LET'S TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME - DEFINING "RIGHTS" UNDER THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That sentence is not about Constitutional guarantees, nor are they even Constitutional issues. They were a Jeffersonian philosophy defining the main issues that fomented the American Revolution, and he put them to paper in the Declaration of Independence.

Looking at that sentence logically, we know immediately that all men are not created equal in neither the physical, intellectual nor emotional sense. Jefferson was talking about the equality of their God given rights! And it's not just "men" who have these rights, women have them as well. "Men" was the predominant term in the 1700's because women had few officially sanctioned and supported rights at that time. In fact, in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified proclaiming that all citizens were granted the protections of the Constitution against unjust state laws. This Amendment was also the first to define "citizens" and "voters" as "male." It wasn't until 1920 that women were granted the right to vote in the United States, after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.

The "right to Life" should be obvious, inasmuch as we have laws prohibiting the unlawful taking of a human life. The only discussion now appears to be one of establishing beyond any question precisely when "life" begins. That's a subject for an entirely different blog.

The "right to Liberty" would insure our ability to come and go freely. We should remain unrestrained and unmolested in our travels within the United States, and need not request permission from anyone to move freely from point to point within those borders. This right, and all the others, are guaranteed by the Articles of our Constitution!

Which takes me to the "right to the pursuit of Happiness". Evidently this one is a bit difficult for some people to grasp. It is not a right to always be happy, and to think so would be an indication of mental deficiency. The English dictionary defines "pursuit" thus:
transitive verb
1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek
The implication here is that one must take action, or chase after a thing to be pursuing it. We do that through personal effort, using whatever physical, mental or emotional skills and talents with which we were blessed and/or developed. Pursue does not mean we sit on our butt and wait for happiness to come wandering by so we can grab a handful. It means that you have a right, through you own efforts, to chase after those things which you feel will bring you "happiness". You do not have a right to take from someone else without just compensation, nor do you have the right to take rewards from the taxed labors of others. When the ants tire of supporting the grasshopper, the grasshopper will eaten by them. And, as William Shakespeare wrote, "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much; such men are dangerous."

MARCH 21, 2010 - A DAY THAT WILL GO DOWN IN INFAMY!

NOVEMBER IS ONLY 8 MONTHS AWAY - REMEMBER TODAY AS THE DAY WE WERE BLATANTLY IGNORED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN D.C.!

IGNORE THEM IN NOVEMBER
AS THEY IGNORED US TODAY!

If we accept this travesty we deserve whatever this corrupt government administration wishes to foist upon us.

Barack Obama - Leader of the Quisling Party!

I have seen no indications to the contrary... Obama is the leader of the de facto Quisling Party. I understand that most of us have never heard of Vikdun Abraham Lauritz Jonnsøn Quisling. His is a name hidden in history's Vault of Shame. He was Norway's version of our own Benedict Arnold. Quisling assisted Nazi Germany in conquering his own country, and then ruled the collaborationist Norwegian government. The term 'quisling" is synonymous with one who collaborates with the enemy - a traitor.

Quisling even captured a spot in our dictionary as: n. A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country. We do have enemies in our midst... some are in your neighborhood, many are in your town, thousands are in your city, and tens of thousands are in your state. They do not meet the military definition of "occupying forces", but they are "occupying" much of America's real estate.
Obama showed his true colors with his appointment of communists, Marxist-socialists, and others who despise America as it is and has been for over two centuries, to power positions within our government. If "a man is known by the company he keeps", we now know Obama.
His "borrow, tax and spend" philosophy is textbook Cloward-Piven strategy, designed to collapse the system by creating crisis where there is none, and then correcting those man-made crises by throwing money at them, thereby overloading the system with unrealistic financial burdens - such as welfare for non-citizens and those capable of working, and other give-away programs. The Cloward-Piven strategy has not yet achieved its goal of total system breakdown and the establishment of a Marxist state... the key word being yet. Our current administration is doing everything it can to move us in that direction. The Cloward-Piven strategy is, quite simply, economic sabotage.

The 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" imposed time linits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Cloward and Piven were in attendance when President Clinton signed the act into law. However, the Obama administration has for any practical application suspended the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, with multiple extensions on unemployment compensation, and the granting of welfare to illegal aliens - just two more means of overburdening the financial system.

