influences into their economy, has somewhat bettered the standard of living, which is comparable to capitalist or socialist countries on their borders (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland.)

Some comparisons:

GDP per capita: U.S. 19th, $54,800; Russia, 69th, $24,800; China, 112th, $12,900; Cuba, 131st, $10,200; North Korea, 208th, $1,800.

Numbers are 2014 estimates from CIA World Factbook.

Islamic Jihad

by asmwizard

This was previously posted in the Leavenworth Times Community Blog.

It is a sad truth that the average, garden-variety Muslim is not a terrorist, and in fact is a peaceful citizen who obeys the law and harms no one.  Yet, within their ranks, usually hiding their identities and pretending to be good citizens, there are those who would kill, kidnap, steal, and destroy their own people or, preferably, kill non-believers in order to follow a perverted version of Islamic teaching.  There are many more of Muslims who might not engage in acts of terror themselves, but who condone acts of violence against the West or against other Sects of their religion.  They donate money and support the terrorists. For them, killing infidels is OK.  The day after 9/11, many in Muslim countries danced in the streets and celebrated.

Muslims who follow the Koran, peaceful or not, want a world in which everyone will be a believer, and all will be subject to Sharia law. The Sunni Sect is particularly aggressive in pushing toward this goal.  The majority of terrorist activities come from within their ranks, including Al Qaeda and ISIS. This is a terrifying theology, considering that to achieve it, all non-believers have to be eliminated.

The Koran, like the Holy Bible, is a large, ambiguous work that can be interpreted in many different ways.  However, according to terrorismanalsys.com, it is interpreted selectively by Jihadists to justify violence against non-believers.  According to thereligionofpeace.com, there are at least 109 verses in the Koran that directly justify the murder of non-believers.

There is a war, waged and plotted by Islamic Jihadists, against the West.  As part of this, since it is difficult to come to America and the European countries themselves, they try to find converts within Western countries.  They persuade these people to kill in the name of Islam.  They have had success in this, as the Paris and Belgian attacks in the past few days prove.  In Ohio, a man has been arrested this week and charged with plotting to launch a terrorist attack.  He wanted the U.S. Capital Building with an automatic weapon, his sole desire to kill.

The Obama administration condemns terrorism in general but refuses to call it by its true name, Islamic Jihadism, the only significant threat.  It is said, and denied and argued back and forth, that Obama as a child was educated in the Muslim religion, and perhaps that’s the reason why they soft pedal the Islamic threat.  We in the West need to fight a war against Islamic Jihadists, and wipe them from the Earth.  We can’t fight effectively if we haven’t named and identified our enemy.

What steps could be taken in a war against Islamic Jihad?  Let me suggest a few.  In the United States, pass laws to make it illegal to advocate terrorism in a Muslim mosque, as inciting to riot; make travel to the United States from any Muslim country require a VISA which is closely checked; require an exit VISA for any American traveling to a Muslim country; make it a major felony to travel to a foreign country and participate in terrorist training; close the borders with Mexico and Canada; modify Internet servers and switches to block internet traffic to and from Islamic sites known to sponsor terrorism; monitor all Muslim services in mosques; cut off trade and funding and apply sanctions to any Muslim country suspected of tolerating Jihadist organizations (including Palestine); stop oil exports from any country tolerating terrorists; round up and expel all Muslim non-citizens.  Overseas, we should relentlessly attack ISIS, persuade Muslim countries to participate, and persuade them to preach against the Radical Islamist interpretations of the Koran, as the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has recently advocated.

Winston Churchill did not regard Muslims highly.  In his wonderful way with words, he wrote this in his two-volume The River War in 1899:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Note: I own the abridged, one volume version of this book, and it does not contain this quote.  I copied the above excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the book The River War.

In my view, his words are mostly still true, but Muslim terrorists have caught up with modern Europe in many aspects of science, in that they have cell phones, internet, pickup trucks, rockets, machine guns, and many other items.  They also have plenty of oil money to finance their insanity.

France and several other European countries made a major blunder in allowing large numbers of Muslim immigrants. In France, there are reportedly now some 750 areas which no non-Muslim goes into, because the Muslims who live there are so dangerous.  In recent years, they have rioted, burned cars and other property, and supply a fertile breeding ground for fostering new terrorists.  We must not let this happen here.

