Open email to Texas Representative Michael McCaul:
Dear Representative McCaul,
I have been following your newsletter for about six months. Nine times out of 10 you have taken a socialistic approach in resolving any problem. This is wrong. The United States has been a Republic since its founding, and in spite of movement to the contrary, there is no room for communist/radical socialism in this country.
The good news is that you you are right on target in handling the potential epidemic of Ebola virus in the US.
You have made three points, to which I agree wholeheartedly. These are as follows:
1. You have called on the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State to suspend all visas of individuals from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, until the outbreak of the Ebola virus is under control within these countries.
2. Any diagnosed patients [in the US] should be treated at one of the four U.S. biocontainment units, so our nurses and healthcare professionals are not placed in a situation in which they have not been properly trained for.
3., The [Obama] Administration should reconsider Ron Klain for the Ebola czarship. [He is not qualified].
Congratulations for finally coming up with something practical and reasonable.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014
Liberal Ideology with Respect to Ebola
I have previously written suggesting serious quarantine for control of the Ebola disease. In that essay, I touched on a liberal attitude which would be detrimental to actual disease control.
A Political Associate has further commented on my essay, particularly the aspect of liberal ideology and disease control. He said the following, as what he thinks is the Liberal ideology on the subject:
"Quarantine worked well and was accepted widely among the USA and the world, that is until AIDS came along. Suddenly the deviant behavior crowd was suffering and dying in great numbers. This couldn't be their fault, it was unfair and it must be the work of ... Republicans or some other evil crowd. Also if we quarantined this infected group, their deviant lifestyle would be affected. If we identified this crowd to protect the non-infected, they would be ostracized by society.
So we have developed a modern ethic on dealing with infectious/contagious diseases. The rules are like this:
Never publicly identify a person with the disease Never ask questions that would lead to an answer that allows the healthy to seperate Celebrate that the disease exist and normalize its constant threat to society Release those with the disease into the general population Pay for the care and treatment of the escalating and never ending population with the disease with government funds Wear colorful ribbons on your lapel to let other know how much you care for those with the disease Identify anyone who speaks truth of the disease and censure them Spurn and humiliate anyone who suggest quarantine as a control
So you see with Ebola, like AIDS, your antiquated quarantine idea just won’t work. We will only understand the disease by celebrating and embracing it. To understand and develop the right ethic we must all suffer".
I don't mind a little suffering to help my fellow man, but my unnecessary death from a communicable disease is not part of my reasoning.
A Political Associate has further commented on my essay, particularly the aspect of liberal ideology and disease control. He said the following, as what he thinks is the Liberal ideology on the subject:
"Quarantine worked well and was accepted widely among the USA and the world, that is until AIDS came along. Suddenly the deviant behavior crowd was suffering and dying in great numbers. This couldn't be their fault, it was unfair and it must be the work of ... Republicans or some other evil crowd. Also if we quarantined this infected group, their deviant lifestyle would be affected. If we identified this crowd to protect the non-infected, they would be ostracized by society.
So we have developed a modern ethic on dealing with infectious/contagious diseases. The rules are like this:
Never publicly identify a person with the disease Never ask questions that would lead to an answer that allows the healthy to seperate Celebrate that the disease exist and normalize its constant threat to society Release those with the disease into the general population Pay for the care and treatment of the escalating and never ending population with the disease with government funds Wear colorful ribbons on your lapel to let other know how much you care for those with the disease Identify anyone who speaks truth of the disease and censure them Spurn and humiliate anyone who suggest quarantine as a control
So you see with Ebola, like AIDS, your antiquated quarantine idea just won’t work. We will only understand the disease by celebrating and embracing it. To understand and develop the right ethic we must all suffer".
I don't mind a little suffering to help my fellow man, but my unnecessary death from a communicable disease is not part of my reasoning.
Quarantine for Ebola
Several hundred years ago society learned how to deal with human infectious disease. It established a system known as quarantine, which simply is that a person having the disease or suspected of having the disease is isolated from other human beings. This automatically eliminates the possibility of disease transmission from person-to-person..
The Ebola disease is typical of a viral disease that can be controlled by quarantine. Unfortunately, a segment of society has also developed an attitude, which we will call a liberal attitude, and which is best represented in the number of people who adhere to an ideology that West Africans, the hotbed of the disease should, not be quarantined. They somehow, in their lack of logic and recognition of experience on how to handle infectious diseases, have come to the conclusion that all West Africans should be allowed to travel, usually by airplane, exposing themselves and their diseases to other people in the process. This is obviously a ridiculous ideology to those persons experienced in medicine and science in general. These opposers to quarantine are usually educated people in disciplines such as psychology and social service,. Simply put, these people know nothing about how to control infectious disease. Left to their own devices, there would be no controls and the disease would subsequently become rampant leading to the deaths of millions of people, such as occurred in the European experience with the plague, before the development of quarantine procedures. Now, anyone opposed to quarantine in any of its forms is judged by me to be an ignoramus and a danger to society in general.
Sen. Cruz of Texas, in his recent newsletter, has proposed a temporary flight ban on non-US passengers traveling from Ebola-afflicted nations.. This is the right direction, but does not go nearly far enough. A better proposal would be to ban all commercial flights to and from countries known to have a large number of Ebola cases. For the liberals, this does not mean the natives of those West African nations cannot be helped by US technology. Private charter flights and military flights would be allowed.
Let's also see what Pres. Obama's newly appointed Czar plans to do with respect to quarantine. If he is anything like the political hack of the CDC which we have recently heard on television, we can expect no practical controls and look forward to millions and perhaps billions of deaths around the world from Ebola.