The left-wing socialist-progressives are using our system to destroy our system. Inflation due to unbelievable debt, permitting outsourcing of American jobs (thereby adding to already high unemployment) because of exorbitant union wages , pushing "amnesty" for tens of millions of illegal aliens (essentially buying votes for socialist-progressive politicians), and blatantly buying votes in the House and Senate to support Obama's health care program with political plums. Obama refused to host the traditional "National Day of Prayer" for Christians, yet worshiped at a mosque with his Muslim co-conspirators. Isn't that de facto promoting of one religion over another?

The unofficial Quisling Party moves forward under the direction of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, et al. Those elected officials in Washington who lack the courage to stand against the Quislings are as much to blame as those active participants in the destruction of our Republic!
TAKE A STAND AMERICA! TELL THEM "TOO MUCH"! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD THIS NOVEMBER, AND SEND THIS MESSAGE:

Are We As DUMB As Our Elected Representatives THINK We Are?

Hav yu goten thee impreshun that hour politishuns thenk We the People ar stoopid? We seem to provide genuine proof of that opinion by our voting records. We repeatedly put the same worthless people back into office, even after they have shown their disdain for what the people who put them into office really want.

If our politicians were half as smart as they think they are, they would be serving their constituency rather than "servicing" them. Obama just finished his "Health Care Summit", loaded of course, to his advantage - 20 Democraps and 17 mostly RINOs (Republican In Name Only). There was no discussion... simply a lecture by The Chosen One, laying the blame for his failure to move Obamacare through the House and Senate at the feet of the Republican party. That's politics for you! The Republicans are reflecting the true desires of the majority of Americans - we do not want or need a socialist takeover of health care by the Government. It is not cost effective, it will increase taxes. It will result in longer waits for treatment and, in some cases, the wait will be too long. It will cover those who are not citizens of this country, most of whom - if working at all - are working for "cash under the table", and are therefore not paying into the system. It will overtax our existing medical workforce, resulting in qualified medical personnel leaving the field, placing an increasing burden on those who remain, resulting in even longer waits for medical treatment.
Many doctors have said they would give up the practice of medicine should Obamacare become law. More government interference is not the answer to our health care issues. Tort reform is a partial answer. Severe reductions in the cost of medical training is another partial answer. Reasonable (40% - standard retail markup) profit margins on medical supplies and equipment would reduce expenses, which should reduce patient costs. Allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance across state lines would increase competition, and should therefore reduce premium costs. Including small businesses in large "Group Plans" thereby reducing premium costs. Insurance companies should be responsible for covering preventive care - which may cost them only a small fraction of what corrective treatment would cost.

I am a recipient of Medicare now, having paid into it almost all my working life, and continuing to do so in retirement. My personal physician recently put a letter out to all his patients the general thrust of which was: Doctors lose money on every Medicare patient they treat. This is true throughout the state OMA, and the national AMA. If national health care becomes a requirement I will have to cease treating Medicare and Medicaid patients.
I may be carrying that statement to the wrong conclusion, but it appears to me that although we will have Medicare coverage, we seniors will be unable to get treatment under it. What is the practical difference between that and being uninsured??
Then we will have millions more without usable medical coverage - which we will probably continue to be charged for via Social Security deduction. Where is the gain in that?

TRANSPARENCY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS - One Party Involvement Is NOT Bi-Partisan

When the final vote is taken on the unwanted Obamacare bill, it will be behind closed doors and Republicans will be excluded from the process. It seems to me that excluding either party from a vote usurps our "representation"... such as it is.

At the beginning of the first American Revolution it was proclaimed that "Taxation without representation is tyranny!" Inasmuch as Obamacare will be funded with our tax dollars, and subsequent increases therein, it logically follows that eliminating the Republican party from the process is tyranny! A large percentage of the population is being denied their representation on a tax-dependent issue. If, by design, we do not have full and complete representation, during the process of debate over a bill that will increase our taxes if passed, then we are faced with an act of tyranny.
Or... is there something I don't understand about how a unilateral, partisan government action - one that forces unwanted additional taxes upon its people to support programs which the majority of those people do not want - escapes the definition of tyranny?

DEMAND FULL AND COMPLETE REPRESENTATION DURING THE FINAL VOTE ON OBAMACARE!

Health Care Reform for Dummies - Part II

This is my very own improved plan for health care management in the United States of America...