Problems ignored by the Left

by asmwizard

Maybe I’m weird, but I see the following as problems.  Obama, Reid, and Pelosi apparently do not.  It’s only a partial list:

The economy (unemployment, stagnation, rising prices).  They talk about creating jobs, but never actually do anything.  Republicans would eliminate regulations, release energy barriers, and cut taxes.

High taxes for those who pay them.  (Left keeps harping on TAX THE RICH)

About half the people pay no taxes at all (mostly Democrat voters)

The federal deficit and the debt.  It’s only money.  That’s why the Democrats have killed the budgeting process – they don’t want spending cuts in any form, and they don’t want to have to vote on anything, so they just go with continuing resolutions.  Obama always wants the debt ceiling raised.  Ever upward.

Closing the border, and enforcing immigration laws already on the books aren’t in the Left’s playbook.  Now, we have all these children and teenagers coming in without parents.  But we can’t just turn them around – we have to find their nearest relatives in the US.  Poor little lost souls.

The United States Constitution is now a list of suggestions.  After all, Our beloved President taught the Constitution.  Who better to choose which articles to obey, and which ones to ignore?

Religious persecution – of Christians — is OK, but never say or imply anything bad about a Muslim.  It’s politically incorrect.

Iran.  Just let them go ahead and build their little toy atomic bombs.  Should I (Obama the Wise) do anything? 

Iraq – we didn’t really need to leave a small force behind, so I (Obama the All-ignoring) rejected all the general’s recommendations and pulled the troops.  So what if Iraq is now being taken over by an offshoot of Al Qaeda?

The Ukraine – what, irritate Russia?  It’s far better to let them do their thing.  What if a few million people lose their freedom, if not their lives? 

The War on Terror.  What war on terror?  Close Gitmo, they say, and prosecute them in Federal Courts.  Turn them loose. 

Energy independence.  Let’s make coal super-expensive to use, Let’s stop the Keystone Pipeline.  Oh, Canada has approved the pipeline that runs west to the Pacific, so that China will get all their oil?  No problem.  

Scandals (Such as: IRS targeting of conservatives, getting our people in Benghazi killed, VA problems, Wild spending by government agencies)?  Oh, just something the Republicans made up.  Not really problems.  Besides, our Golfer-in-Chief made a speech about each of these.  He was really mad.  Really.

***

Maybe it’s just me, (and, according to polls, more than 50% of the population of the United States) but I don’t think the current administration is doing a good job.  They’re ignoring the problems.  They don’t even see them as problems. 

 

Boehner is right on immigration reform

by asmwizard

This post also appears in the Kansas Republican Journal website opinion page, posted on 2/11/2014.  Link: Kansas Republican Journal

In the last week of January, Republicans released a statement of principles on how they would reform immigration law.  It’s a one page, entirely logical and fair set of ideas.  I suspect it was principally constructed by Paul Ryan.  You can locate it with keywords “Republican immigration principles”.  Democrats immediately hailed it as “A good sign.”  They were glad to believe Republicans might cave on immigration, although their massive bill passed by the Senate died in the House.  But, notice the first sentence: “Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced.”

The principles call for dividing the reform bills into a step by step approach, in several bills rather than one big kludge of the sort Democrats always come up with.  It would legalize aliens in the country, providing they come forward and identify themselves.  But, it wouldn’t give them a faster path to citizenship.  It would only begin to happen after the border is better enforced. 

Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner burst whatever bubble of optimism Democrats had.  He said he didn’t think it could pass the House, and said one reason was (I paraphrase) that they didn’t trust the President to administer whatever laws they might pass.  Right on!  Obama’s administration has used executive orders and regulation changes, often issued by Kathleen Sibelius or Eric Holder, to circumvent existing laws or in effect create new ones.  Congress has become a useless appendage of government.  Only yesterday, Eric Holder issued a directive to the effect that from now on, same sex couples will receive all federal marriage benefits.  Congress wasn’t consulted.  Obama, through Sibelius, has made numerous changes to the Affordable Care Act.  On immigration reform, Congress failed to pass the Dream Act, but Obama effectively established it through executive order.  Republicans will never trust Obama to enforce the laws as Congress intended, nor should they.

Illegal aliens, and their continued flow into our country, are a real problem.  We don’t have enough jobs to take care of the people who are looking for work, as it is.  The number coming in is said to be down, but that is no doubt due to the economy and the unemployment situation. 

Democrats really want immigrants as citizens, because they vote Democratic.  They support amnesty, not only as a way to identify the aliens and allow them freedom from fear of deportation, but also to fast-track them to voting status.  In my opinion, it would be political suicide for our two-party system to allow that to happen.