The Ebola disease is typical of a viral disease that can be controlled by quarantine. Unfortunately, a segment of society has also developed an attitude, which we will call a liberal attitude, and which is best represented in the number of people who adhere to an ideology that West Africans, the hotbed of the disease should, not be quarantined. They somehow, in their lack of logic and recognition of experience on how to handle infectious diseases, have come to the conclusion that all West Africans should be allowed to travel, usually by airplane, exposing themselves and their diseases to other people in the process. This is obviously a ridiculous ideology to those persons experienced in medicine and science in general. These opposers to quarantine are usually educated people in disciplines such as psychology and social service,. Simply put, these people know nothing about how to control infectious disease. Left to their own devices, there would be no controls and the disease would subsequently become rampant leading to the deaths of millions of people, such as occurred in the European experience with the plague, before the development of quarantine procedures. Now, anyone opposed to quarantine in any of its forms is judged by me to be an ignoramus and a danger to society in general.
Sen. Cruz of Texas, in his recent newsletter, has proposed a temporary flight ban on non-US passengers traveling from Ebola-afflicted nations.. This is the right direction, but does not go nearly far enough. A better proposal would be to ban all commercial flights to and from countries known to have a large number of Ebola cases. For the liberals, this does not mean the natives of those West African nations cannot be helped by US technology. Private charter flights and military flights would be allowed.
Let's also see what Pres. Obama's newly appointed Czar plans to do with respect to quarantine. If he is anything like the political hack of the CDC which we have recently heard on television, we can expect no practical controls and look forward to millions and perhaps billions of deaths around the world from Ebola.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Veterans Administration
Open Email to Congressman Michael T McCall:
Dear Congressman McCall,
I have read your recent newsletter on the Veterans Administration.
You said, "In response to the scandal, I have requested both VA Inspector General and FBI criminal investigations, both of which are now underway. The House also passed commonsense legislation that I sponsored, the VA Accountability Act, which allows VA to fire or demote senior executive employees at the VA for no other reason poor performance or neglect. Across our country in small and big business alike, people know, Do your job, or you’ll lose it. Unfortunately the bureaucracy in Washington functions differently."
You also said, "Here in Texas Governor Rick Perry has enlisted the help of local health care providers willing to see veteran patients outside of the backlogged VA medical network. I commend him for being proactive on behalf of Texas’ 1.7 million veterans. Similar legislation that would allow veterans to seek care outside of the VA system if they cannot schedule an appointment with a VA doctor in a timely manner, or if they live far away from the nearest VA health facility, is working its way through Congress. Allowing Veterans to seek care outside of the VA network would help eliminate the backlog and offer a more convenient alternative care option for our veterans."
I agree with all of the above, but I would go further. I would sell off the VA hospitals to private industry, so that the VA owns no physical assets. I would supply all veterans with "free" health care cards that they could use at any healthcare facility in the US and possibly abroad. In effect, the VA would become more of an accounting firm with respect to healthcare.
We should also not forget that the VA has the responsibility to supply other benefits to veterans, such as subsistence during periods of education. The Congressional oversight committee should be looking at that, as well as the health aspect.
Dear Congressman McCall,
I have read your recent newsletter on the Veterans Administration.
You said, "In response to the scandal, I have requested both VA Inspector General and FBI criminal investigations, both of which are now underway. The House also passed commonsense legislation that I sponsored, the VA Accountability Act, which allows VA to fire or demote senior executive employees at the VA for no other reason poor performance or neglect. Across our country in small and big business alike, people know, Do your job, or you’ll lose it. Unfortunately the bureaucracy in Washington functions differently."
You also said, "Here in Texas Governor Rick Perry has enlisted the help of local health care providers willing to see veteran patients outside of the backlogged VA medical network. I commend him for being proactive on behalf of Texas’ 1.7 million veterans. Similar legislation that would allow veterans to seek care outside of the VA system if they cannot schedule an appointment with a VA doctor in a timely manner, or if they live far away from the nearest VA health facility, is working its way through Congress. Allowing Veterans to seek care outside of the VA network would help eliminate the backlog and offer a more convenient alternative care option for our veterans."
I agree with all of the above, but I would go further. I would sell off the VA hospitals to private industry, so that the VA owns no physical assets. I would supply all veterans with "free" health care cards that they could use at any healthcare facility in the US and possibly abroad. In effect, the VA would become more of an accounting firm with respect to healthcare.
We should also not forget that the VA has the responsibility to supply other benefits to veterans, such as subsistence during periods of education. The Congressional oversight committee should be looking at that, as well as the health aspect.
Friday, June 13, 2014
FBI Investigation of VA
The Washington Times says that the FBI has opened a criminal probe of the Veterans Administration following the publicized scandal concerning inefficiencies in that agency.
This sounds to me like an exercise in futility. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is an agency reporting to Pres. Obama. You can be sure that Pres. Obama does not want the VA investigated, and he will call the shots on what the FBI will do.
If you want to take a more optimistic viewpoint, assume that the FBI does a good job in investigating and collects information, some of which is usable for criminal prosecution. That information must then be passed to the Justice Department, of which Atty. Gen. Eric holder is in charge, and we well know Eric holder's record in prosecuting any person connected with the Obama administration or any of its agencies. In other words prosecution will go nowhere.
This sounds to me like an exercise in futility. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is an agency reporting to Pres. Obama. You can be sure that Pres. Obama does not want the VA investigated, and he will call the shots on what the FBI will do.
If you want to take a more optimistic viewpoint, assume that the FBI does a good job in investigating and collects information, some of which is usable for criminal prosecution. That information must then be passed to the Justice Department, of which Atty. Gen. Eric holder is in charge, and we well know Eric holder's record in prosecuting any person connected with the Obama administration or any of its agencies. In other words prosecution will go nowhere.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Hospital Care for Veterans
The Washington Times says 57,000 veterans await initial visits to Veterans Administration Hospital Facilities.
This will always be true when with a government-run operation involving two factors; no competition and run by bureaucrats.
Which then brings me back to my initial recommendation, which is that the Veterans Administration should sell off all of its hospitals to private industry, and supply each veteran with a free health care card for service at any legitimate private or public hospital. The Veterans Administration can then do the accounting to pay the hospitals, in the same manner that Medicare now pays health care provider facilities.
