Buy health care like you buy a home.

Let's use the classic example that everyone always uses, you walk outside and get hit by a bus and you are uninsured!. We are a civilized country so of course we will treat you when you are wheeled into the emergency room.  The problem that the ACA is attempting to solve is the uninsured who don't quality for medicaid and medicare but can't afford health insurance or have opted to risk it and not buy insurance.  This should be a relatively small amount of people.  The insurance companies make money by charging more in premiums than they pay in claims, that is there profit margin for providing you the ability to pay for your health care over time (in the form of monthly payments) rather than all at once, whereby you would probably go bankrupt.  So by paying for your health care upfront they lose the ability to make money from investing that money, and you gain the ability to invest or use the money you didn't lose by having to pay your whole bill upfront.  This is almost entirely identical to a mortgage or renting an apartment.  In both cases you are paying a small amount on a regular basis to get something now that is more than you could afford.  In both cases you are charged a fee for this benefit, either an interest payment or a premium that is slightly higher than what the insurance company actually expects you to need over a period of time.  Perhaps the better approach is to treat medical bills more like a mortgage.  Why can the insurance company just charge you interest on the balance of your medical bills until they are paid off.  The cost of say a pregnancy at 4% interest over the life time of a mortgage (30 years) would probably only be $100 bucks a month, that is probably cheaper than you are paying in health insurance premiums.  Not only that but your payments end when it is paid off (like a mortgage) and doesn't continue indefinitely like health insurance premiums.  You adjust the interest rate to account for the fact that if someone dies after their treatment and can't pay their bill, you would be covered from an actuarial standpoint.  The government could subsidize it like they currently do for mortgages and rent for poor people and you could right of the expense on your taxes.  This would more closely relate your decisions and lifestyle as an individual to what you pay in health costs.  The only downside is that people who are born with serious medical conditions would instantly be burdened with a debt they had to pay back.  However seeing as you are going be paying something a month no matter what (interest payments or premiums), you might as well pay for your own costs.  This would force you to shop for the best rates and most affordable care that they market offered as it will directly affect you financially.

Health Care and Cell Phones

When I first got a cell phone, probably in 2004, there were only a handful of providers. The phones were crappy, think black and white displays, two ring tones, no text messaging.  I think I paid around 45 dollars per month with sever limitations on minutes (300 anytime minutes, nights and weekends free).  This market is very lightly regulated compared to others, the FCC regulates the frequencies, and companies couldn't form a monopoly and had to respect privacy (or did they?).  Fast forward nearly 10 years later.  I now have a phone that does more things than I could have dreamed of 10 years ago, I have unlimited text messaging and minutes and can connect to the internet via WI-FI.  I only pay $10 dollars per month.  This is all done through the magic of companies competing for market share.  If only we would let the same power work for Health Insurance...

Jumping into the net.

I believe we need to have an economic "safety net" in America.  I'm glad we do.  But why do both liberals and conservatives call it a "safety net".  If you have a safety net, I believe the general goal is that you are not in the net unless absolutely necessary.  A tight rope walker ideally, never wants to be in the safety net.  But in American society I question whether the our social safety net is really a place of last resort or if many of our citizens are jumping and not falling into the safety net.  Hilary Clinton speaking at the 10th anniversary celebration for the Center for American Progress mentioned that the progressive agenda is ensuring Justice, Liberty and Equality.  But then mentioned that because of policies from the 'other side', mothers can't get the formula they need to feed their babies.  Of course the social safety net should include formula for infants, that's a no-brainer.  My question is how do you 'fall' into a safety net that provides formula for your babies?  How often does it occur that someone goes from comfortably supporting a family to a situation where without government help they will not spend the $20 a week for formula.  Are there really families out there in that situation where unless this check comes from the government they will let their babies starve?  If there actually are these cases, and I'm guessing there are very few, I fully support government funds to buy them formula.  What would be the proper name for a net that people willingly jump into?  Probably a children's bouncy house.

2013 Goverment Shutdown.

This latest budget showdown has made me realize something very interesting; the constitution seems to be rigged in favor of conservatives.  There are three ways to make an existing law virtually ineffective.  You can file legal injunctions in court to delay the implication of a law while waiting for a judicial ruling.  The President, representing the executive branch of government can direct agencies to simply not enforce certain laws.  These first two methods are available to Republicans and Democrats alike and both are used by both parties to pursue their own agenda.  The third method, as we've seen recently is for the House of Representatives, holding the power of the purse, to simply not fund a law.  This third method really tips the balance of power to conservatives because most laws passed by congress tend to give the government more power which is something conservatives generally tend to oppose.  Democrats are just more likely to propose laws that require funding.  The House of Representatives cannot create funding for a law that doesn't exist, if it did, that would really benefit Democrats.  The House can however remove funding from an existing law.  This may be an accident of history, but in modern times it certainly gives conservatives an advantage.