I don’t believe Boehner’s comments mean that immigration reform is dead for this year.  The House may pass the first of the bills later this year, which might address one or both of two things: tighter border control, and enforcement of the requirement for employers to check citizenship status through the E Verify system, with severe penalties for the employer if the check isn’t performed.  Such laws would be dead in the Senate, because Harry Reid wants the big bill.  In spite of what they say, Democrats don’t want immigration reform – they want fast track amnesty.  If Republicans win the Senate, next year could be interesting: real reform bills could be passed and sent to the President.  By then, reality might have penetrated his fog of narcissism, and he might realize that his legacy may be extremely skimpy unless he signs one or two Republican-favored bills.  We can only hope.

The Sick Economy Party.

by asmwizard

Of course, they don’t really want the economy to be sick (with a few possible exceptions), but the Democrats are the party of the Sick Economy.  Their priorities say that government should be big, should control all aspects of life, and should do all it can for the poor and the middle class.  They believe business has to be regulated – can’t be trusted – so they favor all sorts of laws and rules to do that.  They create huge entitlement programs that take immense amounts of money to run, need lots of bureaucrats to oversee, and therefore need heavy taxes.  Because they spend more than they can raise through taxes, they print money or borrow and let the debt increase.  Big government, heavy regulation, heavy taxes, and running the government on credit or inflated money are the factors which guarantee the economy will be sick.

The Democrats have instituted several programs that actually pay people to exist and do nothing useful: the Earned Income Credit, a sort of reverse income tax, which pays people who don’t earn enough; food assistance; Aid to Dependent Children (the more fatherless babies you have, the more we’ll pay you); disability income (OK if the people are really disabled, but many aren’t); and infinitely extended unemployment.  So, fewer people want to work.  The government taxes a shrinking work force more and more, to pay for an increasing group of people who don’t.  Now, it’s almost an even split.  Democrats have a sneaky ulterior motive for promoting this: people who depend on government for their livelihood will vote for Democrats. 

Democrats bully big business with big taxes and heavy regulation.  They spout a constant theme: big business is evil – after all, they want to make a profit, and that’s at the expense of the little guy.  Never mind that a business cannot exist long without a profit. The Democrat propaganda constantly accuses Republicans of being the party of “the Rich” and of big business. 

American businesses are over-taxed.  The tax rate they pay is among the highest in the world.  With extremely high labor costs as well, American business doesn’t compete well in the world markets.  They are also clearly over-regulated, and have to spend a lot to satisfy government demands.  This means that cheaper foreign goods are imported and outsell American products, while American manufacturers go bankrupt and jobs move overseas.  This has been going on for decades, and is a major reason we have high unemployment.

To summarize, with huge entitlement programs, high taxes, big government, the tax and spend philosophy, and relentless regulation of business, Democrats are hamstringing our economy.  In fact, increasing government spending and taxation may cause out economy to collapse.  It’s that serious.  They aren’t likely to change anything, and have never considered reforms seriously under Obama.  As long as Democrats have the power, our economy will be sick.  There will be high levels of unemployment, few business start-ups, more people living in or near poverty, and fewer people achieving the American dream.  They have put our economy into a death spiral.  The Democrats are the party of the Sick Economy, and America’s economy, which hasn’t improved since Obama took power, won’t improve until Republicans take over the government. The sad truth is, that may not happen until after an economic collapse.

   

 

 

  

A rational and sustainable universal health care system.

by asmwizard

As an enemy of the Affordable Health Care Act, I want something else, yet I see the need for universal health care.  So, here I outline what I believe would be a sustainable and fair system of health care that would cover every citizen and would work in the United States.  I believe it would be far superior to Obamacare, if designed according to these principles.  It’s modeled after but differs from the Australian Medicare System, established 1984.  Link: Health Care Australia.  Australian Medicare covers 20 million people, or about a fifteenth of the number of people in the US.   I chose Australia because their system is more recent than the UK’s, it seems to work, and I suspect Aussies in the mass are a bit more rational than Americans.