This will always be true when with a government-run operation involving two factors; no competition and run by bureaucrats.
Which then brings me back to my initial recommendation, which is that the Veterans Administration should sell off all of its hospitals to private industry, and supply each veteran with a free health care card for service at any legitimate private or public hospital. The Veterans Administration can then do the accounting to pay the hospitals, in the same manner that Medicare now pays health care provider facilities.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Veterans Health Care
Open Email to Sen. Brian Schatz:
Dear Sen. Schatz,
Thank you for your email concerning veterans health benefits.
You said you are supporting bipartisan legislation to improve operations at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Your bill will make VA executives more accountable, cut wait times, and help make way for a major new VA medical facility on O'ahu that would double VA clinical services on the island,
I agree completely with the first part of your statement. US citizens, through their federal government, have an obligation to supply Healthcare Services to veterans of quality and availability at least equal to that for the general public.
However I disagree completely with your plan to establish a new VA medical facility on Oahu. In no case should the federal government own property for services which can be supplied by facilities of private industry. Not only do I disagree with the construction of a new medical facility on Oahu, but I am also suggesting that the Veterans Administration dispose of all medical facilities by selling them off to private industry.
To properly handle the health needs of veterans, the Veterans Administration only needs to supply each veteran with a health card indicating that the Veterans Administration will pay for any medical treatment given to the veteran at any legitimately authorized institution; private or public hospital. By this mechanism, a public market will be created for supplying healthcare to veterans. If the facilities are presently insufficient, the civilian hospital group will expand to accommodate the influx, because they are guaranteed payment which reduces their risk.
Simply stated. The federal government should not build new medical facilities for veterans. It should sell off existing facilities to private industry. It should supply each veteran with the health care card stating that the Veterans Administration will bear the cost of any medical treatment given to that veteran by a legitimate supplier, which would include essentially every hospital and hospital chain in the US, including Hawaii.
Dear Sen. Schatz,
Thank you for your email concerning veterans health benefits.
You said you are supporting bipartisan legislation to improve operations at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Your bill will make VA executives more accountable, cut wait times, and help make way for a major new VA medical facility on O'ahu that would double VA clinical services on the island,
I agree completely with the first part of your statement. US citizens, through their federal government, have an obligation to supply Healthcare Services to veterans of quality and availability at least equal to that for the general public.
However I disagree completely with your plan to establish a new VA medical facility on Oahu. In no case should the federal government own property for services which can be supplied by facilities of private industry. Not only do I disagree with the construction of a new medical facility on Oahu, but I am also suggesting that the Veterans Administration dispose of all medical facilities by selling them off to private industry.
To properly handle the health needs of veterans, the Veterans Administration only needs to supply each veteran with a health card indicating that the Veterans Administration will pay for any medical treatment given to the veteran at any legitimately authorized institution; private or public hospital. By this mechanism, a public market will be created for supplying healthcare to veterans. If the facilities are presently insufficient, the civilian hospital group will expand to accommodate the influx, because they are guaranteed payment which reduces their risk.
Simply stated. The federal government should not build new medical facilities for veterans. It should sell off existing facilities to private industry. It should supply each veteran with the health care card stating that the Veterans Administration will bear the cost of any medical treatment given to that veteran by a legitimate supplier, which would include essentially every hospital and hospital chain in the US, including Hawaii.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Obamacare Unconstitutional
The Washington Times says that fhe Senate on Thursday confirmed Sylvia Mathews Burwell as the next secretary of Health and Human Services in a vote that mixed bipartisan support for her abilities with deep concerns about Obamacare.
The issue here is not whether she should be Secretary of HHS, but the fact that she will be handling Obamacare, which is an unconstitutional law.
The last part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." According to the Obamacare law, if a citizen does not purchase health insurance, he will be fined, which is a confiscation of money, which is also property. The question is whether "just compensation"
is provided by the Obamacare law. If the mandatory insurance payments under Obamacare are higher than available previously under a private system, it is not just compensation, even though other services may be provided which are not needed by an individual, such as obstetrical care for a young adult male.
The Obamacare law is obviously unconstitutional based on the Fourth Amendment. When will it be challenged in Federal Court and carried to the Supreme Court?
The issue here is not whether she should be Secretary of HHS, but the fact that she will be handling Obamacare, which is an unconstitutional law.
The last part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." According to the Obamacare law, if a citizen does not purchase health insurance, he will be fined, which is a confiscation of money, which is also property. The question is whether "just compensation"
is provided by the Obamacare law. If the mandatory insurance payments under Obamacare are higher than available previously under a private system, it is not just compensation, even though other services may be provided which are not needed by an individual, such as obstetrical care for a young adult male.
The Obamacare law is obviously unconstitutional based on the Fourth Amendment. When will it be challenged in Federal Court and carried to the Supreme Court?
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Congratulations to Bill and Melinda Gates!
Lisa Jarvis, in the May 19 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News, reports that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (refer Microsoft) have committed to contribute $29 million over five years to the California Institute for Biomedical Research (Calibr). The objective of the private grant is to discover drugs for diseases that adversely affect the developing world. Calibr will focus on tuberculosis, infections from parasitic worms, diarrheal disease, and malaria.
Congratulations to Bill and Melinda Gates! This is the way medical research should be done; through private grants, and not through taxpayer money from various federal agencies.
You can be sure that Gates Foundation managers will be watching carefully how that money is spent, as opposed to federal programs which usually involve "dump the taxpayer money" and go on to other things.
Congratulations to Bill and Melinda Gates! This is the way medical research should be done; through private grants, and not through taxpayer money from various federal agencies.
You can be sure that Gates Foundation managers will be watching carefully how that money is spent, as opposed to federal programs which usually involve "dump the taxpayer money" and go on to other things.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Homosexuality
According to the Washington Times, a gay advocacy group has strongly objected to a federal advertisement on Obamacare. I have not seen the ad, but it supposedly features four young buff men wearing tight underwear and not much else. I don't understand the purpose of the presentation, nor do I have any objection, but it apparently has raised the ire of the gay advocacy group.. The president of the group claims that the ad campaign promotes “harmful stereotypes that gay men are nothing but sex-crazed lechers". It sounds to me like a gross exaggeration, from the ad description.
