Globalism can kill us! An April 2023 on-line Supply Management article makes some startling remarks about drug shortages in the US. Nine in 10 (90-95%) of generic sterile injectable drugs for critical acute care in the US rely on key starting materials from China and India. India possessed 62% of the global manufacturing capacity of active pharmaceutical ingredients, API, in 2021, while China stood at 23%, and the US just 4%, and doctors were rationing lifesaving treatments. The article concludes with this dire warning, Drug shortages are increasing, lasting longer, and having a greater impact on patient care.
A May 2023 on-line article reviewed a Senate report that cited an overreliance on foreign sources as a concern. Factories in China and India supply most of the raw materials used in American medicines. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, India restricted exports of API’s and finished drugs made from those chemicals to protect its domestic drug supply. BIG PHARMA further complicates supply shortages because medications like Adderall and amoxicillin generate thin profits so companies don’t have an incentive to make and store large amounts in case a shortage develops, University of Utah Health researcher Erin Fox observed. In addition, when demand spikes. Federal regulators limit supplies of Adderall each year because it is a controlled substance. Once shortages develop, they can last for years; and it can be tough for patients to get reliable information. Fox said there is no legal requirement for drugmakers to update the public. Companies have said they aren’t getting enough raw materials to make the drugs, and the federal government says companies aren’t using what they have. Fox said, There’s been a lot of finger pointing back and forth.
The finger pointing is amplified by a February 2023 CNN on-line article, McKinney, the FDA spokesman, clarified that although the FDA is working with manufacturers, the agency does not make drugs and cannot require a pharmaceutical company to make a drug, make more of a drug, or change the distribution of a drug. The lack of transparency about these production issues “ how big the shortage is and how much drug each company is making “ is hindering solutions. Additionally, pharmaceutical manufacturers are not required to disclose the reason for disrupted supply. Knowing the exact reason for a given shortage is needed to anticipate shortages and find solutions. Without solutions, globalism can kill us.
The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response told the committee staff that 90 to 95% of injectable drugs used for critical acute care rely on key substances from China and India. In other words, a severe breakdown in the supply chain could leave emergency rooms scrambling. The report also found that the federal government and industry regulators lack visibility into the supply chain for such drugs, making it harder to predict shortages. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t know, for example, the amount of starting material a manufacturer has available, or, in some instances, how many manufacturers are involved in producing the final drug.
Nikkei Asia headlines and summaries note that China’s pharmaceutical market is already the second biggest in the world, after the U.S., thanks in large part to domestic demand from hospitals. Now Beijing wants to take the final step and surpass the U.S. Many pharmaceutical companies faced supply chain disruptions, especially since Covid-19. Often, chemicals used to produce the key ingredients in drugs were sourced from only a few suppliers in China — or sometimes just one. The pandemic has brought to light just how much the global pharmaceutical supply chain depends on China, even for the most basic ingredients. Consequently, globalism can kill us.
According to an August 2021 Harvard Business Review on-line article, most finished pharmaceuticals, whether made abroad or in U.S. factories, depend almost entirely on the availability of API’s, the primary functional components of the drugs we take. These ingredients include everything from the active substances in over-the-counter pain medications to life-saving IV solutions. Without APIs, pharmaceutical manufacturing grinds to a halt and shortages quickly follow. There is a very limited domestic capacity to make these essential medicine ingredients. The U.S. manufacturing base to make APIs has drastically eroded over the last several decades. Most of the supply now comes from abroad. For many materials, there is a single, foreign source of supply. The global over-reliance on China and India for APIs required to produce them, and essential medicines is especially worrisome. An estimated 80% of the world’s APIs come from China, India, and a handful of other foreign countries.
For several decades globalists in our national government, pharmaceutical industry, and many of our other domestic manufacturing conglomerates have moved manufacturing overseas. The result is a progressive globalism contradiction. They do this to save money on land, labor, facility construction due to lower environmental protection laws, and fewer occupational safety regulations. Consequently, the United States no longer controls our supply chains for many products needed to maintain our dominance in several global markets, including pharmaceuticals. Where the pharmaceutical industry is concerned, globalism can kill us.
The fact that the US only produces 4% of the globes API needed to manufacture critical pharmaceuticals must be solved. This is a national security problem and a national health problem. The fact that most of our pharmaceutical companies are now international conglomerates run by globalists makes solutions to this problem difficult. The multinational corporations must first answer the question of allegiance. Do they owe their allegiance to their shareholders; or to the nation and people where they gained their stature and competitive position on the world market? This is the most critical and contradictory question that progressive corporate globalists must answer. If corporate leaders and boards of directors cannot convince pharmaceutical shareholders that they should put the United States and We the People ahead of profits, then globalism can kill us. If the majority of the pharmaceutical supply chains, API sourcing and production, and final product manufacturing cannot be either greatly diversified or moved to US facilities, globalism can kill us.
Solving these critical issues will require cooperation between our local, state, and national governments and the entire pharmaceutical industry. At the national level, many of the more restrictive environmental assessment requirements could be waived to facilitate timely plant construction. State and local zoning regulations could be reduced and programs to train the workforce for these plants could be implemented and timed to meet plant openings. Government and the pharmaceutical industry must work together to ensure that We the People have the medications to live healthy, productive lives without the danger of medication shortages. If this cannot be done, shame on you in government and the pharmaceutical industry, globalism can kill us; it has and it will.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Governor Brown thinks we’re liars. A May 26,2021, mask guidance article by Elisabeth Nieshalla described Governor Brown’s Oregon Health Authority’s new mask guidance as follows:
Businesses, employers, and churches may allow fully vaccinated persons to not wear masks in their establishments but, if they do that, the establishments must have a system in place to check the vaccination status of the persons, essentially a vaccine passport-type system.
If the businesses, employers, or churches do not set up a vaccination-check system, then they must require everyone to wear masks.
This insidious policy tells Oregonians that Governor Brown and her Oregon Health Authority believe that we’re liars and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. The policy also allows Governor Brown to maintain her mask mandate in perpetuity and cynically say that she does not have a mask mandate for vaccinated Oregonians. After all, she can say businesses, employers, and churches can allow vaccinated Oregonians to go maskless in their establishments. They just have to spend thousands of dollars and delay customers and patrons as they enter their establishments. It also allows Governor Brown to continue the restrict the worship experience for Oregonians attending church services. Governor Brown’s Oregon Health Authority vaccine mask mandate is also an insidious back door to a vaccine passport system for Oregonians which would likely violate HIPPA laws and our privacy.
I received my first Pfizer vaccine March 13 after at least a four hour wait due to a morning computer failure at the vaccine site. I lost a beautiful Saturday afternoon to get that shot. l received my second vaccine on April 11.
About three weeks ago, I shopped at the Cornelius Oregon Walmart Supercenter without a mask. On June 2, I was forced to ware a mask at the same store. The manager told me that the Oregon Health Authority guidance had changed; and masks were required for all, including the completely vaccinated in contradiction to Center for Disease Control guidelines for the fully vaccinated. On June 3, I spent a couple of hours talking to Walmart customer service and on their website trying to lean whether the change in the Oregon Walmart store mask policy was due to Governor Brown’s Oregon Health Authority requirement for businesses, employers, or churches [to] set up a vaccination-check system. Since these Walmart resources would not comment on the reason they now require masks for all customers, I must assume that Governor Brown’s vaccine verification requirement is the reason I must wear a mask in Oregon Walmarts and all other businesses, employers, or church locations despite CDC guidelines.
Permit me to close by saying, Shame on you, Governor Brown. Your actions speak louder than your words. You think that I am a liar. You do not believe in the science of Covid-19 vaccines. You want to control Oregonians, restrict our economic recovery, and control our worship experiences in church.
One last question, Why would any more Oregonians get vaccinated when they will never be mask free?
Please, Governor Brown, let your vaccinated people go mask free!
Join the fray. All of the America s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Saving our economy will require innovative thinking. The question is, Will the innovation come from progressives and the Democrat Party or capitalists, entrepreneurs, and the Republican Party? In my opinion, the best solution will come from capitalists and entrepreneurs with the assistance of the Republican Party at the state and national level. However, ethics, morality, empathy, and benevolence will be required of capitalists and entrepreneurs or our economy could easily fail. In other words, saving our economy will require Godly capitalists and entrepreneurs not Godless immoral capitalists.
Covid-19 has devastated our economy, especially small businesses and their employees, over 50% of the economy. Today, less than 2% of the Covid-19 cases result in deaths, tragic as each death is. This death rate is less than 9/100 of 1% of our 320M population, a 20% decline since last summer when 2.8% of the cases resulted in deaths. By the end of this year, our nation will lose around 350.000 citizens to Covid-19. To put this tragic loss in perspective, the annual death rate for cardiovascular disease and cancer are both greater than our annual Covid-19 losses this year. In 2017, according to Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics – 2020 Update – Professional Heart Daily | American Heart Association cardiovascular disease caused nearly 859,000 deaths. Similarly, in 2018, according to An Update on Cancer Deaths in the United States | CDC there were 599,274 cancer deaths. This sad perspective will be a necessary consideration for saving our economy.
Saving our economy will require reductions in Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations, deaths, economic shutdowns, and school closures causing small business failures, unemployment, evictions, foreclosures, loan defaults, and bankruptcies. To gain some perspective, a comparison of two economic responses to the pandemic is appropriate. For this comparison consider the response of Florida, California, and New York. The October 2020 unemployment rate for each state was 6.5% in Florida, 9.3% in California, and 9.6% in New York according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Florida unemployment was more than 40% lower than that of California and New York. This is important since Florida has not closed its economy while the California and New York economies have been closed much of the year.