Government regulation is probably needed in the following areas:
1. Medical Equipment Manufacturers - Regulation is needed to reduce the obscene profits on medical hardware. Profits in the $800,000+ range for one low-end Magnetic Resonance Imager (MRI) have surpassed reasonable profit, and entered the realm of profiteering. R&D and associated production and marketing costs should be amortized over the estimated life of the equipment - let's call it 10 years. This would eliminate the temptation to attempt to recoup all expenses in the first 10 units sold. All expenses in R&D, production and marketing would be tax deductible for the corporation during that 10 year period - but the corporation would not be tax exempt.

2. Medical Supplies Manufacturers - This would include expendable single-use supplies such as bandages, tongue depressors, disposable hypodermic syringes, catheters, cast materials, etc., and would be regulated essentially the same as above.

3. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers - No more gouging the American people. If product "X" is only worth $3 in Bangladesh, Indonesia, India or Somalia, then it's only worth $3 on this planet. Regulation would be essentially the same as #1, above.

4. Hospitals - This is basically the retail part of the business of medicine. The hospitals are not only saddled with the expenses forced upon them by equipment, supplies, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, they have the additional overhead expenses of personnel to cook, clean to hospital standards, and provide security within the boundaries of the hospital campus. Then there are the professional costs and wages. The average MD in the USA makes $171,000 per year. That's good money. The average nursing school graduate is paid an average of $22 per hour during the first year, and by the fourth year can be earning $25 per hour, average. To offset their overhead expenses hospitals charge about $5 for a band aid and $8 for an aspirin, and about $1,000 a day for a room! Hospitals should be regulated insofar as charges for consumables (supplies and pharmaceuticals) goes. Cost + 40% is the generally considered the retail standard markup, and that should work for hospitals too - as long as the rest of the medical system is working as it should.

5. Doctors - Doctors should be permitted to practice medicine using their best judgment, and nobody other than their immediate supervisor or the medical licensing board should be allowed to interfere. Doctors should be protected against outrageous lawsuits by capping suits against medical professionals at $500,000. Having a ceiling on malpractice lawsuits should reduce a doctors cost for malpractice insurance, and allow them to charge substantially less than $10 per minute for their time. Many doctors are paying $150,000-$200,000 annually, and a few pay even more for insurance. However, the majority find themselves in the $60,00 per year category. Now we have a chicken-egg-chicken situation... are doctors paying exorbitantly high premiums for insurance because they charge a lot for their services? Do they charge a lot for their services because their insurance is so high? Do they pay a lot for insurance because they may be sued for ridiculous amounts of money? A doctor's malpractice premiums are probably outrageously high because they do get sued for ridiculous amounts of money - by US! We are the primary driving force behind the exorbitant cost of health care. Lawsuits, non-payment for services, equipment costs, student loans to cover outrageous medical school costs, etc. all figure into the equation used to determine what 10 minutes of MD time is worth.

6. Health/Medical Insurance Companies - Most insurance companies are publicly traded, which means they are listed on one of the several stock exchanges, and are available to individuals, consortiums or other corporations to purchase stock. The insurance companies, as do all publicly traded corporations, have an obligation to their stock holders to show quarterly profits and pay dividends to the investors based upon the amount of money they have invested. Adding known "risk" to the group comprising policy holders increases the possibility of payouts and reduces the probability of producing those dividends. The uninsurable were classified that way for a reason - RISK! Insurance companies like to take money, and hate to part with it. If the insurers were forced to accept previously uninsurable clients, one of two things would have to happen:
a. The risk presented by the uninsurable would have to be paid for with higher than normal premiums... so high they would undoubtedly be unaffordable to 90% of those desiring insurance coverage, or
b. The premium rates of all insureds would have to be increased to offset the potential for increased losses by the insurance company.
Health/Medical insurance companies must be allowed - better yet, make that required - to sell policies in all 50 states, thereby increasing competition, and through that competition for the available health insurance $$, lower the costs of health insurance. In order for this plan to be cost-effective all the elements must come into play. And, sadly, the uninsurable must remain the uninsurable. Let the doctors and hospitals do a little pro bono work now and then, and make it completely tax deductible.

The "bottom line" is:

It is human GREED that keeps our health care costs in the stratosphere.

(Oh, yeah... and I did this with about 2,200 pages fewer than Congress!)

The Realities of Insuring The Uninsurable - THE HEALTH CARE CRISIS IN AMERICA!