I'm not very interested in this particular controversy, but it is illustrative of a development that strongly concerns me. That is, organized efforts by unorthodox lifestyle groups to achieve public acceptance. The purpose of achieving public acceptance is likely based on two desires; ego satisfaction and financial benefits.
I don't deny that there are people born with an innate desire of sexual attractiveness to persons of their own sex, but it is in the minority. There are people born with other mental and physical deficiencies, and they learn to live with them, usually with the help of their families.
Homosexuals are usually quite adept in conforming to our economic society, so that by and large they do not need financial support from their families. The primary basis for public acceptance appears then to be a matter of ego.
We all have deficiencies or lack of talent in some area. For example, I have very poor coordination between my brain and finger movements. It is basically impossible for me to become a piano player or even a tolerable typist. Does that mean that I should join with other persons having a similar malady and then develop a program so that the whole group obtains public acceptance for the fact that we all have this great deficiency? That doesn't make sense to me, and it also doesn't make sense to me that there should be gay advocacy groups.
If a person is apparently an inmately born homosexual, and he or she can find others of similar characteristic so that together they can develop a satisfactory sexual lifestyle, I have no objection. It is a private matter. I don't promote through any organization my heterosexuality. It is a private matter.
In spite of my personal feelings on the subject, apparently the promotional practices of homosexual groups does have an effect on the major heterosexual group. It appears that through these homosexual advocacy groups over the past 10 years, the public has developed greater acceptance for homosexuality. I also don't have any objection to this development, even though I am still opposed to such promotional programs. The reason for my acceptance is that I believe homosexuality is a physical/mental deficiency and previously known persons afflicted with this deficiency have been discriminated against on a personal basis. I believe such discrimination to be wrong and the development of public acceptance of homosexuality is a move in the correct direction, providing we do not elevate persons engaged in homosexual activity to be at a higher level of humanitarian acceptance.
I don't want the public to be sympathetic to my deficiency of brain/hand coordination, nor do I want the public to develop a position that by this deficiency I am somehow better than the average person. It Is a private matter, and I deal with it privately.
I'm not very interested in this particular controversy, but it is illustrative of a development that strongly concerns me. That is, organized efforts by unorthodox lifestyle groups to achieve public acceptance. The purpose of achieving public acceptance is likely based on two desires; ego satisfaction and financial benefits.
I don't deny that there are people born with an innate desire of sexual attractiveness to persons of their own sex, but it is in the minority. There are people born with other mental and physical deficiencies, and they learn to live with them, usually with the help of their families.
Homosexuals are usually quite adept in conforming to our economic society, so that by and large they do not need financial support from their families. The primary basis for public acceptance appears then to be a matter of ego.
We all have deficiencies or lack of talent in some area. For example, I have very poor coordination between my brain and finger movements. It is basically impossible for me to become a piano player or even a tolerable typist. Does that mean that I should join with other persons having a similar malady and then develop a program so that the whole group obtains public acceptance for the fact that we all have this great deficiency? That doesn't make sense to me, and it also doesn't make sense to me that there should be gay advocacy groups.
If a person is apparently an inmately born homosexual, and he or she can find others of similar characteristic so that together they can develop a satisfactory sexual lifestyle, I have no objection. It is a private matter. I don't promote through any organization my heterosexuality. It is a private matter.
In spite of my personal feelings on the subject, apparently the promotional practices of homosexual groups does have an effect on the major heterosexual group. It appears that through these homosexual advocacy groups over the past 10 years, the public has developed greater acceptance for homosexuality. I also don't have any objection to this development, even though I am still opposed to such promotional programs. The reason for my acceptance is that I believe homosexuality is a physical/mental deficiency and previously known persons afflicted with this deficiency have been discriminated against on a personal basis. I believe such discrimination to be wrong and the development of public acceptance of homosexuality is a move in the correct direction, providing we do not elevate persons engaged in homosexual activity to be at a higher level of humanitarian acceptance.
I don't want the public to be sympathetic to my deficiency of brain/hand coordination, nor do I want the public to develop a position that by this deficiency I am somehow better than the average person. It Is a private matter, and I deal with it privately.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Compassion Run Amok
The Washington Times says some "reality" show hosts and Hollywood actors are showing compassion for fat people.
Reality show host Tyra Banks is attempting to console fat people by changing the lexicon. She wants to refer to fat women as “fiercely real”. In effect, she is saying to fat people they should not regard themselves as fat. It is a known fact that overeating and not exercising leads to obesity and is a choice that leads to a multitude of health issues like diabetes and heart disease.
Tyra is saying to fat people that if they do not regard themselves as fat, by using the new terminology, they will be absolved of responsibility for their fatness and thereby encouraged to do nothing to improve their lifestyle and longevity. Common sense would advise that this is a ridiculous approach to problem-solving and does great disservice to the subject audience; fat people. It also leads to the obese are being coddled, while we all pick up the tab with higher health insurance costs to treat them.
Fat people should be called exactly what they are — fat, overweight, obese. This would encourage them to make healthy lifestyle changes.
For whatever reason, some people like to be fat and prefer their present lifestyle, to the difficulty of a program of food control and exercise, even though the latter will reduce their health problems and increase their longevity. So be it. They should have the opportunity to make this decision. It should certainly not be forced upon them by government edict, nor should government in the form of taxpayers support the results of their decision.
A "reality" show should be about reality; not an effort to convince a segment of society to be unrealistic.
Reality show host Tyra Banks is attempting to console fat people by changing the lexicon. She wants to refer to fat women as “fiercely real”. In effect, she is saying to fat people they should not regard themselves as fat. It is a known fact that overeating and not exercising leads to obesity and is a choice that leads to a multitude of health issues like diabetes and heart disease.