Any universal health care system needs to satisfy the following goals:

  1. It needs to provide a reasonable level of care;
  2. It should be affordable for the patients, properly remunerate providers and hospitals, and be sustainable for the public purse;
  3. It should be free or nearly so for the poor and of moderate cost to the middle class.  The wealthier population should not be covered;
  4. It should be designed to minimize fraud and cheating by the public and by providers;
  5. It should allow competition from the private sector;
  6. It should not impose unnecessary regulations and restrictions;
  7. It should cover all aspects of health care including physican services, hospitals, pharmacy, rehabilitation, hospice, and long term care;
  8. It should cover major medical expense;
  9. It should make some provision for pre-existing conditions.
  10. It should totally replace the current Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employees Health Plan, and Tri-Care plans, as well as care for inmates of federal prisons.  Like them, it should be funded from the public treasury with revenue from special taxes.    Except where lives are at risk, providers should not treat any person without ability to pay.  Hospital emergency rooms should no longer be clinics for the poor and uninsured. 

My plan:

  1. Issue a National Health Card (NHC) to every citizen or family requesting it.  It would be assigned a unique number.  Providers would charge fees to this number.  Duplicate cards would be given on request to each family member.  Family members would use a suffix on the NHC number to establish which patient is being served.  Each card would contain magnetic identification information,  as well as essential medical information such as blood type, chronic medical conditions, and date of birth.
  2. Establish a centralized health record in a national database accessible only by providers.  This is similar to the database provided for in Obamacare.  It should contain photos and fingerprints as well.
  3. Establish a health tax: say 2% off the top of all income.  No deductions, all would pay, including businesses.  The percentage is only a suggestion and would be adjusted as necessary to fully fund the National Health System (NHS).  The tax on business would be exactly equivalent to a sales tax, as businesses would pass the tax on to their customers.   Exceptions: food sales, medical expenses, and utilities would not be taxed.   Real estate and auto sales would not be taxed.
  4. Establish means testing: single persons with more than (I suggest) $100,000 income and couples with more than $170,000 income would not be eligible for NHC benefits.  They would need to purchase insurance or self-insure.  Persons with incomes up to three times the poverty level (3X poverty) would receive full benefits; above that level, benefit amounts would progressively decrease so that patients would have to pay more from their own resources.   Means testing parameters are only a suggestion and could be adjusted.  Means would also be tested by evaluating the patient’s net worth.  If more than $250,000 but less than $500,000, an NHC+ card is issued regardless of income less than 3X poverty.  The card for someone who earns more than the poverty threshold would be an NHC+ card for which there would be two levels of deductible.  The member would pay all charges up to say, $1000, and half of all charges above $1000 and less than $3000.   NHS would pay the remaining charges.
  5. A patient with a NHC who earns less than 3X poverty pays nothing at a hospital or clinic.  The NHS is billed by the provider, but does not pay the provider until the encounter is authorized by the patient.   With an NHC+ card, the patient pays any due amounts to the NHS. 
  6. Patients are free to take  out insurance to pay for their medical care, or to pay the percentage deductible. 
  7. The NHS would also pay for nursing home, rehabilitation, in-home, mental illness confinement, and hospice care on the NHC card.  It would also provide prescribed medical devices. 
  8. A patient who loses income and net worth may apply for an NHC anytime within a year.  The means test is applied annually; the NHC must be renewed annually.

Notes:

  1. Some health services would not be covered by the NHC, including: cosmetic procedures, sex change, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and conditions caused by drug/alcohol abuse.  Cosmetic repair procedures would be paid for injury or illness related disfigurement.
  2. The Department of Defense would still provide health care for military personnel without change.  Civilian employees and contractor personnel posted outside of the United States would be treated by the military health service, but Tri-Care would go away. 
  3. The Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service would continue unchanged.
  4. The President and Vice-Presidential health plans would not change.  The health plan now available to Congress would be eliminated.
  5. Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care, and FEHP (Federal Employee Health Plan) will be totally eliminated.  The changeover might require as much as a year or more to implement.
  6. Once voted into law, no amendments, modifications, exemptions, exceptions, or rebates to the plan may be granted without being passed by a two-thirds majority vote of Congress and an endorsement by the President.
  7. The greatest potential for defrauding the NHC is in fraudulent billing by doctors, clinics, hospitals, and other approved providers.  For this reason, my plan would require a three  entity approach to provider reimbursement.   During a medical encounter, the provider will swipe the patient’s NHC to obtain current eligibility, and give the patient or representative a receipt with provider number, encounter number, and date.  The provider will render a statement of billed services, itemized by patient, to the NHS.  The NHS will forward it by mail or email to the patient (or designated representative) who would have to affirm the service was provided and return it with the receipt or the receipt information to the NHS, responding within thirty days.  If properly authorized, the NHS will forward payment to the provider, who eventually would be paid even if the patient failed to respond.   This system may prove too cumbersome, but there may be a workable variation.
  8. If a patient or representative fails to respond within thirty days, their NHC would be invalidated and they would be subject to a fine to reinstate it.  The medical provider will receive payment as if the charge had been authorized.
  9. The NHS will investigate discrepancies.  If fraud by a provider is proven and the patient or representative has authorized an invalid statement, the patient or representative would be subject to prosecution.  If the patient denies the charge the NHS would charge it back to the provider, who could submit it to adjudication at their discretion.
  10. Providers will be free to decline service to anyone who cannot prove capability to pay, without legal liability, providing the patient is not in immediate danger of death.  Prudent business practice would allow providers to take a deposit of credit card, cash, or proof of insurance from patients they do not know.
  11. It might be wise to take some of the revenue from the taxes and use it to subsidize education for more doctors and nurses.
  12. There will be a need for an arbitration process for patient-provider disputes, and a limitation in malpractice awards.  Malpractice should be redefined as deliberate injury or gross negligence.  Remembering that medicine is more art than science, no physician who has diligently worked to help the patient should be penalized if the result is unfortunate.
  13. The NHS will set reasonable fee schedules for each service to prevent providers from overcharging.  The NHS should take care to allow providers to thrive and prosper.
  14. Data collected during the billing process would allow extensive computer analysis to detect provider fraud, patterns of unnecessary services, and excessive charges for supplies and equipment.   
  15. Patients who walk in without an NHS card can give information to allow the provider to pull up their NHS record.  Undocumented non-citizens or persons with expired visas would be treated, but the police will be called, who will arrest and turn them over to the INS for deportation.  Non-citizens with work permits will be able to purchase an NHC good for two months, paying a fee of about $30.  Travelers entering the US will need to be insured.

In effect, the NHC would be a means-tested national health insurance plan funded by taxes, but it would not substantially dictate the fee schedules of providers, and would allow insurance companies to still provide services.  Patients would be free to choose any doctor or hospital who will accept them.  The only acceptable reason for providers to reject new patients is lack of capacity to treat them.  Doctors and hospitals would be free and encouraged to provide services outside of the NHC system.  If the tax rate is set at the proper level to balance revenues vs. expenditures, it will not drain the public treasury or add to the federal deficit.

Direct payment by the NHS might be controversial.  Many schemes try to generate competition through insurance.  My plan has some competitive pressure due to deductible payments for NHC+ members, who will pay two thirds of the first $3000 themselves, and would therefore be wise to accept providers with reasonable rates.  I believe these features of the plan will help to reduce costs: malpractice redefinition and award limits; deductibles, reduction in unpaid provider fees, and possibly subsidized medical education to train more doctors and nurses.    

Universal health care in the United States will be very difficult to sell, because the American public has been accustomed to high cost but has received high quality care.  The crazy patchwork of care programs we have now (individual insurance, provider unpaid, Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor, Tri-Care for the military, Federal Employee Health Plan for the federal employees, etc. ) is what we’re used to, and other than individual insurance, most of the cost is paid by the federal government — directly or indirectly.  The idea of more taxes to pay for a health care system is abominable, yet those taxes are built into our tax bill now.  I believe my proposed system would actually reduce health care costs, because unpaid provider costs would decline, and this would bring provider fees down. 

A final comment: the NHS tax should be set at a level to fully fund the system.  It might cost quite a bit to start.  Yet, Australia is currently taxing at 1.5 %.

 

General observations about the U.S.

by asmwizard

A quick recap: America’s government began in revolution against the British king.  The colonies had to cooperate in order to field an army of rebels, and they did so by means of the Continental Congress.

Following the revolution, it seemed logical for the various colonies to form a confederation, and the United States of America was born with the United States Constitution, adopted September 17, 1787.  The Constitution set up a division of power with three supposedly co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.  We have a representative democracy, in which the states elect senators and representatives – the people are not allowed to vote directly on any issue.  This system worked well, for the most part, and not counting the contentious times around the Civil War, until about the year 1992, when Congress and the President began to be at odds.  The first government shutdowns occurred under Bill Clinton in 1995 and 1996.  The attempt to impeach Clinton probably began the great increasing trend in polarization between the parties, no doubt intensified by the Bush-Gore election and the second war with Iraq.  Hard feelings between parties continued to grow until we have today’s situation.