The latest iteration of the Democrats health care bill includes wording that, in effect states: "Government approved health care insurers (and they must all be "government approved") must provide insurance to those with preexisting conditions at the same premium rate as other insureds of the same demographic."That sounds wonderful on the surface, especially if you are one of those people who are currently uninsurable... but, when you look at it strictly from a business standpoint it presents quite a challenge to the insurance industry. Take just a second here to think about how you would handle the challenge if you were the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield, or one of the other big health insurance companies, keeping in mind that all insurance companies set their premiums based upon risk. They have people called "actuaries" (recently there has been a trend toward calling actuaries "risk managers") whose only job is to evaluate the risk factor (risk of potential payout) involved in issuing policies based upon gender, age, physical condition, alcohol or drug usage, smoking/non-smoking, occupational hazards, etc.. (I'll wait while you do that...).

Do you have a plan of action now? Well, we're proceeding regardless.

Most insurance companies are publicly traded, which means they are listed on one of the several stock exchanges, and are available to individuals, consortiums or other corporations to purchase stock. The insurance companies, as do all publicly traded corporations, have an obligation to their stock holders to show quarterly profits and pay dividends to the investors based upon the amount of money they have invested. Adding known "risk" to the group comprising policy holders increases the possibility of payouts and reduces the probability of producing those dividends. So, what are your options as CEO?

1. Maintain the status quo and do nothing. Continue to issue policies at the same premium rates even though you have been forced to accept 500,000 clients previously designated as uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. In about a year you can either ask the government for a bailout... or file for bankruptcy. Bad choice.

2. Work the technicalities of the government mandate to your favor. Government approved providers "must provide insurance to those with preexisting conditions at the same premium rate as other insureds of the same demographic." Increase everybody's premium costs to that which the previously uninsurable policy holder would have had to to pay prior to the government edict. This would probably make you oodles of profits, your stock holders would love you, and you would be "last seen" as you were forced into the back seat of a late-model black Chevrolet Suburban, with dark desert tint on the windows. Sadly, this may well be your best option.

3. Close your doors now and avoid the inevitability of financial collapse. This is the option the government would prefer you take... thus leaving a clear field for them to take over the health care industry in its entirety, and making the American people just that much more dependent upon "Nanny Government". Making it financially unfeasible - by way of draconian laws and unnecessary taxes - for publicly owned corporations to do business in the health care industry is precisely what the socialist government of Barack Obama plans to do. McDonald's is always hiring (or was... back when we had a few extra dollars to spend on a quick lunch or dinner).

Right now the insurance companies are in a lose-lose situation. They have been demonized by the government and the left-wing media since Obama began his "Change we can believe in" campaign. It's really more like...

or

Understand that I am not a big fan of giant corporations. Especially those selling health insurance. They've been bending us over for the last 3 or 4 decades! Most of the costs are nothing more than greed. Whose greed? The patient. Want to know why medical care is so expensive? Besides the 16 million illegal aliens that are getting it at no cost to them, because the rest of us are paying for it. Because there are no caps on malpractice lawsuits, and many doctors are paying over $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums! Naturally, those costs are passed along to their patients. People are greedy... and they will sue at the drop of a hat! That's one thing that keeps our medical insurance costs high. Then there's the $800,000+ profit in one MRI machine. More corporate greed! How about those $5 hospital aspirins and the $8 band aids? Where do these hospital administrators shop for their supplies ... Neimann-Marcus? But, again, hospitals have to offset the losses from non-payment for services - and greedy vendors - somehow, so they just pass it along to the beneficiary of those goods and services.

The bottom line is that it all comes back upon those of us who act responsibly by having health insurance, or paying for our medical treatment ourselves. The bill falls in our lap either directly (paying our own medical costs) or indirectly (purchasing insurance at high premium costs or paying higher taxes). Like all businesses, the costs of doing business are passed along to the consumer. The hidden costs involved in thefts and loss prevention personnel are passed along. Any business-related expense that can be passed along is passed along (and the rest are written off their income tax)!

Probably the best approach to resolving the health insurance crisis in our country is to not just allow interstate insurance sales, but to require it. This should result in lower overall costs for health insurance due to increased competition for the available health care $$$.

Senate Passes Health Care Bill - Ignoring Citizens Expressed Wishes

The AP lead-in reads - "WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats passed a landmark health care bill in a climactic Christmas Eve vote that could define President Barack Obama's legacy and usher in near-universal medical coverage for the first time in the country's history."

Let's dissect that sentence:

"Landmark health care bill" - Yes it is. Only because the people never wanted it in the past, and the Congress actually listened to them back then.