Tyra is saying to fat people that if they do not regard themselves as fat, by using the new terminology, they will be absolved of responsibility for their fatness and thereby encouraged to do nothing to improve their lifestyle and longevity. Common sense would advise that this is a ridiculous approach to problem-solving and does great disservice to the subject audience; fat people. It also leads to the obese are being coddled, while we all pick up the tab with higher health insurance costs to treat them.
Fat people should be called exactly what they are — fat, overweight, obese. This would encourage them to make healthy lifestyle changes.
For whatever reason, some people like to be fat and prefer their present lifestyle, to the difficulty of a program of food control and exercise, even though the latter will reduce their health problems and increase their longevity. So be it. They should have the opportunity to make this decision. It should certainly not be forced upon them by government edict, nor should government in the form of taxpayers support the results of their decision.
A "reality" show should be about reality; not an effort to convince a segment of society to be unrealistic.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Appeal to Healthcare Insurance Company Executives
Open Email to Healthcare Insurance
Executives:
Dear Healthcare Insurance Company Executives,
With the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, another aspect of Socialism was injected into this Constitutional US Republic. One of the objectives of Obamacare was to put you out of business.
You had three years to dig your own grave, and you recently culminated this with the cancellation of millions of healthcare insurance policies and their premiums, as required by government.
Unanticipated by many, these cancellations have now turned in your favor, as the federal government has been proved inapt in instituting all of the Obamacare provisions. The has led to subsequent political wrangling, primarily involving Pres. Obama's often repeated claim that individuals could keep their previously held healthcare insurance policies, if they so so desired.
The President is now on the hook, because of the increased millions of citizens now not having health healthcare insurance, and which he forced on you. Some may claim that healthcare insurance companies are responsible for the fiasco, but that is obtuse thinking. The obvious rational approach is that the insurance companies have been only instruments forced to do the President's will.
It is now reported that Pres. Obama has now come to you for assistance in salvaging his "good name". I believe we all recognize that if Pres. Obama requests you to reinstitute canceled policies, that will be a practical impossibility. Some have likened it to putting toothpaste back in the tube.
More importantly I believe you suddenly have an opportunity to help save this country from Socialism. You can do this to your own benefit, by reviving the private healthcare insurance industry. To put it simply, do not cooperate with Pres. Obama in any way. Let him squirm and take the political heat for his attempt to put you out of business. If you are successful in aiding the disassembly of Obamacare with subsequent loss of face to Democrats by the public, you will have done a great service to your country in revitalizing its position as a constitutional Republic, while you simultaneously gain the economic advantages therefrom.
Dear Healthcare Insurance Company Executives,
With the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, another aspect of Socialism was injected into this Constitutional US Republic. One of the objectives of Obamacare was to put you out of business.
You had three years to dig your own grave, and you recently culminated this with the cancellation of millions of healthcare insurance policies and their premiums, as required by government.
Unanticipated by many, these cancellations have now turned in your favor, as the federal government has been proved inapt in instituting all of the Obamacare provisions. The has led to subsequent political wrangling, primarily involving Pres. Obama's often repeated claim that individuals could keep their previously held healthcare insurance policies, if they so so desired.
The President is now on the hook, because of the increased millions of citizens now not having health healthcare insurance, and which he forced on you. Some may claim that healthcare insurance companies are responsible for the fiasco, but that is obtuse thinking. The obvious rational approach is that the insurance companies have been only instruments forced to do the President's will.
It is now reported that Pres. Obama has now come to you for assistance in salvaging his "good name". I believe we all recognize that if Pres. Obama requests you to reinstitute canceled policies, that will be a practical impossibility. Some have likened it to putting toothpaste back in the tube.
More importantly I believe you suddenly have an opportunity to help save this country from Socialism. You can do this to your own benefit, by reviving the private healthcare insurance industry. To put it simply, do not cooperate with Pres. Obama in any way. Let him squirm and take the political heat for his attempt to put you out of business. If you are successful in aiding the disassembly of Obamacare with subsequent loss of face to Democrats by the public, you will have done a great service to your country in revitalizing its position as a constitutional Republic, while you simultaneously gain the economic advantages therefrom.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Where Was Congress?
Open Email to Congress and Taxpayers,
Dear Representatives, Senators, and Taxpayers,
Those of you who are acquainted with my writings are aware that I'm not a big fan of the federal government, particularly the Administrative branch and its various agencies.
With that said, let's discuss the process of developing laws and their application. Consider this with respect specifically to Obamacare.
When a bill is developed by Congress and signed by the President, it becomes federal law. At that point, the application of the law is passed to a federal agency, which appears most appropriate considering the law's context.
However, Congress well knows that no law is perfect. It may require some subsequent adjustment on the part of Congress. In addition, Congress has a responsibility to see that the law is actually applied. For that purpose, both the House and the Senate have established for each law an oversight responsibility", which is placed in one of their committees.
The implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as Obamacare, was placed by the Obama Administration with Sec Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The House has 25 committees and joint committees. None of these mention Health, but the closest to Obamacare is probably Oversight & Government Reform (OGR). Darrell Issa (CA) is the Chairman. The House’s committees oversee agencies, programs, and activities within their jurisdictions. OGR has six subcommittees, none of which are applicable to health. However, Issa has taken on congressional hearings on Obamacare, which somewhat confirms that committee's oversight of the Affordable Healthcare Act..
Dear Representatives, Senators, and Taxpayers,
Those of you who are acquainted with my writings are aware that I'm not a big fan of the federal government, particularly the Administrative branch and its various agencies.
With that said, let's discuss the process of developing laws and their application. Consider this with respect specifically to Obamacare.
When a bill is developed by Congress and signed by the President, it becomes federal law. At that point, the application of the law is passed to a federal agency, which appears most appropriate considering the law's context.
However, Congress well knows that no law is perfect. It may require some subsequent adjustment on the part of Congress. In addition, Congress has a responsibility to see that the law is actually applied. For that purpose, both the House and the Senate have established for each law an oversight responsibility", which is placed in one of their committees.
The implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as Obamacare, was placed by the Obama Administration with Sec Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The House has 25 committees and joint committees. None of these mention Health, but the closest to Obamacare is probably Oversight & Government Reform (OGR). Darrell Issa (CA) is the Chairman. The House’s committees oversee agencies, programs, and activities within their jurisdictions. OGR has six subcommittees, none of which are applicable to health. However, Issa has taken on congressional hearings on Obamacare, which somewhat confirms that committee's oversight of the Affordable Healthcare Act..
The Senate has 20 standing committees, of which Health, Education, Labor, and,
Pensions (HELP) is one. Tom Harkin (IA) is Chairman. The HELP Committee
jurisdiction encompasses most of the agencies, institutes, and programs of the
Department of Health and Human Services. HELP has three subcommittees of which
Primary Health and Aging is one. Bernard Sanders (VT) is Chairman.The
Subcommittee has oversight over the The Older Americans Act; and the Health
Resources and Services Act. The Affordable Healthcare Act would obviously fit
here, but is not mentioned.
Now for the big question. The Affordable Healthcare Act became law three years ago. In the last three years, who in the House and who in the Senate were watching to see that the law was properly implemented?
Now for the big question. The Affordable Healthcare Act became law three years ago. In the last three years, who in the House and who in the Senate were watching to see that the law was properly implemented?
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Obamacare
Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your newsletter on Obamacare. With all due respect, I suggest you are off base with your claim that Sec. Sebelius should resign, because there might be convicted felons in the Navigator group. I'm sure that as a lawyer, you well know the difference between "might be" and "are". Before you make an accusation, you might better retain your reputation for integrity by assuring yourself that what you are suggesting is fact and not supposition. I'm not doubting that there might be convicted felons in the Navigator Group. However, there might also be ministers of the gospel, murderers, political opportunists, etc.
Conversely, I agree completely with your statement that "Once the website's fixed, then people are going to see the rate shock, they are going to see the fact that the President's promised 'if you like what you have, you can keep it', is not true". While this is a prediction, it is clearly meant to be one. In addition, we know that there are so many policies which have been canceled by private insurance companies, without possible return to previous conditions, there can be no return to "you can keep it".
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
I have read your newsletter on Obamacare. With all due respect, I suggest you are off base with your claim that Sec. Sebelius should resign, because there might be convicted felons in the Navigator group. I'm sure that as a lawyer, you well know the difference between "might be" and "are". Before you make an accusation, you might better retain your reputation for integrity by assuring yourself that what you are suggesting is fact and not supposition. I'm not doubting that there might be convicted felons in the Navigator Group. However, there might also be ministers of the gospel, murderers, political opportunists, etc.
Conversely, I agree completely with your statement that "Once the website's fixed, then people are going to see the rate shock, they are going to see the fact that the President's promised 'if you like what you have, you can keep it', is not true". While this is a prediction, it is clearly meant to be one. In addition, we know that there are so many policies which have been canceled by private insurance companies, without possible return to previous conditions, there can be no return to "you can keep it".
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Obamacare
Open
Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):Dear Sen. Cornyn,
Thank you for your form letter indicating your opposition to Obamacare and your continued efforts to defund or repeal it.
As you know, Senate Democrats and the President have dug in their heels against defunding, and there is no way that you will be successful in defunding or repealing the law, with the present constitution of a Democratic Senate and President. Additionally, Government shutdown did not impose any imposition on Obamacare taking affect as scheduled.
The full Congress and the President voted to establish this law, presumably as the will of the people. It is also so constituted in its myriad pages, that there is no possibility it can be decimated, until we have a change in government.
Although you now claim your opposition, I cannot completely forgive you for being part of the Senate that has foisted such a horrendous burden on the American people concerning the future integrity of the United States government. Apparently, you voted against the bill in the Senate, but you did not raise enough hell to gain disapproval of what what even appeared to be a monstrosity at the time. We will all now suffer from this neglect.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Funding the Government
Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
This email concerns funding the government by both the House and the Senate passing a Continuing Resolution.
The house has already passed its portion, which includes defunding Obamacare.
The Washington Times says the Senate will likely vote Friday to cut off debate, will approve an amendment that would restore funding to Obamacare, pass the bill and then send it back to the House.
This is not exactly correct. As you know, whenever there is a difference between the House and Senate versions of a bill, the two branches meet to resolve the difference.
In this case, the question will be whether the House and Senate will uniformly pass the bill with or without the Obamacare defunding provision. Either the Senate can change its position and agree to the defunding, or the House can change its position and remove the defunding provision.
I strongly urge you and other members of the House to maintain a strong position on including Obamacare defunding in the Continuing Resolution. Leave it up to the Senate to change his position, and if it will not do so, let the chips fall where they may.
However compromise to defeat has been the essence of the Republican Party operation for a number of years, and I am sure that there are many Republicans in the House, who will either cave on the defund provision or perhaps go for a compromise. The compromise could be to review repeal of the Obamacare law after the 2014 election and again, if necessary, after the 2016 election. In addition, the Continuing Resolution should contain a provision to reduce government spending by at least 10% per year, on top of the sequester already in place.
I will look to see how you individually perform in this action.
Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
This email concerns funding the government by both the House and the Senate passing a Continuing Resolution.
The house has already passed its portion, which includes defunding Obamacare.
The Washington Times says the Senate will likely vote Friday to cut off debate, will approve an amendment that would restore funding to Obamacare, pass the bill and then send it back to the House.
This is not exactly correct. As you know, whenever there is a difference between the House and Senate versions of a bill, the two branches meet to resolve the difference.
In this case, the question will be whether the House and Senate will uniformly pass the bill with or without the Obamacare defunding provision. Either the Senate can change its position and agree to the defunding, or the House can change its position and remove the defunding provision.
I strongly urge you and other members of the House to maintain a strong position on including Obamacare defunding in the Continuing Resolution. Leave it up to the Senate to change his position, and if it will not do so, let the chips fall where they may.