Consequently, the mid-December Covid-19 statistics for these states must be compared to evaluate the effects of economic closures. In Florida, 20,050 Covid-19 patients died out of 1,116,973 cases, a 1.8% case fatality rate, which is 9/100s of 1% of the 22 million Floridians. In California, 20,854 Covid-19 patients died out of 1,528,177 cases, a 1.4% case fatality rate, which is 5/100s of 1%, of the 40 million Californians. In New York, 34,983 Covid-19 patients died out of 764,966 cases, a 4.6% case fatality rate, which is 17/100s of 1% of the 20 million New Yorkers. Although New York was among the first states struck by the pandemic and the nation has subsequently learned a great deal about the disease, the New York case fatality rate is extreme in comparison to Florida and California. New York senior citizens with the virus were placed in elder care and living facilities with healthy residents resulting in rapid spread and high death rates. This action was inexcusable and must never be repeated especially when available beds in a hospital ship and convention center were not used for these senior citizens.
The final class of data to consider in a discussion of the means of saving our economy is how Covid-19 spreads in our communities. In many respects, the data is contradictory among states. In Louisiana, NPR reports that bars account for 14% of the cases and restaurants 13% of the cases. In contrast, contact tracing in New York shows that restaurants and bars account for a combined total of only 1.4% of the cases while household and social gatherings accounted 74% of the cases which is the same as the 74% close contact and community spread reported by North Dakota. Arkansas contact tracing data shows that restaurants and bars account for only 3% of the cases. In Illinois, restaurants account for 4% of the cases, bars account for 3%, and religious activities account for 5%. Interestingly, community events, (protests?) account for 7% of the cases, more than religious activities, bars, and restaurants. The Illinois contact data is the most complete evaluated; and it shows that activities that appeared to be that of essential workers contributed to most of the cases in the state, about 35%.
When governors and big city mayors close their economies or small businesses, they are usually not following the science. They are using their power to show their constituents that they are doing something, even if that something is not supported by science. The above data shows that small businesses including restaurants and bars as well as religious activities are not significant sources of Covid-19 spread. Dr. Fauci observed that community spread made it almost impossible to predict how many cases there will be. The facts demonstrate that community spread between people with no known contact with other infected individuals, travel to an area where the disease occurs, or spread among essential workers and household and social gatherings is more important than spread occurring at schools, religious gatherings, small businesses, bars, and restaurants. The fact that Covid-19 can be transmitted by people who are asymptomatic and unknowingly transmit the disease is also an important consideration when evaluating how to deal with the economic impact of the spread of Covid-19. With asymptomatic community spread and a significant part of our population involved in essential work, does it really make sense to close our economy, small businesses, and religious activities? Will doing so, contribute to saving our economy?
Returning to the comparison between Florida and California, comparisons of the unemployment and death rate data will provide difficult answers to these two questions. First, by applying the California Covid-19 death rate, with extensive economic closures, to the Florida population with few economic closures, Florida would have suffered almost 8,600 fewer deaths. By applying the Florida death rate to the California population, California would have suffered 15,600 more deaths. Second, by applying the unemployment rate of California to the Florida population, Florida would have 616,000 more unemployed. Applying the Florida unemployment rate to California that state would have 1,120,000 fewer unemployed. Putting it brutally, California’s comparatively closed economy may have saved 15,600 lives at the expense of 1,120,000 jobs. Conversely, Florida’s comparatively open economy may have cost 8,600 lives while saving 616,000 jobs. Obviously, governors and big city mayors have almost impossible choices to make regarding saving lives and saving our economy.
Using Covid-19 death rates and unemployment levels from one state to predict unemployment and Covid-19 mortality in another state is mere speculation used to provoke argument and discussion. After all, no two states have the same climate which affects outdoor activities and indoor gatherings. State populations have different age structures, racial and ethnic ratios, and ideological and political affiliations. No two state economies are the same. Each state has a unique business structures affecting the size of their industrial, financial, technology and service sectors, large and small retail establishments, and residential rental and home ownership ratios. These differences make prediction of Covid-19 death rates and unemployment in one state based on data from another state useful discussion tools, but such predictions are simply food for thought as We the People, governors, and big city mayors evaluate the potential impacts of our leader’s economic decisions.
It is useful to recall the early scientific Covid-19 models predicting 2-3 million US deaths in the first year of the pandemic. These predictions shocked us into submitting to successive two-week, national quarantines or lock downs. Except for essential workers, we stayed home and did not work. Many of us were fortunate enough to work from home potentially altering the way some types of work will be done in the future. We closed our schools. We agreed to wash our hands and sanitize surfaces at work and home. We observed social distancing and stopped personal contact with others including our relatives in senior centers and our dying loved ones in hospitals, and eventually most of us started wearing face masks to protect ourselves and others once the science convinced us of face mask efficacy. We flattened the curve and reduced Covid-19 deaths to 350,000 rather than millions. Obviously, governors and big city mayors have almost impossible choices to make regarding saving lives and saving our economy.
The last consideration regarding these devastating numbers is the other impacts of economic closures on people. School closures and unemployment impacts suicide rates, depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, family abuse, evictions, foreclosures, late payments on mortgages, rent, and loans, loan defaults, and bankruptcies. Most websites discussing suicide rates are unhelpful or totally unreliable. For example, the World Population Review site has two graphic depictions and a table titled, Suicide Rates by State 2020 all with identical data. Unfortunately, the first line on the table states, * Rates are per 100,000 people. Data for calendar year 2018. Covid-19 death statistics are immediately available, but suicide data takes two years to compile and report.
A July 2020 Townhall report titled, CDC Director Compares Rate of Suicides to COVID-19 Deaths summarizes concerns regarding school closings and other issues associated with closing our society and economy.
Center for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield said in a Buck Institute webinar that suicides and drug overdoses have surpassed the death rate for COVID-19 among high school students. Redfield argued that lockdowns and lack of public schooling constituted a disproportionally negative impact on young peoples’ mental health.
“But there has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools,” Redfield said. “We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose that are above excess that we had as background than we are seeing the deaths from COVID. So this is why I keep coming back for the overall social [well] being of individuals, is let’s all work together and find out how we can find common ground to get these schools open in a way that people are comfortable and their safe.”
A doctor at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek, CA claimed the facility has seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.
“What I have seen recently, I have never seen before,” Hansen said. “I have never seen so much intentional injury, said a nurse from the same hospital.
And while health authorities will not have verified data regarding suicides and drug overdoses in 2020 for two more years, local reporting indicates that suicide fatalities have increased year-on-year.
According to the American Medical Association, More than 35 states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality, [and] concerns for those with a mental illness or substance use disorder.
School closures cause other problems for families, especially single parent families. Essential workers cannot stay at home to monitor their children’s on-line education without risking their jobs. The stress leads to the mental issues described above. For families fortunate enough to have one parent who can work from home, the strain of balancing work and school can be debilitating, especially when young children are involved. In the best of situations, educators indicate that our children are losing ground. If parents lose their jobs because they must care for children due to school closures, they usually face economic disaster and the associated mental health issues. Since K-12 students are among the lowest risk group for contracting or transmitting Covid-19 or suffering serious effects of the disease in the absence of underlying conditions, opening our schools would have a major impact in saving our economy.
In my opinion, saving our economy will require national and state governments to act on behalf of We the People without regard to the accumulation of political power. With meaningful government assistance, capitalists and entrepreneurs acting with empathy, benevolence, and uncommon moral and ethical standards offer the best hope for saving our economy. Another round of national government Covid-19 aid like the payroll protection plan for small businesses and their employees, small business loans, extension of unemployment benefits, and eviction and foreclosure moratoriums would reduce the impact on We the People caused by the ongoing pandemic until vaccines end the Covid-19 crisis. Capitalists and entrepreneurs could provide a bridge between government measures and people’s ability to regain their financial stability. For example, banks, mortgagers, loan companies, and other financiers could offer reduced no penalty payment plans with commensurate repayment period extensions. Residential, commercial, and industrial property owners could offer similar reductions in rent and lease payments. It is not unreasonable to offer the suggested payment reduction plans and extensions to businesses, mortgagees, and tenants with sound pre-Covid-19 payment histories.
Our economy should start to recover as more people get vaccinated, but most of our population will not be immunized for six to eight months. At that time, it is reasonable to expect the economy to move into a period of rapid recovery. Consequently, the suggested credit, rent, and lease payment reduction and extensions should last at least one year. This would allow people to recover financially and resume pre-Covid-19 payment levels. This plan would allow property owners and lenders to keep good people and businesses as tenants or owners with a lower risk profile. Without such a plan, properties could remain vacant, producing no revenue, and incur extra costs related to foreclosures, evictions, and potential litigation. With the entire economy weakened, new tenants and owners could be scarce and pose a higher risk of failure as small businesses, new tenants, and mortgagees.
This plan would reduce unemployment, mental illness including suicides, drug abuse, and family abuse, and help families cope with school closures. Of course, the plan would also reduce financier’s short-term income for about one year; but it would promote long-term stability economic expansion thereby saving our economy.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Democrat Power is their party’s objective while Republicans seek to return power to the people.
Democrat power is the goal of virtually every plan and action undertaken by the Democrat Party. In politics, actions and policy platforms not words define motivations. By their actions and party platforms, the Democrat Party clearly demonstrates that they value power not people, that is We the People. Admittedly, the Republican Party also seeks political power. The essential difference is the means each party uses to gain power; and how each party uses their power. These critical differences were the essence of the 2020 election at every level in our society.
For the past five or six decades, the Supreme Court with a five or six progressive Justice majority has been critical to Democrat power in the United States. Additionally, progressive judges in the inferior US courts were also an important component of Democrat Party power. Progressives in the Democrat Party used the progressive US judiciary to promote their agenda when they could not pass the agenda through the Constitutional legislative process. The progressive US courts used two parts of the Constitution to accomplish the changes they desired. First, they used the authority of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall, to make judgements on the Constitutionality of laws. Second, they used the Article VI Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution which states, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. Thus, decisions of the US Supreme Court or inferior courts, when case appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court, became the law of the land.