In my opinion, the equality of power between the three branches of government has seriously deteriorated since Clinton’s time.  The three branches are no longer co-equal.  The executive branch has become dominant.  What we have now is almost a dictatorship.  The president fails to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like.  He stonewalls investigations into improprieties in his administration.  He issues Executive Orders to change the laws and regulations without consulting Congress.  The House is likely to investigate his action to extend the timeline for corporations to adopt Obamacare requirements, which they consider extra-legal; he did it without authority. 

The Attorney General and various other officials have managed to totally flout Congress.  The House seemingly has no power to enforce cooperation in its various investigations into misconduct by government agencies.  A Contempt of Congress citation against Eric Holder is meaningless until he leaves office, since he won’t prosecute himself.  Even afterward, a Democrat in the office may refuse to initiate proceedings. 

The Supreme Court often votes along strict party lines. One might think law is different for the two parties.  There are also two ways of looking at the Constitution, apparently.  Democrats seem to believe big government should be able to totally ignore it.  Republicans like to think there are some things the Federal government should leave to the states.  Almost certainly, Obama will be able to give liberals the majority within his last three years of office.

State’s rights don’t seem to mean much now.  States receive so much money from the Federal government that they almost have to go along, even if they aren’t mandated to cooperate. 

The Federal government has become a giant money collector, borrower, and distributor.  Politicians spend a million dollars the way an ordinary citizen would a nickel.  A billion dollars is like a twenty to Congress and the President.  But, when you spend a few billion here, and a few billion there, they add up.  A thousand billion dollars is a trillion, and our Federal debt is about 17 of them.   We have the most wasteful president in history, and the government agencies he is supposed to manage seem to think they can do anything whatever with government money, including having lots of parties.  After all, there’s an endless supply of it.

Being elected to the House or Senate is like winning the lottery, and most politicians think only of their re-election.  They pander to the voters and support huge giveaways to them.  They vote themselves high salaries and great benefits, including retirement.  Many become old in their job.  Proposed amendments to the Constitution to impose term limits and make Congress members have to follow the same laws as everyone else don’t seem to be going anywhere.  At this moment, many members of Congress are trying to exempt themselves from the Obamacare regulations for their own offices.  There are a few good public servants in the group of 500+, but good ones who follow conservative principles are rare.

The majority of the electorate is either totally self-serving, uninformed, or stupid, in my opinion.  After all, they re-elected Obama after four years of miserable performance.  They allowed Democrats to retain control of the Senate in 2010.  Nevada re-elected Harry Reid. 

Overall, the Federal government is ineffective.  They haven’t agreed on a budget since 2007.  The party in power takes no interest in cutting back spending or addressing the deficit and debt.  The Congress can’t get needed reforms done, or even agree on what is needed. Incompetence is rampant in the State Department and the IRS.  Legislation, totally dominated by Democrats since 2008, has been immensely overcomplicated.  Obamacare was voted into law by Democrats who never read the bill – no human could read and understand it in less than a month.  No one knows who wrote the bill of more than 2000 pages.  It’s an immense social experiment and no one knows how our medical care will be affected by it.

Barack Obama came to the office without any significant accomplishment and was totally unqualified.  He’s intelligent and well-spoken, but – his is a weird personality.  He doesn’t lead, never proposes detail. He controls everything but is responsible for nothing. He just tells Congress he wants legislation of a certain kind, and leaves it to them – knowing that the Congress is divided and incompetent, and can’t agree on anything.  He apparently despises conservatives and never listens to Republican suggestions.  He spends most of his time campaigning, fund-raising, traveling to make unneeded speeches on the public budget and visiting foreign countries for no apparent reason. I have never figured out whether he’s incompetent or is deliberately trying to wreck the economy, but the effect is the same. 

About the time the Roman Empire collapsed, I imagine some people were saying similar things about their leadership.

As I have often said, I’m not totally satisfied with our present administration, but of course you’d never figure that out from what I’ve written here.

The Poor: How far should government go?

by asmwizard

(As published in the Leavenworth Times Community Blog, May 2013.)

   There is no greater mess than public assistance (PA, for short) in the United States.  Kenneth L. Gentry writes:  Americans have long been known to be a charitable people. Unfortunately, government intervention could be changing that. The government has entered and gained monopolistic ascendancy in this field as in so many others. Being charitable makes it a bit difficult for us to speak out against public welfarism, lest we appear to be unconcerned for the needs of the poor. However, there are numerous compelling reasons why we can legitimately decry public welfarism and still maintain — even emphasize — our concern for the less fortunate in our society. Link to: The problems in public welfare   Dr. Gentry lists numerous problems.  It’s worth reading.