Right to Work

Here is the essence of the argument against 'right to work'.  If the majority of workers at a company decide to form a union to represent the all the workers, all the workers must join the union or pay dues to the union if they wish to continue the employment there.  In essence they argue that the private work place should be as democratically binding as the public sphere.  There is a vote for say, the governor of your state.  The vote is 51% for candidate A, and 49% for candidate B.  Candidate A wins, and represents everyone, even the 49% who didn't vote for him/her.  The 49% must pay for that representation in the form of taxes, the governance of candidate A in turn affects everyone  The 49% cannot decide not to pay taxes because they don't support the democratically elected governor.  The constitution provides for this in terms of public elections and compulsory taxation.  Should the same system apply to the work place?  Let us not forget that the constitution also provides for the freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -First amendment to the constitution.

The question is, does a law that permits a union to represent you against your will, and require monetary contribution to support that representation under penalty of losing your employment, "abridge your freedom of speech"?

What does freedom of speech mean?  Does it mean the government cannot limit your speech?  Or does it mean the government cannot control your speech, which would include not only limiting your speech, but also requiring you too speak  This is pivotal.

I think most Americans would infer the later, that freedom of speech implies the lack of control over your speech.  After all, would you consider yourself physically free if you the government didn't limit your movements, but at the same time required you to move in certain ways.  For example, you would be free to travel anywhere you want in America, but you have to visit Alaska every 3rd weekend of the month.  Most of us would not consider that to be freedom.  Likewise you cannot have the government directing your speech but not 'limiting' it at the same time.

Next I will attempt to connect speech with the joining and financing of a group that speaks on your behalf.  There, I just did it.  A union is a private entity that speaks collectively for the group on issues related to labor.

Now the last two ideas that need to be connected are the following: is a law that permits a non-government entity (an employer in this case) to fire me for not speaking in the manner in which another non-government entity (union) wants me to, a law that abridges my freedom of speech?  The answer is yes, even if it is not the government specifically sanctioning me.  It doesn't have to be the government in this case, the government is by passage of a law, making it legal for another entity to sanction me.

Another question is, do our constitutional rights apply in the private sphere?  Can a private group (employer) do things to us the government cannot not?  I think the answer is no, we've seen that our rights are not just between us and the government, but between us and society at large.  You can't kill me, stop me from practicing my religion, or fire me for not supporting/financing speech that I don't want to support/finance.

Democracy is and should only be legally binding where the constitution defines it.  A private entity cannot ask the government to enforce a democratic vote in the private sphere.

What if an employer that is predominantly christian allows a vote in which it makes prayer to God mandatory during work hours and the majority of voters agree.  Can the employer fire those employees who don't pray?  No, and a  law supporting that is in violation of the first amendment.  QED.

What's next?

In this post I will attempt to answer the question "What's next?" in terms of policy priorities for each party.  Let's suppose for each party that the each have an opportunity to pass their current respective legislative priorities without any barrier from any legislative branch.  For Democrats that would probably include the following:
1.  Immigration reform.
2.  Cap and Trade.
3.  Dream Act.
4.  Gun Control-Assault weapons ban, universal background check.
5.  Stimulus spending.
6.  Student loan reform.
7.  Repeal Citizens United or passage of Disclose Act.
8.  Return to Clinton era tax rates.

For Republicans it would probably include:
1. Repeal of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
2. Cut individual income and corporate taxes.
3. Increase Border Security.
4. Limit availability of abortions.
5.  Reform Social Security and Medicare.
6.  Approval of Keystone XL Pipeline.

The interesting questions is "What's next?"

Democrats
1.  Interest free loans for all college students.
2.  Fairness Doctrine.
3.  Living wage.
4.  Single Payer Health Care.
5.  Universal High Speed Internet.
6.  More Tax Fairness.

Republicans
1.  Privatize social security.
2.  Tort Reform
3. Flat Tax
4.  School Choice

The Better Question for Climate Change Legislation.