"Climactic Christmas Eve vote" - More of an anti-climactic and cowardly vote. With a Democratic majority it was a foregone conclusion that the bill would get the necessary 60 votes. The real question was how much those last few votes would cost the American people in terms of political PORK! How much were the holdout political whores selling their votes for on Christmas Eve? And that idiot Harry Reid's adding the pressure of a Christmas Eve vote - knowing that such timing would undermine any thought of prolonging the process throughout the day - pretty much insured rapid passage by those 60 who lack any hint of integrity. They now have their 30 pieces of silver.

"Define President Barack Obama's legacy" - That's the real reason for the passage of this very expensive, very destructive bill by the Senate... to give Obama a victory of some kind, even at the expense of the citizenry. His legacy is already "defined" as one of appalling incompetence in all areas other than destroying the American economy for decades to come... Obama has done a fine job of that!

"Near-universal medical coverage" - One more step toward destroying our economy and making the once-free American people increasingly dependent upon the government. You don't add millions of people to any program without incurring additional costs, and Obama's voodoo math says we will save money! The only way we will "save money" is by increasing taxes for four years prior to providing any health care benefits. How does that "save" us any money?

Congratulations are in order for all those fine Senators who cast their votes to assist Obama in ruining the United States of America, against the wishes of "We the People". Enjoy it while you can, for on November 20th of 2010 we shall remember! Of course I am assuming that we will still have free elections in 2010, and that could prove to be a faulty assumption...

What Is WRONG With Our Legislative Process?

Although there are many areas where our nation's legislative process could be improved upon, the single most glaring point must be the practice of attaching totally unrelated amendments/riders/codicils and various other assorted hitch-hikers to any bill. All legislation should be able to qualify for an up or down vote based strictly upon it's stand-alone merit. There should be no deal making such as, "I don't like your Military Armament bill, but I'll support it if you allow me to attach my 'Contact Lenses for Myopic Armenian Canaries' bill, which nobody wants."

What kind of crap is that? That is where probably 95% of the Congressional "pork" comes from - hiding some worthless (to anybody other than the author) ego-boosting, vote-garnering, self-serving piece of legislation inside a must have piece of legislation!


If there are questions about the merits of a proposed bill, then debate those merits on the floor of the House and/or Senate. If the bill is legitimate, in the best interests of the country, and is sustainable then PASS IT! If it fails to meet objective criteria for passage then reject it. But, under no circumstances should proposed legislation be polluted with unrelated garbage riders! The present "Health Care" legislation began as an 1,100+ page document, which nobody read. It has now grown to 2,400+ pages! Who in the world will read -much less understand - everything on those 2,400+ pages? I would be surprised if even 10% of our elected representatives could honestly say they read it all. That's a LOT of ink... and most of that ink will be red instead of read.

MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE... Does That Sound "American" To You?

Our left-wing D.C. legislature has modified the Obama-Care bill to include one particularly interesting feature. If you fail to purchase health insurance, at a cost of up to $1,900 annually, you will qualify for a "penalty" of up to $25,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.

Here's what leapt immediately into my mind... if you can't afford the "up to $1,900" for "government approved health insurance", your ass is going to jail! Why? If you had $25,000 lying around to play with, you'd probably have bought the health insurance to begin with. Yep - you just can't buy any health insurance you want... no, no, no! It must be "government approved"!

Great... so now we have an annual increase in our prison population of (just a conservative guess) 500,000 per year. That's another half-million people that are now tax supported instead of tax paying - and they're now getting their medical treatment for free! Another clever move by our government officials...

Now throw in the loophole designed to cover the insurance companies - which goes something like this:
If they elect not to cover you for certain contractually obligated treatments... THAT'S OKAY!
The latest version of the universal health care bill stipulates that the insurance companies will not be held liable in those instances. Sweet deal for them, eh? Collect those premiums, and then tell you to 'go pack sand' when it's their turn to shell out some money. Unbelievably, this is considered acceptable behavior by our legislators. Do you think that maybe.... just maybe...the majority of our elected Dumocratic representatives are in bed with the insurance industry?

At the other end of the spectrum we have those folks in the rarefied atmosphere of multi-whatevers - multi-millions, multi-billions, etc. They can afford not to pay for health insurance, and may choose to bet on the fact that they will stay relatively healthy for a very long time. If and when they do need health care, they can easily afford to be "self-insurers". Will Bill Gates, Tiger Woods or Warren Buffett go to prison for not anteing up? Not a snowball's chance... $25,000 is lunch money to them. Therefore, the specified penalty of 1 year in jail for not having health insurance is designed to be, and is de facto punishment for being poor. Congratulations! Being poor is now a crime, and you are now a criminal!