   A general discussion of public assistance can be found at Link to:  Wiki article

   As I see it, public assistance is fraught with fraud, political chicanery, and bureaucratic inefficiency.  It is unsupportable – more people are becoming dependent on fewer workers.  But, it’s necessary.  It varies a lot by state, because states administer it, often with federal funds.   

   I’d like nothing better than to list several things wrong with PA and propose a direct, effective solution for each.  But, it isn’t that simple.  Every family or recipient has a different situation.  Some people want to work, but can’t.   Others work part time, but can’t make enough, or blow what they make.  Some are poorly educated, perhaps can’t read.  Many are dishonest, and try to cheat the system.  They have different abilities, or none at all.  They have children or spouses with various needs.  Some do drugs or gamble.  Some have prison records.  Some are mentally disturbed or deficient, or have no sense of purpose.  I’m forced to admit, one size doesn’t fit all.

  There are some principles I’d like to apply, and these pertain to how much government at all levels should support PA.  Many of these principles are already being applied.

  Cash is a temptation to cheat, so the government should deal as little cash as possible.  Give benefits in kind, if it can be done.  To the extent possible, make sure that money from the government is spent for its intended purpose. 

First, limit the benefit total from all programs.  We’ve all heard stories that some people receive a total benefit that puts them well into the middle class.  There should be an absolute limit of something like 1.5 times the poverty rate.

  Second, pay the recipient very little directly.  Instead, provide vouchers or debit cards.  To a large extent, this is done now: Section 8 housing assistance is paid in vouchers; The SNAP program for food assistance comes with debit cards, etc.  The government has actually gotten quite a bit smarter – note how tough it is to get SNAP if you’re not a Hmong or a Martian.  Ultimately, people with little or no income need a bit of cash – but if the government provides it, it should be on a card.

  Third, make it possible for the government to review their participant’s spending.  Every participant should be reviewed at least quarterly.  This may require someone to visit the participant.  When they do, they should take pictures of the recipient and dependents to prove their existence (and leave an audit trail – you have to watch the social workers, who could cheat too.)   If the family has an income of 1.3 times poverty level or more, the only assistance they should be receiving is for health care. 

  Fourth, shut down the underground economy to the greatest extent possible.  Many people work for cash only, and don’t report their income.  Make the penalties for that severe – on both employer and worker.  People who work and are paid in cash may be cheating the government (and all the rest of us) by claiming they have no income.  It might be possible for people on public assistance who do odd jobs for individuals to bypass normal taxes on the payment, if the worker reports it.  The government needs to know about the income, not necessarily collect revenue out of it.

  Fifth, and this will be controversial but I’ll say it anyway:  when a woman on public assistance has a child (for a total of two or more) benefits should not be increased.  The government should offer to pay for having her tubes tied.  The worst possible thing is to keep having children that must grow up in poverty.  TANF — The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act  is a pretty good solution. 

  Sixth, no benefits whatever to illegal aliens or people on drugs.

  Seventh, luxuries owned or subscribed to by PA folks should be taken into account – and should reduce PA benefits.  Example: the recipient subscribes to cable and has HBO (a premium).  The cost of HBO should not be paid by the taxpayers – subtract it from his benefits.  Only basic cable should be subsidized, and then only if broadcast reception isn’t available.  The taxpayer pays extra for premium internet service? – deduct it from his benefits.  The recipient owns or leases or makes payments on a car that is worth more than some reasonable amount (such as $20,000), or owns two cars but only needs one?  Deduct.  You get the idea.

  Finally, the government should check, check, check on benefit participants, particularly those claiming disability – if they claim they can’t walk, they shouldn’t be discovered running marathons.  The social worker should have authority to disqualify them on the spot for cause.  Dependents claimed should be personally verified and photographed in their homes. 

  Charities might choose to help families with money or benefits.  That’s very welcome, but they should follow the same principles.  They might help in finding people who need assistance and showing them how to get it. 

  Public assistance is a necessary evil, and should only function as a safety net for those who have no other choice.  It should provide a “no-frills” existence, with adequate food, shelter, and clothing for the needy, but should be unsatisfying for the greedy.   It shouldn’t be an opportunity to scam the government or become a permanent way of life. 

  It appears that government at all levels is following many of these principles now.  It’s a constant struggle.  