Undoubtedly, Roe v. Wade, is one of the most politically and emotionally charged US Supreme Court cases in our history. The U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7“2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s Constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law). In my opinion this decision, and the scholarly legal discussion on the right to Privacy, is inconsistent with judicial good behavior.
The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 essays anonymously written in support of ratification of the Constitution by three authors under the pseudonym, Publius. In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, one Publius, discussed good behavior for judges in the US Judiciary.
Judges hold their offices during ‘good behavior,’ which is the best expedient to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.
The duty (of courts of justice) must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution,’ void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Consequently, good Behavior is court decisions that reflect the manifest tenor of the constitution. Manifest tenor is original intent based on the Constitutional text, construction, grammar, and the words as defined when the Constitution, Amendments, or laws were ratified by We the People. Manifest tenor also refers to the principle train of thought or idea that runs through each article and section of the Constitution and law under consideration.
In The Federalist No. 81, Hamilton wrote,
There is not one syllable in the plan under consideration (Constitution), which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution.
The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade violates both of Hamilton’s prerequisites for judicial good behavior. First, the decision did not concur with the manifest tenor of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Privacy is not found in any part of any definition of liberty. Since it is not even a synonym for liberty, Privacy is also inconsistent with the principle train of thought or idea that runs through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the idea that Privacy is an implicit concept with respect to liberty is nothing less than divining the spirit of the Constitution. In my opinion, Roe v. Wade is one of the main reasons that We the People have a flawed Constitution lacking any meaningful Constitutional check on the Judicial Branch of our government. Is the best solution to this problem a Constitutional Amendment? Is the idea worth considering? This idea might end the rancor associated with the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.
Additionally, disrespectful judicial rulings that usurp the will of We the People occur when jurists proport an ability to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution or craft opinions that are not based on the textural original intent, the manifest tenor of the Constitution and its Amendments. After all, We the People ratified the manifest tenor of each part of the Constitution and its Amendments. Each of the 535 members of the US Congress and the President were elected by We the People. It is the US Congress which passes legislation that becomes law when signed by the President. Consequently, State and Federal laws, and Inferior US Court opinions consistent with the manifest tenor of the Constitution, must be upheld by our courts because they reflect the collective will of We the People. The same is true of Presidential Executive Orders that are consistent with the manifest tenor of the Constitution.
Conversely, The duty (of courts of justice) must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution,’ void. When judicial rulings are not based on the manifest tenor of the Constitution, the offending jurist places their opinion above the collective wisdom of all We the People. This is true whether the opinion is that of an individual judge, a panel of judges, or a nine Justice US Supreme Court ruling, Judicial rulings that give the standing of law to progressive social policies remove the political initiative from We the People giving it to the government agencies or private entities, like Planned Parenthood, adding to Democrat power. When the elected representatives of We the People make laws about social issues, as Conservatives and the Republican Party prefer, power originates with We the People.
in accordance with Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, President Trump has nominated Supreme Court Justices and US Inferior Court Judges that will make decisions based on originalist concepts that include manifest tenor and reject attempts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution. The Republican Senate has fulfilled its Article II Advice and Consent obligations and confirmed President Trump’s Judicial nominations. Consequently, progressive changes to our society should be decided through the legislative process where We the People, through our elected legislators, will determine what is best for We the People. An unelected Judiciary will no longer rule against the will of We the People. The Democrat Party will lose power; and, through his Judiciary nominations, President Trump and the Republican Senate returned power to We the People.
The legislative Powers mandated by Article I of the Constitution were crafted by the Founders and Framers to create tension between the House of Representatives (House) and the Senate. The House was crafted as a federalist body where the states have greater power because the number of Representatives is population based. Representatives also face election every two years. Consequently, they are more responsible to We the People of their state. The Senate was crafted to be a more nationalistic body giving more attention to the issues of the national government. They only face election by We the People of their state every six years. The tension created was amplified by the differences in the powers and responsibilities delegated to the House and Senate by Article I and Senatorial approval of International Treaties, Ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls, Supreme Court Justices, Inferior Court Judges, and all other Officers of the United States in accordance with Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
The Framers had great confidence in the virtue of We the People and did not anticipate the rancor that soon developed with the rise of political parties. Unfortunately, the Constitution provides no remedies for the problems political parties created. The tension created by the two parts of the Legislative Branch is compounded by the struggle for power, control, and leadership of the House and Senate by political parties. The Senate filibuster further complicates legislative power struggles. With Senate filibuster rules, 40 Senators control the legislative process at the expense of the other 495 members of the Senate and House adding more tension to the political struggle for legislative power. Thus, the combination of the two parts of the legislature and a minimum of two political parties created at least a four-way power struggle for control of the Legislative Branch of our government. Before any piece of legislation can go to the President for approval, legislators must overcome the four-way power struggle that the Constitution forces on them. This complicated struggle, all too often, prevents passage of legislation. When this occurs, legislators often cause difficulties and harm to We the People.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Democrat Party in the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Pelosi, has placed the command of Rahm Emanuel, former President Obama’s Chief of Staff, above the welfare of We the People. The Democrat Party continually adds funding for progressive, some might say socialist, projects, programs, and social initiatives unrelated to Covid-19 to needed economic, medical, and Covid-19 relief bills. Furthermore, Speaker Pelosi has refused to negotiate or compromise on relief packages since the first compromise, Covid-19 relief legislation was approved by the legislature and signed by President Trump. The unrelated additions included projects and funding that they could not do before the crisis such as Kennedy Center funding and unrestricted funds to progressive cities and states to bail out unfunded pension plans and debt incurred prior to the pandemic. Speaker Pelosi uses this tactic in the hope that she will increase Democrat power in the Legislature with little regard for We the People.
A similar tactic to increase Democrat power, perfected by Speaker Pelosi, is to add unrelated project funding to needed projects or essential government services legislation. For example, the requirement to add an additional percentage of a federally funded construction projects for art. Physical conservatives say that the art does not contribute to the function of the project. However, the art projects are something that artists could not do before the project requiring the art. Another common Democrat legislative tactic is adding smaller unrelated project or program funding to essential budget appropriation bills. For example, low priority Housing and Urban Development, Interior Department, and Department of Education funding could be added a Defense appropriations bill. Physical conservatives who would object to the non-defense spending in separate bills are often forced to approve the entire bill as a compromise to secure essential Defense funding. Sadly, the House, under leadership of both parties, often fails in its duty to pass appropriation bills for each of the 12 Cabinet Departments before the government is forced to close due to the lack of funding. The House fails in this duty more times than it succeeds. When this occurs, emergency omnibus bills are passed to keep the government operating. Speaker Pelosi has mastered this art of appropriation bill failure. This tactic is a Democrat power play allowing Democrats to interject progressive projects and programs into the legislation which must be passed; or the government will have to shut down, thereby not letting a serious crisis go to waste.
Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim to be for We the People, their policies and social initiatives promote increasing Democrat power for their party, the Federal government, and various forms of collectives like unions. Collective type organizations emphasize centralized power versus individual, We the People power favored by conservatives and the Republican Party. As one example, programs like Obamacare, single payer health insurance, or Medicare-for-all promote collective management or socialistic control of healthcare which means that bureaucrats not individuals and their doctors make most healthcare decisions in our country. In contrast, conservatives and Republicans prefer at least free market healthcare insurance where individuals and families have total control of their healthcare insurance giving power to We the People. A FORGOTTEN AMERICAN’S ALTERNATIVE HEALTHCARE PLAN offers a proposal for complete transformation of healthcare in the United States.
One of the more devious ways Democrat power is garnered by party leaders, is the never let a serious crisis go to waste legislative maneuver perfected by Leader Pelosi. Covid-19 relief legislation is the best recent example of the tactic. She crafted legislation filled with funds for programs and projects unrelated to Covid-19 that were at least 2-3 times more expensive than Republican alternatives. She has refused to negotiate for months. The result has been no Payroll Protection Plan financial relief for small businesses and their employees, business closures and failures, increasing unemployment, expanding food insecurity, rental evictions, and foreclosures. The insidious result is more people become dependent on government benefits like unemployment, food stamps, and Medicaid. At the same time, Democrat Governors and big city Mayors mandate, business shutdowns, capacity limits, and school closures forcing many parents to stay at home without pay increasing the financial burdens on We the People. Apparently, Speaker Pelosi believes that delaying Covid-19 economic relief until after the inauguration of President-Elect Biden will proffer credit for the relief to Biden and the Democrat Party. On December 7,2020, Speaker Pelosi said that she was now willing to negotiate “because we have a new President” verifying that Democrat power was more important to Democrats than “We the People.” Obviously, party leaders believe their tactics will increase long term Democrat power.
On the other hand, the Republican Party under the leadership of President Trump, Senate Majority leader McConnell, and House Minority leader McCarthy emphasized targeted legislation. Their plans would provide Payroll Protection Plan funds to small business owners and their employees, unemployment benefits that did not provide incentives to stay on unemployment, payments to individuals, and funds to assist states with personal protective equipment and distribution of Covid-19 vaccinations and treatments. Republican proposals provide power to We the People, small business owners and employees, and individuals,
Join the fray. All of the America s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The healthcare plan issue is the difference between socialistic government dictated plans and capitalistic individual based plans.
The healthcare plan issue is the difference between the socialistic approach to healthcare and the capitalistic approach to healthcare. Consequently, the Democrat socialistic healthcare plan must articulate every aspect of their plan for coverage. With a Democrat plan, everyone is covered at no cost to individuals or families, pre-existing conditions are covered for all; costs are paid by the government through taxation, and the price, type and availability of treatment or medication is determined by healthcare bureaucrats. A Democrat healthcare plan requires thousands of pages of regulations to implement and rarely fully understood by the citizenry. A Democrat plan is a government controlled one size fits all plan so every aspect can be articulated.