However compromise to defeat has been the essence of the Republican Party operation for a number of years, and I am sure that there are many Republicans in the House, who will either cave on the defund provision or perhaps go for a compromise. The compromise could be to review repeal of the Obamacare law after the 2014 election and again, if necessary, after the 2016 election. In addition, the Continuing Resolution should contain a provision to reduce government spending by at least 10% per year, on top of the sequester already in place.
I will look to see how you individually perform in this action.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Defunding Obamacare
Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):
Dear Rep Neugebauer,
I have read your latest Newsletter.
You said you voted in the House to defund Obamacare while also keeping other government operations running. Congratulations! But, that is only half the issue. When push comes to shove, will you let the government shut down, or will you cave on defunding Obamacare and allow a Continuing Resolution (CR) to operate government, including Obamacare?
You also said you were part of a group of House Republicans who wrote a letter to the Senate, urging them to take action to defund Obamacare. In part, the letter said,“Now, it is up to the Republicans and like-minded Democrats in the Senate to continue the charge to defend the American people from this disaster to their health and finances. We urge you to use all of the legislative tools at your disposal, including the filibuster, to protect America from this train wreck. House Republicans are leading the fight to control spending, stop Obamacare, and protect hardworking Americans, and it is time for the Senate to join us." Congratulations again! But again, does "using all of the legislative tools at the Senate's disposal" include shutting down the government? Or, do you expect the Senate to cave when faced with shutting down the government, if defunding Obamacare is not included?
Dear Rep Neugebauer,
I have read your latest Newsletter.
You said you voted in the House to defund Obamacare while also keeping other government operations running. Congratulations! But, that is only half the issue. When push comes to shove, will you let the government shut down, or will you cave on defunding Obamacare and allow a Continuing Resolution (CR) to operate government, including Obamacare?
You also said you were part of a group of House Republicans who wrote a letter to the Senate, urging them to take action to defund Obamacare. In part, the letter said,“Now, it is up to the Republicans and like-minded Democrats in the Senate to continue the charge to defend the American people from this disaster to their health and finances. We urge you to use all of the legislative tools at your disposal, including the filibuster, to protect America from this train wreck. House Republicans are leading the fight to control spending, stop Obamacare, and protect hardworking Americans, and it is time for the Senate to join us." Congratulations again! But again, does "using all of the legislative tools at the Senate's disposal" include shutting down the government? Or, do you expect the Senate to cave when faced with shutting down the government, if defunding Obamacare is not included?
Monday, February 25, 2013
Healthcare Costs
An associate referred me to a Time Magazine article, which abhorred healthcare pricing.
These were my comments:
Thanks for sending the Time Magazine article on Healthcare.
Interesting, but I think we have to look at this in context with our total society.
The financial industry has divided our economy into sectors. Each sector includes only publicly traded companies of similar business. For example, a Health sector, a Construction sector, an Energy sector, etc. Fidelity Investments has a long list of sectors and the ETF list is even longer. Investment profits for individuals are highest, when a sector's prices are increasing more than for other sectors. The price increase is usually based on higher average profits for the individual companies in the sector. Of these various sectors, I have dealt off and on with Healthcare, but it has not been an especially attractive investment. This means Healthcare company profits are not extraordinarily high in comparison with companies involved in other sectors.
However, that says nothing about the total size of the sector relative to the size of other sectors, and relative to the size it might be under different conditions. Usually, the sector size is related to public interest in the products or services of the sector. For example, the Energy sector is very large, because of the large volume of energy products (gasoline, Diesel, natural gas, coal, wind, etc.) that the public desires.
The Healthcare sector in the US is very large, because the public desires the products and services of healthcare companies and individuals. Those include hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, doctors, nurses, and other practitioners.
Two questions arise. Why is the Healthcare sector is so large in the US, compared to other countries? Should it be smaller?
The US public generally has more disposable income than most other countries. Food, housing, and energy costs are significantly lower than in most countries, as related to percentage of annual income. This disposable income can be used for less urgent items and services, such as entertainment, personal care, and health care. In most cases, healthcare is not an urgent item, but the public sees life as of limited duration. All people die. The public also sees anecdotal cases where life is presumably extended through medical treatment. Therefore, the general conviction is that health care can extend life and justifies use of disposable income.
The public attitude on life is related to religion. Almost all agree that God has made us individually and will take us away individually. A few generations ago, the public was willing to accept a pre-determined lifespan for each individual. With the decline of religious doctrine acceptance, the public now believes more in self-determination and that the time differential between life introduction and cessation is somewhat controllable. The public is willing to pay, in order to extend the difference.
In addition, a socialistic US government has done two things to expand the desire of the American public for increased healthcare, which automatically feeds the growth of the industry. The introduction of the Affordable Healthcare Act, has created a belief in the American public mind that government has reduced the price of healthcare, and with this bargain, the public can buy more of it. Secondly, with the increasing socialization of the economy, as fostered by the US government, the public is more convinced that healthcare is a right of existence, and that the government will arrange to have others pay for it.
In total, market forces are at work in the Healthcare system, in spite of government attempts at socialization. While profits of the industry are not unusually high, the industry is expanding at an inordinate rate. However, it is an economic bubble based on disposable income, and is likely to collapse at some indeterminate future time.
These were my comments:
Thanks for sending the Time Magazine article on Healthcare.
Interesting, but I think we have to look at this in context with our total society.
The financial industry has divided our economy into sectors. Each sector includes only publicly traded companies of similar business. For example, a Health sector, a Construction sector, an Energy sector, etc. Fidelity Investments has a long list of sectors and the ETF list is even longer. Investment profits for individuals are highest, when a sector's prices are increasing more than for other sectors. The price increase is usually based on higher average profits for the individual companies in the sector. Of these various sectors, I have dealt off and on with Healthcare, but it has not been an especially attractive investment. This means Healthcare company profits are not extraordinarily high in comparison with companies involved in other sectors.