 

What’s holding mankind back?

by asmwizard

As published in the Leavenworth Times Community Blog, May 17, 2013.

To all apparent purposes, evolution is a very slow process.  Yet, mankind has evolved with lightning rapidity in the past twenty thousand years, not so much biologically as socially and technologically.  Man has gone from cave to skyscraper, hunter-gatherer to consumer of processed foods, from small tribes to huge concentrations in cities and nations. Men have walked on the moon and are now planning to harvest asteroids.  Yet, mankind still has immense problems: war, politics, unemployment, poverty . . . heck,  you know what they are if you’re human (if not human,  you shouldn’t be reading this.)  The purpose of this incredibly intellectual paragraph is to set the stage for the big question:

Can mankind evolve a stable, peaceful, and prosperous society?  My answer is, and I’ll bet yours too, is: not anytime soon.  So a better question is: what’s holding us back? 

I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, but I’ll list a few features of mankind that I believe put the brakes on progress.

Tribalism: This is a big one.  Tribes are particularly important to Arabs.  The overall conflict between Sunni and Shia drives much of the strife in the Middle East.  These are just major groups, there are actually dozens of tribes listed in Iraq alone: Arab Tribes in Iraq.

While Westerners no longer classify themselves into tribes, we have groups that act in a tribal fashion, based on such things as political and religious beliefs, ethnicity, geography or political entity.  Tribes work on the principle of “screw you, we want ours.”  

The political spectrum:  There are several spectra: communist to libertarian; government control to personal freedom; nanny state to self-reliance;  controlled economy to unregulated capitalism.  The Left favors the first named of the above, the Right the second named.  The Left is always trying to move society to the Left, and the Right does the opposite.

The religious spectrum: Is there a God, or isn’t there?  Is His name Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, or something else?  What book did He inspire: Koran, Holy Bible, Other, or none?  If you are Christian, should you be Catholic, Orthodox Greek, or Protestant?  If Protestant, should  you be Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, or ???   If you aren’t religious, should you hate people who are?  What to do about heretics?  Muslims?  Infidels?  Jews?  Historically, the answer has often been: kill them.  Religion has created endless strife, and it seems it always will.    

Egocentrism:  It seems that every society, every group, feels superior to every other.  The Japanese, for example, refer to foreigners as ‘gaijin’ and look down on them.  The Romans of Caesar’s time referred to anyone not Roman as barbarian.  Hitler’s Germans considered themselves ‘Aryan’ and everyone else as totally inferior, and killed millions because of it.  Europeans often think themselves superior to Americans.  Caucasians feel superior to Blacks, who feel the reverse. 

Languages:  Outside the United States, the more than 500 languages remaining in the world constitute, I believe, a barrier to understanding.  They also serve as a booster for egocentrism.  You cross from Belgium into Germany, Germany into Poland, Poland into Lithuania, and language changes totally at each border.  I think English should be the one language spoken.  It is the largest language in terms of words – more than 500,000 – and I believe the most expressive.  It’s already the 2nd language of most countries, and is the first language in several.  Heck, even the British speak a form of it. 

Lack of intelligence (also known as stupidity):  This problem is major.  Apathy, ignorance, and dogmatic beliefs are byproducts of stupidity.  The “I don’t know and I don’t care” crowd shouldn’t be allowed to vote.  Stupid people are gullible.  That’s why demagogues (people who appeal to emotions and prejudices, such as Obama) do so well in elections.

Complexity of the issues:  The issues are so complex few politicians understand them.  (See lack of intelligence, above)

Lack of consensus:  Humans can never agree on what the problem is or how to fix it.

Rotten human character:  A male orangutan is more honest, on average, than the average human.  The ape is less vicious than some humans; less inclined toward violence.  Humans lie, cheat, and steal.  People are greedy, easily corrupted, and jealous of each other.  A politician who acts from noble motives and works for the good of the people is rare these days.  The average character is so bad that no human-run institution works fully as intended, because of cheating.  Example of programs riddled with fraud and cheating: Medicare, Medicaid, disability claims, immigration, food stamps.  Can you trust the average citizen to do the right thing?  Not unless there’s a tough penalty if they’re caught cheating, and a high likelihood they will be caught.

If people had better character, it would go a long way to curing the other faults.  It has become fashionable to disparage Christians and Jews, but they have ideals of morality and ethics sadly lacking elsewhere.  Maybe they’re the last bastion of character in the world.