In contrast, a Republican capitalistic healthcare plan is based on individual choice. Capitalistic plans reduce taxes and allow the individual to choose their personal plan based on their personal health profile and risk tolerance. Consequently, a Republican plan lacks detail and specificity because there is no monolithic one size fits all plan. In reality, there cannot be a Republican Healthcare Plan because Republicans will allow We the People to develop our own personal healthcare plans that fit our personal or family requirements.
As a result, a Republican capitalistic healthcare plan or law must define the parameters that all private healthcare plans must include. At a minimum, the plan or healthcare law must require coverage for all pre-existing conditions, define the maximum age for covered dependents, define coverage limits for, hospitalization, specialist, physician, support staff, and medication related treatment of all diseases and chronic conditions. The healthcare law should also require complete cost transparency related to physicians, facilities, diagnostic procedures and equipment, supplies, medication both prescription and over the counter, and coverage related to eye, dental, and hearing health. The Republican healthcare law should allow home delivered meals, transportation for physician visits, and remote physician care for those who wish to pay for this coverage in their personal plan. This law should also allow individuals and families to form healthcare insurance cooperatives to compete with employers for insurance coverage prices in their area. Healthcare providers must be allowed to provide fully transportable healthcare insurance to customers in all 50 states, Washington DC, and all US Territories creating competition and lowering healthcare insurance costs for individuals and families. Unlimited Healthcare savings plans must be allowed in the Republican healthcare law. The Republican plan must also allow a range of low-cost plans allowing people to have a combination of healthcare savings plans with a range of catastrophic healthcare insurance plans that fit their health profile, risk tolerance, and ability to pay.
The Republican capitalistic healthcare law should also require complete healthcare provider transparency related to quality of care. The professional evaluations and disciplinary citations against all healthcare practitioners at every level and citations against healthcare facilities and their staffs should be publicly accessible to all. This is the only way the public can be sure that their care is the best available in their area. Such transparency would eliminate poor healthcare providers and reduce the overall cast of healthcare because medical liability insurance would go down. No one would go to a poorly rated practitioner or medical facility. Capitalism would eliminate the bad actors. Of course, medical practitioner groups and institution groups would oppose this level of transparency.
Meaningful tort reform is also necessary to control healthcare costs and must be included in Republican capitalistic healthcare laws. I am a good example of the added medical costs of our current tort laws. I was a truck driver with a heart condition. DOT regulations required me to have a tread mill stress annually. This test costs about $700; but my cardiologist would not approve my physical without a myocardial stress test which costs about $3,500. He required this test as a means of litigation mitigation in case I was involved in a heart related traffic accident while driving my truck; and he would be blamed for allowing me to drive with a defective heart. Physicians prescribe innumerable diagnostic tests as litigation mitigation measures. Meaningful tort reform would reduce such testing and reduce healthcare costs with little reduction in the quality of healthcare.
Healthcare and healthcare insurance comprise at least 17% of the US economy. Previously, several expansive and radical capitalistic healthcare and healthcare insurance proposals were discussed at America’s Crossroad. These proposals include A FORGOTTEN AMERICAN’S ALTERNATIVE HEALTHCARE PLAN which discusses employer provided plans, Obama Care, Medicare, Medicaid, VA Healthcare, and a unique proposal for dedicated Wounded Warrior Healthcare, TRUE FREE MARKET HEALTHCARE INSURANCE, IT IS TIME FOR THE HEALTHCARE RESPONSIBILITY ACT, and THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTHCARE TAX CREDIT. This discussion illustrates the fact that it is impossible to formulate a single comprehensive Republican capitalistic healthcare plan which gives individuals, families, and their practitioners complete control over their healthcare. For Democrats, a healthcare plan regulates every aspect of the healthcare system from costs to treatments and treatment accessibility requiring thousands of pages of regulations which are indecipherable to laymen. Accordingly, a Plan giving individuals and families control over the type and cost of their personal healthcare Plan ds not qualify as a healthcare Plan in Democrat circles. Therefore, healthcare based on free market capitalism can never qualify as a healthcare plan to Democrat socialists; and the healthcare plan issue cannot be resolved politically simply because Democrats and Republicans will never agree o the definition the word Plan as it pertains to healthcare.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
With their national poll approval ratings at or below 20%, it is not surprising that 80% of the population hears lies and damn lies when politicians and journalists open their mouths to speak or write. A discussion of the concepts of truth and lies may be an appropriate place to start this discussion. In The Ten Commandments we read this, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor (EX 20:16, NIV), or do not lie. The Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary definition of lie is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. Conversely the same dictionary defines truth as, the body of real things, events, and facts, actuality, the state of being the case, fact. For We the People, the Deplorable Class, these concepts appear to be quite clear.
Lies of commission and omission advance the progressive cultural narrative to influence our social, political, and economic system.
ACADEMIC LIES
The 1983 Harvard University Press publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought essay on truth sheds a very different light on truth. Truth is described as the practical expression of a subject totality achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history and this-worldly manifestations of class-related needs and interests. In the essay defining historiography, the study of history as a discipline, the definition of truth is refined, in the context of history, as an ideal chosen from an infinite number of similar, potential ideals determined by history and finally realized under communism once a consensus regarding the new truth of history is achieved. Joseph Stalin said, America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. As a result, obscure and often discredited depictions of history are presented as historical facts to incrementally alter the existing historical paradigm and promote the progressive, Marxist agenda, academic lies. For example, the left ruthlessly uses this process to discredit the notion that our nation and Constitution are based on a Judeo-Christian society, principles, and laws.
With these thoughts regarding truth and history in mind and the current atmosphere on our college campuses and all levels of academia, it may be well for readers to consider the roll of the left’s educational dictatorship in today’s society to accomplish Stalin’s Marxist, progressive plan for America. Consequently, it is relatively simple to view the Constitution as a living, evolving document rather than a constant, unchanging basis for the rule of Law. The change, in jurisprudence from the preeminence of original intent to case law where precedent and the opinion of judges prevails and the Constitution became a living document, began in the middle of the nineteenth century at the Harvard Law School, the start of the left’s educational dictatorship. For the left, social truth is relative and changes with time and the current societal situation; and a lie is a contradiction of the current Marxist, progressive, social paradigm.
CLIMATIC LIES
The environmental movement in general, and the notion that climate change or global warming is primarily associated with industrialization, pollution, and carbon-based energy, is a movement in which academic, political, and journalistic lies and collusion regarding a narrative is obvious. It is interesting that the climate change narrative has turned 180° in the last half-century. In the 1970s the climate change narrative was the coming Ice Age. Today’s narrative is that man caused global warming will destroy the earth and all its inhabitants within 100 to 200 years at the most. There is no interest in the academic, political, or journalistic communities to explore or explain the cause of this narrative change in such a short period of time. That is a question we the deplorables need not ask; and a discussion of the narrative change doesn’t fit the current narrative. The reality is that both narratives placed the cause as industrialization, pollution, and our dependence on carbon-based energy.
This question regarding geological evidence of climate change is rarely considered. How is it possible, in the absence of human activity and industrialization, that the earth has gone through multiple ice ages and subsequent periods of global warming ending each ice age? Some geologist have attributed the cooling cycles to impacts of huge meteorites or asteroids which filled atmosphere with impact debris causing the cooling and the subsequent Ice Ages. Natural atmospheric cleansing resulted in rising temperatures over time ending each Ice Age. This seems to be a logical theory, but here is an interesting question. If such impacts are the cause of the global cooling and ice ages with subsequent atmospheric cleansing resulting in slow steady global warming and the end of the ice ages, does that mean that the earth is too close to the sun? Are such asteroid impacts the only phenomenon that has prevented temperature increases too great to sustain life on earth? Without these hypothesized asteroid impacts, would earth be too hot for life and more like mars? These unasked questions are interesting to a young geezer. To me the real scientific question that should be asked is, if carbon dioxide pollution from carbon based energy sources is the cause of climate change, why did earth experience extreme cyclic ice ages and subsequent global warming before the industrial age? Of course, such questions do not fit the current narrative explaining climate change; nor do they warrant real scientific inquiry according to the narrative.
The majority of academics, journalists, and politicians claim that man caused climate change, currently considered global warming, is settled science. This claim is not without controversy. John Coleman, a founder of the Weather Channel has said that man-made climate change is a hoax and climate change is not happening. He declared there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts. Coleman is skeptical about claims that 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement on the issue noting,
They don’t have any choice. If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.
Current Weather Channel management does not agree with Coleman. My question is, Who currently pays Weather Channel bills?
Not all scientists and environmental economists agree that costs of climate change mitigation will significantly alter climate change.
Another group of skeptics regarding man caused global warming is Patrick Michaels editor of CLIMATE COUP: GLOBAL WARMING’S INVASION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR LIVES along with seven other contributing climate scientists and economists. In the introduction to this publication, Michael’s demonstrates how academicians and climate scientists select data to support the current global warming paradigm. While discussing California’s K-12 climate change curriculum guide, he writes,
…The 50 “ year trend in California temperatures is 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, or 4.3 degrees per century¦.
But starting in 1960 is highly misleading¦. Records began in 1895. Using the whole record, the trend is only 0.08 degrees. California’s alarmist guide over estimates the over “ all trend by over 500%. Further, it is rather apparent, even in the 50 year sample, that the warming takes place largely between 1960 and 1980, with no net change in the succeeding 30 years.
This selective use of data to support the climate change narrative or paradigm is an academic lie of commission, just another damn global warming lie.
Similarly, Chapter 3 of this publication, Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account, reiterates Coleman’s claim regarding climate change publications. The author, Ross McKitrick, opens the chapter with the following statement:
Unfortunately, Climategate e-mails revealed that indeed there has been systematic pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line about disastrous climate change. Even more unfortunate, my experience and that of others are that the post-Climategate environment has made this situation worse, not better¦.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by claiming to be the consensus of scientists,’ is actually defining a paradigm in the sense of the late historian of science Thomas Kuhn. To Kuhn, paradigms are overarching logical structures, and the work of normal science,’ is the care and feeding of paradigms with data and research findings that confirmed that indeed the paradigm is a correct representation of scientific reality.