However, that says nothing about the total size of the sector relative to the size of other sectors, and relative to the size it might be under different conditions. Usually, the sector size is related to public interest in the products or services of the sector. For example, the Energy sector is very large, because of the large volume of energy products (gasoline, Diesel, natural gas, coal, wind, etc.) that the public desires.
The Healthcare sector in the US is very large, because the public desires the products and services of healthcare companies and individuals. Those include hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, doctors, nurses, and other practitioners.
Two questions arise. Why is the Healthcare sector is so large in the US, compared to other countries? Should it be smaller?
The US public generally has more disposable income than most other countries. Food, housing, and energy costs are significantly lower than in most countries, as related to percentage of annual income. This disposable income can be used for less urgent items and services, such as entertainment, personal care, and health care. In most cases, healthcare is not an urgent item, but the public sees life as of limited duration. All people die. The public also sees anecdotal cases where life is presumably extended through medical treatment. Therefore, the general conviction is that health care can extend life and justifies use of disposable income.
The public attitude on life is related to religion. Almost all agree that God has made us individually and will take us away individually. A few generations ago, the public was willing to accept a pre-determined lifespan for each individual. With the decline of religious doctrine acceptance, the public now believes more in self-determination and that the time differential between life introduction and cessation is somewhat controllable. The public is willing to pay, in order to extend the difference.
In addition, a socialistic US government has done two things to expand the desire of the American public for increased healthcare, which automatically feeds the growth of the industry. The introduction of the Affordable Healthcare Act, has created a belief in the American public mind that government has reduced the price of healthcare, and with this bargain, the public can buy more of it. Secondly, with the increasing socialization of the economy, as fostered by the US government, the public is more convinced that healthcare is a right of existence, and that the government will arrange to have others pay for it.
In total, market forces are at work in the Healthcare system, in spite of government attempts at socialization. While profits of the industry are not unusually high, the industry is expanding at an inordinate rate. However, it is an economic bubble based on disposable income, and is likely to collapse at some indeterminate future time.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Pres. Obama Uses Poster Woman to Distort Healthcare Picture
E-mail to Congress:
I heard Pres. Obama's Ohio campaign speech on health care yesterday.
It is interesting how he can distort situations and easily convince a listening audience to his point of view.
I am particularly referring to his poster woman, who had been denied insurance. Obama had intended to have her present during his "lecture", but he explained that she was now back in the hospital diagnosed with leukemia. He used the latest woman's hospitalization to rant about the injustice of it all.
Perhaps you are also deceived by it. Since the woman is in the hospital, she is obviously not being denied health care. What is the injustice? Is it the fact that she now has leukemia? That is always going to happen to a small segment of the population no matter what government does in its present approach to healthcare. Is it the fact that she has no insurance and may be faced with a large hospital bill? She probably hasn't received the bill yet. Why then worry about it? She's getting the medical care she needs. If she is able to leave the hospital cured or uncured, will she be the first to be unable to pay her bill? Will the hospital keep her captive and continue to add to her bill? Do you hospitals make special arrangements for people who have insufficient funds?
There is a lot of logic in the above questions, which some may consider trash.
The key point is that health care is not the issue in this country. The issue is financing healthcare. Yet, Pres. Obama concentrates on health care rather than the financing aspect, because of the emotional thrust he can obtain in getting his Marxist bill passed. As an ancillary matter, may I suggest that all be aware of the potential destructive emotional force of anecdotal situations, such as the "poster woman". Clear heads should always prevail in making decisions on important matters, and an example which is not an example, can be destructive to this process.
I heard Pres. Obama's Ohio campaign speech on health care yesterday.
It is interesting how he can distort situations and easily convince a listening audience to his point of view.
I am particularly referring to his poster woman, who had been denied insurance. Obama had intended to have her present during his "lecture", but he explained that she was now back in the hospital diagnosed with leukemia. He used the latest woman's hospitalization to rant about the injustice of it all.
Perhaps you are also deceived by it. Since the woman is in the hospital, she is obviously not being denied health care. What is the injustice? Is it the fact that she now has leukemia? That is always going to happen to a small segment of the population no matter what government does in its present approach to healthcare. Is it the fact that she has no insurance and may be faced with a large hospital bill? She probably hasn't received the bill yet. Why then worry about it? She's getting the medical care she needs. If she is able to leave the hospital cured or uncured, will she be the first to be unable to pay her bill? Will the hospital keep her captive and continue to add to her bill? Do you hospitals make special arrangements for people who have insufficient funds?
There is a lot of logic in the above questions, which some may consider trash.
The key point is that health care is not the issue in this country. The issue is financing healthcare. Yet, Pres. Obama concentrates on health care rather than the financing aspect, because of the emotional thrust he can obtain in getting his Marxist bill passed. As an ancillary matter, may I suggest that all be aware of the potential destructive emotional force of anecdotal situations, such as the "poster woman". Clear heads should always prevail in making decisions on important matters, and an example which is not an example, can be destructive to this process.
Are Californians Being Denied Health Care?
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "24% of Californians lack health insurance".
So what? Are they being denied health care, or is it a matter of financial consideration involving how much they pay or are unable to pay for the healthcare they receive. The federal government is over its head in debt and is still operating. Few seem to be seriously concerned about that. Why then should we be concerned about someone who can't afford to pay his health care bill? He's getting the care he needs.
If we want to improve our health care financial situation, that's one consideration. If we parade this as an emotional matter of people being denied health care, that is a distortion and deception.
EIN News says, "24% of Californians lack health insurance".
So what? Are they being denied health care, or is it a matter of financial consideration involving how much they pay or are unable to pay for the healthcare they receive. The federal government is over its head in debt and is still operating. Few seem to be seriously concerned about that. Why then should we be concerned about someone who can't afford to pay his health care bill? He's getting the care he needs.
If we want to improve our health care financial situation, that's one consideration. If we parade this as an emotional matter of people being denied health care, that is a distortion and deception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