2010 is an election year for Governors and Congressional reps. The smart thing for Americans to do is throw all the incumbents out... but, most Americans didn't do the smart thing in the last election, so why would we expect a different behavior this time? Replacing them all will serve three purposes - (1) It will be a sort of "revenge" for them screwing us over for decades, (2) it may even gain the attention of those who are chosen to replace them... a "wake-up call", if you will, and (3) it will remind them that they serve "We the People", and "We the People" are not happy with their performance.

CORRECTING HEALTH CARE IN THE U.S.A.

Correcting just the end product of health care is not the answer to America's health care "problem". Health care is indeed a problem, but the problem is systemic and must be attacked at all levels, not just at the hospital level. However, in order to correct the system we must first correct GREED at the individual and corporate level.

How do we do that? In reality, we probably cannot/will not because everybody likes money. For me, personally, I have never made so much money that I ever had an excess of it. I have owned some nice cars in my life, but they were bought used, owned one at a time, and financed for YEARS. I do not own any stocks or bonds, nor do I belong to a country club. I have been fortunate enough to live indoors all my life, but never in opulence (unless you compared my domicile to the ones in some 3rd world ghetto... a Somali native might consider my abode to be opulent by comparison to his). I have never really known "want", but like most working-class Americans, I have always had sufficient. I have always been able to afford everything I truly need, and most of the things I have wanted but could have lived without. I suppose you could call me "content" with my lot in life. Don't misunderstand me though - I am not the reincarnation of Mother Teresa - if I were to win the lottery I would not refuse the money, but I rarely buy a lottery ticket, and I don't worry about not winning. I like to think of myself as "Joe Average" in most respects. Now let's get to the GREED problem...

For many people in this world there is no such word as "enough" - it simply does not exist in their vocabulary. This is a big part of the health care problem, and many other "social ills", but we do not correct it by redistribution of the wealth. That which an individual has earned (through honest and noble means) as the fruits of his/her labors entitles them to enjoy that wealth, however massive or paltry it may be. On the other hand, what honest and noble human being walking the face of this Earth produces fruits worth $10,000,000 or more per annum, other than perhaps the founder of his/her own corporation? There is no level of hired management worth that kind of money! But our major corporations pay that much and more for CEO's, CFO's, COO's and other executives, ostensibly because "they can't get the best and brightest for less" . On top of their obscene salaries, they get expense accounts, stock options, bonuses, company cars/limousines, (and in some cases drivers)/airplanes, and health, dental, life and vision insurance as part of their compensation packages.

If the government feels the need to get involved in something in industry, that would be a good starting point, but the government's job is to regulate industry, not manage it. Therefore the Congress would need to pass legislation something to the effect of:

1. No executive compensation packages worth more than $2,000,000 TOTAL - in any industry. That would eliminate the possibility of one industry "raiding" another for top executives, and anybody should be able to live very nicely on $2,000,000 per year!

2. No "Golden Parachutes" for any executive who is terminated for cause, or who fails to live up to the terms of his/her contract, or who has not increased the market value of the corporation by at least 15% during his/her tenure. Naturally there would be no "Golden Parachutes" for executives who left or were discharged from a failing corporation. We do not reward failure!

3. Corporate stockholders would receive a fair return on their investments, of say 20% - not to exceed $1,000,000 per year in total cash value regardless of the amount of corporate stock held. It would be against the law for American corporations or private investors to invest outside the United States of America.

4. Manufacturers of durable goods items, such as automobiles, appliances, and medical equipment, would have a restricted wholesale markup of not more than 20% of the total manufacturing cost. Retailers of those items would likewise be held to a 20% markup over and above their acquisition cost.

5. Union labor compensation package rates would be reduced to the average level of non-union workers performing the same work within the state where they are employed, plus 20%. A union member may be terminated at any time for just cause, as would any non-union employee, and a union member will enjoy no more recourse than that which would be available to the non-union worker.

6. Successful corporations would pay bonuses equal to one weeks earnings to all employees twice a year. Corporations posting losses during the fiscal year would correct those losses by replacing marketing and sales personnel beginning with executives - unless the product was found to be defective. If sales were down due to defective or inferior merchandise, Quality Control and responsible production workers would be replaced.

7. Outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries would be eliminated, thereby reducing our unemployment rates. Any corporation with existing foreign operations would be allowed to maintain that operation for 5 years, however those corporations would be required to pay to the state(s) in which they have production facilities, full U.S. unemployment benefits for each job created in those foreign countries on a worker-for-worker basis. One hundred employees in Sri Lanka would mean that Corporation "X" would have to pay full unemployment compensation for 100 unemployed Americans in the USA, even if they do not have production facilities in the USA.

Health Industry Specific Requirements
Items 1 through 3 and five through 7, as outlined above, would apply throughout the Health Care Industry. Additionally:

8. A cap of $500,000 maximum payment per medical malpractice lawsuit would be established.

9. Doctors working in a hospital/clinic/urgent care environment would be salaried. General Practitioners would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $1,250 per week and would work no more than 50 hours per week. Specialists would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $1,500 and work no more than 50 hours per week. Nursing Staff would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $875 per week, and work no more than 50 hours per week. Support personnel would be paid at the prevailing rate for their employment type within that state.

10. Medical Schools may charge no more than $150,000 for any training provided, to be repaid by the student over a period of not less than 20 years.

11. Health Insurance will be made available nationwide - from any state to any state. For example, all health insurance companies will be able to offer coverage in any of the 50 United States, thereby increasing competition to give the consumer the best value for his/her money.

12. Health Insurance companies may charge, based on reliable actuary data, at a rate not to exceed $10.00 per month per $1,000 of potential annual loss, based upon all physical contributing factors, such as age, sex, weight, race, general physical health at the time of application, pre-existing conditions, use of tobacco, alcohol or non-prescribed drugs, and the potential for loss over the length of the contract.

13. All prescription medicines offered for sale by pharmaceutical companies will be sold at a global rate, not to exceed the rate billed to the poorest of nations.

14. Corporate R&D costs will be recouped over a 5 year period via a tax credit of 20% of the total R&D cost per year, per new product. R&D costs will not be passed along to the consumer.

15. Hospitals/clinics/urgent care facilities providing over the counter (OTC) medicines or medical supplies (i.e. - aspirin, band-aids)can charge for those medicines and/or supplies at a rate not to exceed five times the per unit cost for said medicines and/or supplies.

This is certainly not meant to be the "be all and end all" of health care system regulation, but it could provide someone more intelligent than I with a "jumping off point". And, by the time our legislators - 95% of whom are lawyers - got through rewording and earmarking it, these 15 items would have been transmogrified into 1500 PAGES of government regulation!

There is certainly a remote chance that I could be "fulla" in this area, since I am neither a health care professional nor a lawyer. It just seems to me that something that appears to be so simple doesn't have to become Labyrinthine as it passes through the House and Senate!

HR3200 - ObamaCare, The "Real" Bill... For Now, Anyway

For those of you who may be interested, the entire 1018 pages of the proposed legislation, replete with legalese and political doublespeak is available at:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

I have seen documents floating around in the "real world" that purport to explain what the bill is all about, and how it will impact us. A brief perusal of the bill itself - and comparing page by page to several of the pages specifically pointed out in these documents - gives me the impression that the documents reflect the absolute worst case scenario of what could possibly happen if the language of the bill was very loosely interpreted. (On the other hand, loose interpretation is the one place where our government truly excels. And, after a bill is passed into law the government bureaucrats generally take the position that "it means whatever we say it means".)

I do not know how current this iteration of the bill is, since there is no date on it. I assume that it is the most current one, since it is on the government "Ways and Means" website.

Town Hall Meeting - Grants Pass OR - Aug 12, 2009

Well, by golly... I went to my first Town Hall meeting this afternoon. The meeting was scheduled for 5:15pm, and people began arriving around 3pm, which I know because I took a motorcycle ride past the Ann Basker Auditorium at 3pm and there were two people already waiting. I returned there about 3:30 after ironing a collared shirt to wear, so I'd "look respectable". By the time 5:15 rolled around there must have been about 4oo people crowded outside that venue.

You may recall that I have mentioned before how these politicians seem to choose their venue carefully and based upon limited seating capacity, so they don't have to hear too many complaints about how Washington is ruining the country... well, today was no exception! The Ann Basker Auditorium seats (or did for this particular event, anyway) 140 people, when 3 blocks away there was the Grants Pass High School Performing Arts Center that has a capacity of several thousand people.