This is the story of those difficulties with the IPCC and with the keepers of the paradigm¦.
Unfortunately, policymakers and the political class cannot see what is happening because the absence of these publications gives the appearance of unanimity in science that is not there.
Throughout this 28 page chapter, McKitrick discusses the issues raised in his introduction. In conclusion he states,
The paper I have discussed makes the case that the IPCC used false evidence to conceal an important problem with the surface temperature data on which most of its conclusions rest¦.
In the aftermath of Climategate, a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public¦. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point¦.
The policy community has aggressively intervened in climate science because of all the breaches of normal scientific procedures¦.. It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view.
This strategy is backfiring badly: rather than creating the appearance of genuine scientific progress, the situation appears more like a chokehold of indoctrination and intent intellectual corruption. I do not know what the solution is, since I have yet to see a case in which an institution or segment of society, having once been contaminated or knocked off balance by the global warning issue, is subsequently able to right itself. But perhaps, as time progresses, climate science will find a way to do so. Now that would be progress.
Although the authors concede that some warming is occurring, CLIMATE COUP goes on to challenge most of the dire claims related to the global warming paradigm, the extent of man’s contribution to climate change, and the relationship between the costs and benefits of most of the proposed solutions to the problem.
Evaluation of the Paris Climate Accord shows that it appears to be more of a wealth redistribution plan exempting major polluters like China and India and extracting huge costs on the developed world especially the United States of America. This is especially true for carbon credit payment plans where individuals, businesses, and nations pay penalties or taxes for excessive carbon energy usage which is transferred to developing nations. When the world’s most significant carbon polluters are excluded, the actual or scientifically perceived, reduction in temperature creases is relatively insignificant in comparison to the exorbitant costs. Touted benefits appear to be nothing more than political, journalistic, and academic lies, damn lies all. Consequently, the fact that President Trump withdrew from the accord will benefit the United States far more than the accord would benefit the earth with its insignificant impact on changes in the rate of purported global warming.
POLITICAL LIES
In today’s highly partisan environment, with slim legislative majorities and complex legislation often pairing liberal with conservative elements forcing lesser of evils considerations, principled votes can be difficult or impossible. The inevitable result of this type of legislation is political lies since it often hides issues that cannot pass on their merits within other critical legislation such as funding for Planned Parenthood within a an unrelated appropriation bill. The only way to end this political legislative gerrymandering is to require that all legislation relates to a single issue that stands or fails on the merits of the issue. The current legislative process is deceitful and makes political lies inevitable.
A related legislative issue is the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to pass non-budgetary legislation and the resultant filibuster. When the majority party does not have 60 Senatorial votes, the filibuster often forces Senators into defacto lies because they cannot fulfill campaign promises. The situation causes We the People to distrust politicians and the political process rendering election of Senators a somewhat thankless process. Alexander Hamilton observed that the filibuster is not democratic. He discussed what could be described as the tyranny of the minority where the minority overrules the majority. This is inconsistent with the republican form of government and democratic principles where the majority rules. Hamilton also discussed the remote possibility that unscrupulous campaign financiers would only need to come up with money to influence 40 equally unscrupulous Senators rather than 49 such Senators to alter the result of a vote on an issue. Withholding funds would be a more likely and less obvious strategy. This 60 vote super-majority rule often turns hope in the power of our Republic into a damn political lie. This is unfortunate since the origin of the filibuster rule was a simple misunderstanding not part of the Founder’s plan for the Senate.
We the People often feel that politicians simply say what they think their constituents want to hear during campaigns. Once they get into office, politicians seem to vote as the money tells them to vote, We the People be damned. Unfortunately, when politicians do stand on principles and vote based on campaign promises, they are often ridiculed, derided, and ostracized for the purpose coercing a change in their vote which would turn campaign promises into lies. Some unattributed examples will suffice; we really care about the people of the United States (but if bipartisan legislation will reduce our political power we will not participate in any such legislation), the IRS will never be used as a weapon against political opponents, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your healthcare insurance plan you can keep your plan, Under the ACA you will save an average of $2,500 a year, a cut in a government program occurs when the program increase occurs at a lower percentage than the rate of increase in the previous year or a lower than expected increase in a government program is a cut to the program (current Medicaid discussions for example), if you elect a Republican Legislature and President we will repeal and replace Obamacare, If you elect GOP Representatives, Senators, and President we will end illegal immigration and pass immigration reform, If you elect us we will reform Medicare and Social Security and insure that these programs will be available for all future generations, or elect us and we will lower your income taxes and reform the tax code. Of this list of major “lies,” Republicans did reform the tax codes and lower taxes. We the People could add pages to this short list of damn political lies. Liars must be replaced at every level of our political system.
HEALTHCARE LIES
The current Obamacare, healthcare insurance, repeal and replace debate is a discussion where journalistic and political liars collude. Collusion occurred during the debates for and passage of Obamacare. The first question regarding the current debate is the actual portion of the economy involved in the healthcare industry and the individual healthcare insurance market, Obamacare. The claim is that healthcare occupies one sixth of the US economy. Politicians claim and journalist report that the debate is critical because of this large proportion of our economy. Some questions are appropriate. Is healthcare insurance included in the healthcare share of the economy? If not, is the total healthcare contribution to our economy closer to 20% or more? Additionally, the combination of those currently involved in Obamacare and the uninsured is approximately 20% of the total healthcare insurance market. This is also known as the individual healthcare insurance market. Between 50 and 55% of healthcare insurance is provided by employers. Approximately 25% of the healthcare market is provided by VA healthcare, Medicare, and Medicaid. If the above proportions are generally accurate, then the debate regarding repealing and replacing or keeping Obamacare actually involves only 20% of the healthcare portion of the economy, or 3.3-4% not 16.6-20%, of the overall economy. Does this conflation of information, a gross overstatement or exaggeration, of the contribution of the individual healthcare insurance market to the overall economy constitute political and journalistic lies?
Terminology for the funds used to expand the individual healthcare Insurance market to able bodied low income workers through Medicaid using Obamacare is another area where politicians and journalists collude to at least misinform the people of the United States. In my opinion, Obamacare payments to supplement premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for this group constitute Marxist or socialist wealth redistribution from those tax payers with the ability to pay more to those having a greater need for healthcare insurance. In the words of Marx, From each according to his ability to each according to his need, wealth is redistributed by this plan. Depending on their political philosophy, politicians and journalists, use a variety of terms to describe this wealth redistribution. The terms include subsidies, entitlements, corporate welfare, and cost or premium reductions. The term wealth redistribution is not used nor is the fact that wealthier tax payers are financing the Medicaid expansion program ever discussed openly. These damn lies are lies of omission.
Politicians claim and journalists report that the individual market will be a competitive free market controlled by patients providing close patient doctor relationships and treatment choices. How can a market that involves at most 20% of healthcare be a competitive free market when 65-75% of the healthcare market is controlled by Medicare and employer provided healthcare insurance with contracts covering prices and availability? With these thoughts in mind, no one should be surprised that the promises of Obamacare turned into political and journalistic lies. Will the promises of any replacement for Obamacare, or improvements, in the individual healthcare insurance market also turn into political lies? Under the current paradigm, a real patient controlled, free market individual healthcare insurance market providing meaningful doctor-patient relationships, lower costs, and real choice is highly unlikely. Perhaps, it is time to consider an alternative.
JOURNALISTIC LIES
Journalistic lies are as complex as political lies. They are lies of commission and lies of omission. For this discussion, journalistic lies of commission are simply falsehoods intentionally reported as facts or unsubstantiated information and speculation based on anonymous, unverified sources. Lies of omission are simply the failure to report on legitimate factual stories that do not support the current news or social narrative. Both types of lies are developed to support the news narrative that the elites of journalism and the culture determine necessary to mold the opinion of the populace. Both types of lies undermine public trust in journalism.
It is a well-established fact that the vast majority of American journalists refer to themselves as liberal or progressive. These two labels along with communist, socialist, and Democrat are synonyms for Marxist. The difference between these terms is merely the speed and manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented as the basis for governance. Many conservatives think that the primary purpose of news narratives is to provide information that supports, promotes, and insures that the central concept or ideal of progressive narratives are internalized by the majority of the population over time, social propaganda and indoctrination. Narratives being promoted by the progressive elites of our education system, pop culture, journalism, and progressive politicians, Democrats, are the previously described mission statement of Stalin for America, America will collapse from within¦ if we can undermine¦ its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. When Stalin referred to morality and spiritual life, he was referring to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Adding individualism and capitalism to the list of characteristics essential for American exceptionalism provides a fairly complete list of personal qualities and institutions that Marxism must undermine to ensure the internal collapse of America and usher in governance based on Marxist philosophy, socialism. It is these five areas of American culture, patriotism, morality, spirituality or Christianity, capitalism, and economic entrepreneurial individualism, that the progressive journalism narrative seeks to undermine.
Advancing the progressive social agenda starts in academia primarily in the social sciences. Regardless of the specifics, the narrative and agenda is almost always aimed at undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage, American morality and spiritual life. As soon as academia establishes a strong narrative, journalists join the fray. If politicians are unable to enact laws supporting the agenda, progressives take issues to the federal courts. Consequently, academia, journalist, and politicians collude to accomplish the progressive social agenda. This assault on American morality and spiritual life began with school prayer. The next phase was abortion rights which were followed by gay-rights and the battle for same-sex marriage. Next, progressives began their battle for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. The final battle in this area could be totally open bisexual polygamy. Each progressive agenda cause would be worthy of extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that this has been a concerted effort to undermine the America of our Founders and the Judeo-Christian principles that made America the greatest nation in history.
Academicians, scientists, politicians, and journalist are all embroiled in a contest for the future of the United States of America based on the difference between lies, damn lies, and truth. Often the difference between lies and truth is in the eyes of the beholder and related to the narrative and motivation of the protagonists. In my opinion, the progressive narrative is that American patriotism, morality, and spiritual life must be undermined to insure that their vision for America will be realized. On the other hand, We the People in the Deplorable Class are diametrically opposed to the progressive narrative and agenda. We believe in the Founder’s vision for the United States of America. We believe in American exceptionalism, the critical impact of our Judeo-Christian heritage, the values espoused in Scripture, and the system of Constitutional capitalism that has evolved in America from colonial times to the present.
We the People in the Deplorable Class know that these values will help Make America Great Again.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Americans need an alternative healthcare plan. As a “forgotten American,” allow me to propose a radical healthcare plan for consideration. Neither Obamacare nor any current GOP Healthcare Plan is either patient centered or free market. Since they barely cover 20% of the total healthcare insurance market, the current alternatives will fail; and we will be left with socialized single payer, VA style healthcare. Maybe it is time to consider at least one other healthcare plan. None of the current plans even offer free market healthcare insurance. Everything either existing or contemplated will leave us with varying degrees of government controlled healthcare insurance. The vaunted strong patient doctor relationship will be non-existent. In my opinion, a true free market healthcare plan is no longer possible due to the high cost of modern healthcare. However, a true free market healthcare insurance system that also provides for strong patient control and patient doctor relationships could be accomplished if several changes to the current or contemplated healthcare plan were adopted.
Before suggesting an alternative healthcare plan, a discussion of the United States government role in healthcare is appropriate. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States specifies that either the United States or State government is responsible for any individual’s healthcare, well-being, welfare, or education. Specifically, Article I, Section 1 states, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. Accordingly, only those powers specified, herein granted, in Article I, can or should, be enacted by the Congress of the United States. Individual healthcare, well-being, welfare, or education is not among the legislative Powers granted in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The first paragraph of this section,
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,
refers to revenue collection necessary to pay for or maintain the general welfare of the United States government, as defined in the remainder of the section. This section ds not say, provide for… the general welfare of the”people or citizens,” the section says, “provide for the… general welfare of the United States.” Furthermore, Amendment X states,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Consequently, the words and original Intent of the Constitution dictate that individual healthcare, well-being, welfare, and education are not the responsibility of the United States government; but they are the responsibility of the States respectively, or the people. Article I through Amendment XXVII of the Constitution provide the Constitutional details for the United States government to protect We the People and implement the general guidelines and objectives described in the Preamble, or introduction, to the Constitution.
However, Marxist, socialists, progressives, liberals, and the Democrat Party on left generally consider the Preamble to the Constitution as part of the implementation instructions rather than an introduction providing the general guidelines and objectives of the Constitution. The Preamble states that the United States should promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary defines promote as follows: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of or to help bring into being. Neither the word contribute nor help connotes the concept that the United States government is required through legislation or responsibility to provide Welfare of any type. The archaic Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary definition of secure follows: overconfident, easy in mind, confident, assured in opinion or expectation, having no doubt. Again, nothing in the definition of secure implies that the United States has the responsibility to provide, through legislation, welfare of any type. We the People are confident and assured that our Constitution will allow each individual to work to secure the Blessings of liberty. This phrase in the Preamble indicates that the United States Constitution provides a legal, political, social, and economic environment that contributes to and helps We the People secure (or have confidence regarding) the Blessings of Liberty. The emphasis of the Preamble is that the Constitution provides a framework by which We the People can secure the Blessings of Liberty for and by ourselves and our posterity. We the People individually determine how we are blessed by the liberty to pursue all that life offers to each of us. Nothing in the Constitution indicates that the United States government must or should provide anything but general, not any specific type of Welfare.
EMPLOYER HEALTHCARE PLANS
Since both Obamacare and any GOP plan are doomed to failure because only around 20% of the population will be covered, discussion of the current state of the healthcare plan in the United States seems appropriate. No segment of our healthcare insurance industry bears any resemblance to a free market, including employer provided healthcare insurance. No category of healthcare insurance is free of some form United States government control or subsidies. Over 50% of the people in our country benefit from a subsidized employer provided healthcare insurance. In each employer based healthcare plan, the value of the insurance is not considered as taxable income for employees, a government entitlement or subsidy; and businesses are allowed to deduct their employee insurance costs as a business expense, another government entitlement or subsidy. Thus, each employer provided healthcare plan is subsidized by the United States government and is an entitlement.
Additionally, each employer based healthcare plan is not a free market system for the employee and ds not guarantee meaningful, long term patient doctor relationships. Normally, employees must choose from at most three healthcare plan insurance providers that have contracts with their employer. Often employees must settle for the insurance offered by their employer for only one healthcare plan. Additionally, employees are usually limited to the HMO or PPO practitioners participating in their employer contracted healthcare plan. If the employer finds a better healthcare plan provider, the employee must change to the new plan and associated medical practitioners.
An individual or family healthcare plan has many advantages over employer provided healthcare plan insurance. Neither Obamacare nor any GOP plan provides any employee/patient control over their patient doctor relationship or other service providers for those participating in an employer provided healthcare plan.
OBAMACARE
In 2017, 12.2 million new individual consumers enrolled in Obamacare exchanges; but only slightly more than 20 million people were enrolled in all Obamacare programs including the Marketplace, Medicaid expansion, and young adults staying on their parents plan in 2016. This represents only 10-15% of the US population. Approximately 8.5% of our population has no healthcare plan. Consequently, Obamacare and any GOP individual healthcare insurance plan is attempting the build financially solvent individual healthcare insurance exchanges or markets serving about 20% of the total population of the nation, any State, or locale. In addition, a large proportion of the people served by both plans fall in the lower 30-40% of income earners. Some self-employed people in this group have higher incomes. With these small exchanges, markets, or patient pools, both of these plans are doomed to fail. Consequently, it is not surprising to me that Obamacare is failing!
THE “FORGOTTEN AMERICAN” PLAN
In my opinion, the only way to create a true, free market healthcare plan and insurance system that maximizes individual patient control and strong patient doctor relationships is a radical, comprehensive restructuring of the entire healthcare insurance industry in the United States. Accomplishment of this restructuring would require elimination of all vestiges of United States and State government as well as employer control over the types and cost of individual and family healthcare plan coverage offered by private insurance carriers. Employer paid healthcare insurance plans would be eliminated and converted to individual and family plans. Non-subsidized Obamacare plans would also be eliminated and converted to individual and family plans. Individuals and families receiving Obamacare subsidies and those receiving Obamacare coverage through Medicaid could continue these benefits until they are phased out by the respective states as new markets provide effective and economical individual and family healthcare insurance plans.
Government involvement should be limited to ensuring that healthcare plan providers treat people fairly and ethically, cover preexisting conditions for those changing healthcare insurance providers, and cover children under age 26 who are students or have incomes below the individual poverty level. Although it could be a leap too far, no PPO or HMO type restrictions should be placed on individuals and families in the proposed healthcare plan system. Each healthcare plan should allow people to select the practitioners and care facilities of their choice in every state where their insurance provider participates in the markets. This would insure high quality patient doctor relationships. All taxes, mandates, including the linkage between Medicare costs and private healthcare costs, penalties, and other regulations of Obamacare, unrelated to fair and ethical healthcare plan practices must also be eliminated.
Elimination of employer paid plans, in combination with those in Obamacare and the uninsured, would create a potential individual and family healthcare plan free market involving at least 70-75% of the US population. With exchanges or insurance pools this large, insurers would be able to eliminate life time coverage limits. Since coverage would be for individuals and families, preexisting conditions would not be an issue because lapses in coverage would not normally occur. Changes in employment or location would not affect individual and family insurance coverage. When individuals or families change insurance carriers, the old insurance carrier would provide a letter of continuing insurance as required now, and the new carrier would be required to cover all preexisting conditions.
Several steps would be necessary to accomplish this change. First, healthcare plan carriers must be allowed to offer insurance coverage in all 50 states like property casualty and life insurance carriers. Healthcare insurance carriers would be regulated in accordance with the laws of each state to account for differing state to state populations and economic situations. This would ensure total nationwide healthcare insurance portability, the largest possible insurance pools, competition among carriers, and the lowest possible free market costs to individuals and families. Second, states may require a reasonable amount of time to adjust their regulations to accommodate these changes. This could be done concurrently and in consultation with healthcare plan insurance carriers planning to compete in their state. Carriers must also have adequate time to develop a variety of plans to meet the needs of the people of our county in each of the states they plan to serve. The time allowed must be set in the legislation eliminating employer healthcare plan insurance and Obamacare. Third, employers must be required to provide a net wage or salary increase equal the amount they pay for employee healthcare plan insurance coverage at the time of the conversion. The new total labor cost, including the healthcare plan adjustment, would remain a deductible cost of business. Once state regulators and carriers have approved the healthcare plan insurance available in each state, employee pay raises could be increased by a reasonable amount if individual and family plans are more expensive than the cost of previous employer plans.
Medicare, Medicaid, and VA healthcare are United States government provided entitlement healthcare programs covering about 30% of the US population. These programs can require participant premiums, copays, and deductibles. A significant proportion of the population currently receiving healthcare through these government programs should be transferred into the proposed individual and family healthcare plan insurance market place.
Many individuals currently enrolled in Medicare are already enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans or Medicare Supplemental Insurance Plans involving private carriers. Healthy retirees usually participate in Medicare Parts A & B incurring no premium costs. Privatization of Medicare would eliminate the entire Medicare bureaucracy. After the Social Security Administration certifies individual qualification and level of coverage for eligible private healthcare plans insurance and the individual enrolls, the plan would be funded. State regulations would govern administration of these Medicare funded plans. Privatization of Medicare would further expand the national individual healthcare plan insurance free market, increase coverage options, increase competition, and reduce costs. Privatization of Medicare along with other changes currently under discussion should increase the probability that Medicare would remain solvent for future generations.