Defending Obamacare was Congressman Peter DeFazio (D - 4th District, OR), whose voting record is generally liberal, yet he didn't impress me as a radical left-wing nut job. In the past, DeFazio has shown flashes of courage and independence, by not always keeping in the prescribed "party lock-step" mode. "Perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer" (thank you Henry David Thoreau) sometimes. These actions are not so infrequent as to be called rare, really, but they are infrequent enough to enable him to avoid the label of "Blue Dog Democrat". ("Defending" may not be the right word to begin this paragraph with either. He pimped the party line, but he did so without great enthusiasm. My take was that he was beginning to lean in the direction of Obamacare, but that he lacked the moral conviction to commit his full energies to that bill.)

By now you're probably wondering to yourself, "Well?? How the hell did the Town Hall meeting go?" Prior to the meeting there were some lukewarm exchanges outside, but no fists were thrown, nor were people really "getting in each others face", nor were they raising their voices much above that volume necessary for normal conversation in a crowd of that size. All-in-all it was pretty boring outside. Once the doors opened there was a semi-uncomfortable rush to get inside, since they had announced how many seats were available just before they opened the doors to the auditorium. (Luckily, I was the tenth person in line and made it inside within the first 5 seconds after the doors opened. And yes, I did push past a couple of left-wing, union line jumpers to accomplish that feat.)

After everyone was seated and awaiting the arrival of Rep. DeFazio, there was a bit more of the "lukewarm" antagonism tossed back and forth between the liberal, left-wing "I want the Government to be my daddy and take care of me forever." crowd, and the conservative, right-wing "We want the Government to stay the hell out of our lives, to follow the Constitution, and to allow us access to what we need to take care of ourselves!" group. And again, nothing got out of control. There were several times one group or the other tried to shout down a speaker, but regained their composure and returned to acting as adults within 10 seconds or so. Feelings ran strong on both sides, but there were no physical confrontations at all, and the verbal confrontations (also called "disagreements") were of very limited duration, and only at a slightly elevated volume. I believe there was an unplanned balance in the attendance, and it seemed that the number of people either for or against Obamacare was about even. There are certain media outlets that are claiming the Obama administration has "plants" in the audience of the Town Hall meetings, and that may be true to some small degree, but I believe the left - at least at our Town Hall meeting - was primarily represented by genuinely concerned citizens... as was the conservative right. BUT - those so-called "Town Hall Meetings" at which Obama appears are another story entirely. Of course they will be stacked with Obama supporters! What good politician (isn't that an oxymoron?) who is pimping his pet project wouldn't want to be seen on national TV with maximum support if he could arrange it? And, since the Secret Service provides the entry control at any Presidential event, they determine who gets inside and who doesn't. If you don't know the "secret handshake" (which would literally be something like having an invitation or your name on a guest list) you don't get in. Wearing a T-shirt that reflects conservative values, or if it displays any message that is contrary to Obama's socialist plans is also enough to keep you out.

According to plan, Representative DeFazio was Mr. Punctuality and arrived at precisely 5:15pm, and he departed at 6:16pm ( I won't fault him for a 1 minute overrun, but I will report it because it was so close to being perfect timing). The Josephine County Sheriff attended in his official capacity, along with a Deputy and two Grants Pass City Officers. DeFazio had a good handle on the subject matter (even if it was replete with party propaganda), and had obviously "done his homework". He even claimed to have read the entire 1108 page bill!

There were the usual concerns on each side - National health care vs private insurance; "How old will the government let me live to be"; and, "Where's the money coming from for this program?", etc. The only question he really dodged was, "IF Obamacare is so good, why aren't the House, Senate and Executive branch using it instead of just the rest of the citizens... why do YOU need gold plated health care?"

Did I come away from the Town Hall meeting feeling that I had learned anything new, or was inclined to change my mind about how I felt? No. Did I feel more comfortable about the ever-increasing role of our ever-expanding Government in our lives? Not a bit. Did I feel as if I had just wasted an hour of my life? Not exactly... it could have been more enlightening, but it wasn't exactly a Black Hole in my life either. Besides, anybody that goes to a meeting with any politician, and expects to come away from that meeting with a different understanding or perspective is going to be sorely disappointed.

I'm certain there are others who were in attendance, and heard the same words I heard - but carrying a totally different message than the one I heard - that felt as if the weight of the world had been lifted from their shoulders by Rep. DeFazio. I am equally certain there were those who left the meeting feeling as if the weight of the world had doubled in just 61 short minutes. And then there were the rest of us...

There's no way I could be wrong about this, since it is my perception of what I experienced this afternoon. So, neener-neener-neener to those of you who may think I am wrong!