VA HEALTHCARE
Although, a significant number of veterans have individual or employer provided healthcare insurance and do not utilize Veterans Health Administration services, most veterans and all military retirees qualify for VA a healthcare plan. Some must pay modest co-pays for VA healthcare or prescriptions. To provide services, the system depends on annual discretionary congressional funding resulting in potential yearly changes in enrollment category requirements and top income enrollment thresholds. VA healthcare has eight eligibility and priority categories that determine access to the system. Preference is given to military retirees and veterans with service-connected disabilities, categories 1-3. Statutes require that Veterans Health Administration facilities treating privately insured veterans with no service-connected conditions are reimbursed for the services by the private carriers. Low income veterans and those experiencing financial setbacks can request hardship waivers for out of pocket VA costs. The lowest priority is given to wealthier veterans with no service-connected conditions or disabilities, category 8. The wealthiest veterans with incomes above a threshold level and no service-connected conditions or disabilities are not eligible for VA healthcare services. Therefore, each VA healthcare plan is means tested.
For military retirees, their spouses, eligible children, and eligible surviving family members, a variety of retiree healthcare benefits are available. Although military retirees can receive VA medical benefits and use VA facilities as space allows, retirees are advised that VA medical care has many limitations and eligibility requirements. VA medical care should not be their only source of healthcare. The most common source for military retiree medical benefits is TRICARE, a provider that covers retirees from all uniformed services. TRICARE and TRICARE for Life, for those over 65, allow use of a civilian healthcare plan. Retirees are also encouraged to obtain supplemental healthcare plan insurance for copays, deductibles, and dental needs which can be costly. Retirees are also encouraged to sign up for Medicare when they become eligible.
In my opinion, veterans receiving VA healthcare and military retirees with TRICARE lacking service-connected conditions or disabilities could be transferred into the proposed free market individual and family healthcare plan insurance system. To be fair to this unique group of citizens, the United States should ensure that their out of pocket costs would not increase. These costs could be offset by permanent insurance premium, copay, and deductible supplements or tax credits. Veterans and military retirees, who enlisted under the current system, should be able to choose between VA healthcare, TRICARE for retirees, and private healthcare insurance. Transfers should not be done without a guarantee that all commitments to veterans and military retirees would be fulfilled. These veterans and military retirees must also be eligible to return to the VA healthcare system or TRICARE when a newly manifested condition or disability is attributed to their military service.
Because of our Nation’s unique commitment to our veterans and military retirees, this proposed change in their healthcare should not occur until the proposed private individual and family healthcare insurance market is operating effectively and a full range of private coverage healthcare plan insurance is available. However, if this proposal were to be adopted, subsequent military enlistees must be advised that the new private individual and family healthcare plan insurance system would provide medical coverage for veterans and military retirees not incurring service-connected conditions or disabilities at the successful completion of their military service. Veterans and military retirees in this group incurring service-connected conditions or disabilities would receive medical care through the Veterans Health Administration. This change would further expand the national individual healthcare plan insurance free market, increase coverage options, increase competition, and reduce costs of both the individual market and veteran and military retiree medical costs.
WOUNDED WARRIOR HEALTHCARE
A “Forgotten American’s” wounded warrior healthcare plan.
Perhaps the most important advantage of this change would be to allow the Veterans Health Administration to concentrate on military retirees and veterans with service-connected conditions and disabilities, our wounded warriors. The savings from this change would be available for research, construction of more rehabilitation facilities, specialized therapists, and expanded post-traumatic stress syndrome and other mental illness diagnosis and treatment. The proposed change in veteran and military retiree medical care would result in significant reduction in patients served as well as the size and cost of the entire VA bureaucracy. Another advantages of the change would be related to applicant classification which would be reduced from eight eligibility and priority categories to three at most. This current, cumbersome and complex, classification system undoubtedly contributes to the long and often dangerous delays in processing veterans and retired military personnel into the VA medical system. Most of the current categories are not related to service connected medical issues which would be the primary mission of the newly organized Veterans Health Administration. The proposed changes in VA Healthcare might go a long way to finally provide our military retirees, veterans, and wounded warriors the medical care promised to them by We the People of the United States of America.
“FORGOTTEN AMERICAN” PLAN REQUIREMENTS
To complete the radical, comprehensive restructuring of the entire healthcare plan industry in the United States, three additional components of the system require change. First, the young and the healthy must contribute to the financial stability of the proposed individual and family healthcare insurance system without imposing a mandate. My suggestion is a “Healthcare Responsibility Act.” The idea is that every individual or family must be legally responsible for all of their healthcare plan costs either with their personal assets, appropriate healthcare insurance, or a combination of the two. This law would make every individual, family, or their estate legally liable for payment of their entire healthcare costs without litigation or bankruptcy relief requiring major asset liquidation and/or a lifetime payment plan to cover all of their healthcare costs. With such severe consequences, people would be far less likely to avoid securing adequate healthcare plan financing or insurance.
Secondly, providers must be legally required to publish the costs of prescriptions and their services for patients to compare with other providers. In addition, information regarding the quality of prescriptions, the care provided by each practitioner, hospital, and clinic must be easily available to the general public. This would also work to eliminate or reduce poor quality care, corrective procedures, and related litigation. This concept would result in open competition for healthcare services creating true free market competition among providers by allowing each individual or family to shop for providers based on the price and quality of healthcare services. This requirement would result in real provider patient based care and an overall reduction in the costs of healthcare plan insurance.
Thirdly, tort reform is essential to control healthcare costs. One of the most important reforms would be reasonable limitations for loss and punitive damages to control the costs of healthcare plan insurance. The sheer size of most of these settlements fuels the tort industry which often results in frivolous law suits and unnecessary legal fees that further increase all healthcare costs. Tort reform should also require the loser to pay all court costs. My experience as a former trucker is a perfect example of both these issues. After a heart attack, safety laws required an annual rather than biannual physical. At that time, laws specified that the physical include a $700 stress test, treadmill, but my cardiologist would not release me for work without a $3500 myocardial stress test. The difference, charged to my healthcare plan insurance, was necessary for my cardiologist to mitigate potential litigation if I was subsequently involved in a heart related traffic accident. Tort reform is essential to further decrease the cost of healthcare insurance.
Technology has drastically improved prescription efficacy, diagnostics, and available treatments. It has also caused costs to rise to the point that healthcare plan insurance is essential for patients to afford the benefits of these advancements. Government interference in healthcare as a protagonistic regulator, price fixer, and provider has virtually eliminated any vestige of free market healthcare insurance. The result is nearly uncontrolled increases the healthcare costs and resultant healthcare plan costs. The attempt to control costs without radical, comprehensive changes to the entire system will fail. In my opinion, the alternative being proposed would create what everyone claims to want, a free market, patient doctor oriented, healthcare plan insurance system where We the People control our healthcare.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
No true free market healthcare insurance market exists in the US today.
None of the existing or proposed healthcare plans are actually free market systems; and none of the healthcare insurance proposals are free market systems. Contrary to popular opinion, government is involved in employer paid healthcare plans both through regulation and through subsidies to both employers and employees. With Obamacare, government involvement in individual healthcare insurance became the law of the land. Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans healthcare were already the law of the land. Currently, government controls every aspect of healthcare. Nothing remotely resembling a healthcare free market exists in the United State of America.
A brief history of insurance provides context for this discussion. Marine insurance covering ships and cargo, one of the first types of insurance, appeared in the early 13th century. Originally, groups of marine shippers cooperated to underwrite, or insure, the ship owners in the group. By 1712, a group of about 150 shippers met at Edward Lloyd’s Coffee House in London to underwrite the groups shipping efforts. The first fire insurance predates marine insurance by about 100 years. While the predecessors of life insurance were offered in 1588, it took about 100 years for the first life insurance company to start the industry. By the middle of the 19th century, life tables were the basis of premiums, life insurance was offered as an employment benefit by a few companies, and companies started selling individual policies available to all who could buy them.
Healthcare insurance started as a means for employers to cover the costs of on-the-job injuries to their employees by about 1875. In the United States, the first employer paid healthcare insurance was for Texas teachers. Initially, individuals established and funded prepaid hospital accounts to cover major healthcare costs negotiated for the teachers. By 1929 the idea evolved into the first Blue Cross plan. The healthcare insurance industry grew rapidly immediately before and during WWII when the National wage freeze was enacted. Employers were allowed to offer healthcare insurance as an employee benefit to attract and keep employees. The employers were allowed to deduct to cost of the programs as an expense, and the cost of the benefit was not added to employee taxable income. These tax benefits are a government healthcare insurance subsidy or entitlement. Both employers and employees continue to benefit from this government entitlement.
Before healthcare insurance was available to the majority of the U S population, healthcare was practiced in a basically free market environment. Patients negotiated the cost of care with the doctor providing care on a case by case basis. Hospital and clinic costs were established, but patients could negotiate costs and or payment plans when they were not able to pay the costs when treatment was completed. Patients could easily determine all the costs for the doctor care, medications, supplies, and hospital or clinic. Patients could also learn about the quality of care provided by their physician and the hospital or clinic they used. This is a simplified description of a true healthcare free market. Nothing like this has been the general healthcare experience in the United States for at least 100-150 years.
Establishment of a true free market patient based healthcare insurance system would require drastic changes. The first and most critical change would be to provide individuals and families complete control over the choice of their healthcare insurance plan. This would require elimination of employer provided healthcare insurance as part of employee benefit plans. Consequently, all healthcare insurance would consist of individual and family healthcare insurance plans. To accomplish this, legislation must require that employer contributions for employee healthcare costs be added to employee gross income at the start of the program. This change in the healthcare insurance system would be an important first step in establishing strong patient doctor healthcare relationships and patient centered healthcare.
The second, and equally critical change in our healthcare system, would be a means of ensuring that the young and healthy contribute to the financial stability of healthcare insurance pools without imposing œmandated healthcare insurance. One idea to accomplish this is “The Healthcare Responsibility Act.”The idea is that every individual or family would be responsible to ensure that they have the ability to pay for all of their healthcare costs either with their personal assets, appropriate insurance, or a combination of the two. Enactment of a healthcare responsibility law like this would make every individual, family, or their estate legally liable for payment of their entire healthcare costs without bankruptcy relief. With severe consequences like this, people would be far less likely to avoid securing adequate healthcare financing or insurance. Finally, the linked discussion of healthcare responsibility ends with this statement, Every good and effective economic plan should consider all the alternatives, including the wild and crazy idea that everybody should be financially responsible for their healthcare and the healthcare of their family.
A third requirement or change necessary to ensure viable free market healthcare insurance would be the requirement that each provider attract a group of young, healthy clients consistent with the proportion of these clients in the general population. This should ensure that insurance providers would have adequate financial stability to provide unlimited healthcare coverage for life. Under this concept pre-existing conditions would not be an issue since the individual and family carry their healthcare insurance for life. The same continued insurance provisions required for employer based coverage existing now would continue for people changing from plan to plan under the new individual based system. Pre-existing conditions would not be an issue. Under this concept each healthcare insurance provider would be required to provide a range of catastrophic healthcare insurance plans and healthcare saving and investment accounts for this critical group of clients. The saving and investment accounts should require a minimum balance in each savings account, a top rated bond account segment with a required minimum account principle, and allow an account for more aggressive investing. This idea would allow individuals to grow their personal healthcare savings account quickly to the required level. This group would also be eligible for traditional healthcare insurance plans.
The fourth change necessary to establish a truly free market healthcare system would be abolishment of pricing contracts between service providers and healthcare insurance providers. This change would allow each individual or family to shop for providers based on the price and quality of healthcare services. This change would also result in real provider patient based care. Providers would have to publish the costs of their services for patients to compare with other providers. In addition, information regarding the quality of care provided by each practitioner, hospital, and clinic would have to be easily available to the general public. This concept would result in open competition for healthcare services creating true free market competition among providers. The result would be an overall reduction in the costs of healthcare. Two healthcare segments currently operate with a system of this nature, Lasik and cosmetic surgery although they are not insurance financed.
Replacement of employer based healthcare insurance with individual and family system and required personal financial responsibility for the cost of personal healthcare are unlikely changes to the healthcare system in the United States. It is my opinion, however, that without these changes nothing resembling a true œfree market healthcare insurance system is possible. These changes would be rejected by those on the left seeking single payer government healthcare who would also consider the harshness of the proposed personal responsibility as extreme and heartless. The healthcare insurance industry, physician groups, and conglomerate owners of hospitals and clinics would also be opposed to these ideas. Fiscal conservatives and other capitalists would probably applaud these ideas.
On the other hand, these changes could be a catylist for creation of a true œfree market healthcare insurance system. Other suggestions by conservatives for creation of a œfree market system could follow quite logically. High risk healthcare insurance pools should be an option if catastrophic plans do not provide adequate overall financing. Allowing interstate healthcare insurance markets to exist would increase competition and reduce insurance costs and possibly preclude the need for individual healthcare insurance purchasing pools. Allowing localized individual purchasing pools or cooperatives could provide for greater purchasing power if interstate plans do not adequately reduce costs. Perhaps the best application for creating pools of individuals would be to increase the purchasing power of the groups for prescription medications. However, taking advantage of insurance provider’s experience to negotiate prescription medication prices for their clients would be appropriate due to the large number of prescription medications and producers.
Three additional groups of healthcare clients must be discussed in relation to a true œfree market healthcare insurance system. The first group is senior citizens like me covered by Medicare. In my opinion, we should be included in the individual and family healthcare system being proposed. To be viable, current Medicare participants should be guaranteed that their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles would not increase. Since this system would increase the number of participants paying premiums in the individual healthcare insurance pool, it should increase the funding of the pools. Although seniors have high rates of catastrophic and chronic health issues, around $500,000 in my case, most of my friends and associates are relatively healthy. The actual cost benefit analysis of including this group in the general pool rather than a high risk pool would determine the feasibility of this idea.
The second remaining group deserving special consideration regarding formation of the proposed individual healthcare insurance system is veterans who fall into three distinct groups. The first group is veterans like me who are eligible for veteran’s medical benefits but never registered with the Veterans Administration. In my case, I had employer provided healthcare insurance for most of my adult life until becoming eligible for Medicare. The second group of veterans worthy of consideration for the proposed individual and family healthcare insurance system is veterans not suffering from injuries, illnesses, or conditions directly related to military service currently receiving their healthcare through the Veterans Administration. Moving this group into the proposed individual system would reduce the burden on the Veterans Administration healthcare system and increase the number of participants in the proposed individual healthcare system adding to the financial strength of the system. As with Medicare, this change in veteran’s healthcare must ensure that veterans do not pay any costs that they do not pay under the current Veterans Administration system. This change would also increase funding and personal available to care for the third group of veterans. Veterans who have documented conditions related to their military service. This would allow the Veterans Administration to concentrate on veterans with significant injuries or conditions requiring specialized treatment and care unique to combat and military service. These veterans deserve the best specialized healthcare available in the United States.
The final group to consider is individuals and families who require financial assistance to secure healthcare insurance. Most of these individuals are currently uninsured or are in the Medicaid system and receive government subsidies that pay most or all or their healthcare costs. This group should also be part of the proposed individual healthcare insurance system. Their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles should be subsidized at the level of their financial need without any increases in their present costs. This group, in accordance with their ability, should be required to enroll in the healthcare system or be held accountable for the cost of their healthcare even though government pays most of their costs when enrolled. Including this group in the individual healthcare insurance would also increase the size of the overall insurance pool providing a stronger financial base which should reduce overall participant costs.
Currently, most insurance is licensed and regulated state by state. States should have the latitude to develop their healthcare insurance system in accordance with the overall health of their population, cost of living, and economy. However, the system developed by each state must be compatible with the minimum national healthcare system requirements. The proposed system must require state to state healthcare insurance portability including pre-existing condition coverage guarantees and adequate cost information for participants to make informed decisions regarding interstate moves or transfers. Given these considerations, most of the systems detailed development and administration should occur at the state level, and most of the national funding should also be distributed to the states. This would allow states to adapt their systems to the needs of the citizens of each state.
Realizing how audacious it is for a young geezer like me to suggest a complete overhaul of healthcare in the United States of America, this œfree market healthcare insurance proposal is made without apology. Major changes to one sixth of our economy, affecting all of our citizens should consider all the alternatives. This proposal is an alternative to the mess of government control currently offered in Washington DC.
We the People need Washington DC to fix the system. Just Geter Done Right.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The GOP must develop a procedure to unite the disparate factions of the party or fail to serve We the People. We need action.
The failure of the GOP House majority to pass the first phase of the healthcare repeal and replacement legislation demonstrates the dysfunction and impotency of the Republican Party. The failure demonstrated that Republicans have three, possibly four, political divisions not one unified party. The GOP is composed of liberal Republicans or RINOS (Republicans in name only), moderate Republicans, and various forms of conservatives including social and physical conservatives. The healthcare reform legislation failure demonstrates that the divisions within the GOP are effectively distinct political parties with distinct and, in this case irreconcilable, differences. If Republicans fail to develop a procedure to manage, control, and unite the disparate factions of the party, the GOP will continue to be dysfunctional and impotent. Consequently, Republicans will cease to be an effective political force in the United States of America. The GOP will cease to be the Grand Old Party and become the Geriatric Obsolete Party.
The GOP is dysfunctional because its leadership lacked the strategic ability to unite the party and forward a complete, cogent, understandable healthcare plan that could be supported by the majority of the party and marketed to the public. At the most, the leadership had seven years to accomplish this vital task and failed. At least, the leadership had four to six months to accomplish this task and still failed. They failed in spite of the fact that they knew that President Trump would sign the legislation when it came to his desk.
Republicans are impotent because the leadership lacked the force of will to convince House Republicans that the plan they forwarded must pass the House. This was the first part of a three part plan that would accomplish the goal of repealing and replacing Obamacare and accomplish the overall goals of the GOP for a more perfect healthcare system in the United States of America.
Hopefully, the Republican Party leadership will solve the problems revealed by the healthcare debacle. The question is, which GOP will they be?
We the People are depending on you to Make Healthcare in America Great Again!
We the People are depending on you to Make America Great Again!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Employer contributions to employee healthcare costs constitute a de facto healthcare tax credit since they are not included as taxable income for employees. The proposed individual healthcare credits simply provide “equal protection (or benefit) of the laws” according to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Both are, in reality, subsidies or entitlements.
If the individual healthcare tax credit is an entitlement then employer healthcare contributions are entitlements.
Consequently, conservative constipation over healthcare tax credits for individual healthcare costs is hypocritical. Conservatives claim that the healthcare tax credits constitute a new entitlement. If the tax credits for individual healthcare costs constitute an entitlement, then not taxing employees for employer contributions to employee healthcare costs is also an entitlement. The issue is extremely important for the self-employed and small businesses that are too small to provide employer based healthcare insurance. Both of these groups are economically disadvantaged in comparison to those receiving employer healthcare benefits. Conservatives in both the US House of Representatives and the Senate should recognize this reality as a matter of simple fairness.
The healthcare tax credit for individual healthcare costs does not solve the healthcare issues caused by Obamacare or the issues of healthcare in the United States. This nation needs a healthcare system that effectively deals with the entire system that gives control of healthcare to patients and doctors not corporate executives and government bureaucrats.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Globalism can kill us! An April 2023 on-line Supply Management article makes some startling remarks about drug shortages in the US. Nine in 10 (90-95%) of generic sterile injectable drugs for critical acute care in the US rely on key starting materials from China and India. India possessed 62% of the global manufacturing capacity of active pharmaceutical ingredients, API, in 2021, while China stood at 23%, and the US just 4%, and doctors were rationing lifesaving treatments. The article concludes with this dire warning, Drug shortages are increasing, lasting longer, and having a greater impact on patient care.