"What test should we apply to your idea to prove it was either good or bad?"  This is the question that is essential to any scientific hypothesis.  It must be possible to be proved wrong.  It must be testable.  This is the corner stone to the philosophy of science.  We should apply this rationale to public policy.  Take climate change for example.  President Obama said that our climate is changing, and that we are contributing to it.  You can't really argue with that, he didn't specify how the climate is changing or by how much, or by how much we are contributing to it.  You can't disprove that statement.  Something you can measure is how much Obama's policies will change that.  So here is the question, if we passed legislation designed to mitigate climate change, and 10 years later we don't see any effect on the climate, that would either prove that our specific climate mitigation efforts were the wrong ones, or that any realistic mitigation effort is not capable of undoing the damage we have already done.  Neither conclusion holds that the climate is not changing or that we did not contribute to it, but it would prove that the U.S. can't not change the climate with legislation.  Now you may ask, well maybe we just picked the wrong mitigation efforts or we need to strengthen the original efforts to produce a measurable effect on climate.  Well that may be true, it admits that we are not good at predicting how our actions impact climate, which would cast doubt on the premise itself that we are contributing to climate change.  Either way at the end of the day, if 10 years of climate legislation fail to show scientific results, we abandon said legislation as ineffective, or we abandon the premise.

2013 Farm Bill

I've been listening to the senate agricultural committee mark up of the farm bill.  What I've learned is that no dollar previously given to an interest group or constituency will every be cut.  I keep hearing the line "we should not balance the budget on the backs of <insert emotionally appealing interest group>.  The list of interest groups who cannot have any benefit cut by any amount is ever increasing and now includes anyone over 65, teenagers, children, single moms, veterans, soldiers, 'hard-working' Americans, and farmers.  We should save everyone a lot of time and just pass a law that says only middle aged white men will pay any taxes. When the food stamp program was started only 1 in 50 Americans used it, now it is 1 in 7.  The formula is simple.  Give away a whole bunch of freebies, when you destroy the budget make the emotionally appealing and intellectually void argument that the freebies cannot be cut and will instead be paid for by people who don't get the freebies.  This is a recipe for disaster.

Gun Control - What's Next?

Let's say we do pass an assault weapons ban and other measures to make us feel like we're doing the right thing.  When the next Tuscon, Aurora, or Newtown tragedy does happen what will we do then?  Will we admit the measures we took in 2013 were ineffective?  No, we will probably say we didn't go far enough, or we will say that without the 2013 measures the current tragedy would have been worse.  Ultimately we will feel the need to pass another round of gun control measures, and slowly but surely, our rights will be regulated away.

This provokes a philosophical thought.  Which is worse, to have an innocent person killed by a gun, and the victim chose to be unarmed, or an innocent person killed with a non gun weapon and they were unarmed by law and could have protected themselves if they had a gun?

The right to be stupid

While John Kerry was in Germany he said that Americans have the right to be stupid.  The following is taken directly from the Reuters website (even the unfortunate grammatical error).

"The reason is, that's freedom, freedom of speech. In American you have a right to be stupid - if you want to be," he said, prompting laughter. "And you have a right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be.

He's absolutely right, but I would take it one step further.  In America we have the right to realize the consequences of our stupidity.  We don't have that right currently.  You can be stupid, but then the govt steps in and saves you from the consequences of your stupidity, the one thing that might prevent you from being stupid again in the future.  And the "right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be"?  That seems to directly contradict the notion that we're "All in this together", or "Nobody got rich on their own", or "Shared sacrifice".  If I knew John Kerry was such an individualist, I would have voted for him instead of George Bush.

Minimum wage

I am double minded about the minimum wage.

If we are paid for our work, then belief that there should be a minimum wage implies that there is a minimum value assigned to any and all work that can be completed in an hour.  If you think about that its quite silly.  Imagine if we paid for our gas based on how long we drove only?  You could drive a motorcycle, or a semi-truck, 2 ft or 80 miles, in circles, or in a straight line, all for one set price per hour.

On the other hand, if we are living in a society (like ours) that is fixated on having a minimum wage, then I actually think we should raise it, then take the entire raise back in federal income taxes.  Its would be deficit neutral, and ensure that everyone who works has some skin in the game when it comes to federal spending.  and everyone will have to vote on whether they want more money, or more government. 

Equality before Liberty

"A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty.  And a society that aims first for liberty will not end up with equality, but it will end up with a closer approach to equality than any other system that has ever been developed."-Milton Friedman

It is theoretically possible to have equality if we guarantee our liberty, but I don't think we can guarantee equality without redefining what liberty is.

When did we stop thinking

While listening to Tavis Smilely's symposium "Vision for a New America" I was struck by the lack of new ideas we are offering up to combat poverty.  On this panel, there were maybe 8 or 9 committed liberals and then Newt Gingrich.  In a symposium that was supposed to be about ending poverty, the following themes quickly emerged; drone strikes, the wealthy not paying their fair share, unnecessary wars, the evils of wall street, the importance of labor unions, the republicans, income inequality, money, and new taxes on buying stocks and bonds.  Take any problem we currently face in the United States and you will hear that it could be solved with more money, and that money can easily be taken from the rich.  It's time we come up with actual ideas, I and challenge conservatives and libertarians in this country to come up with these ideas, because it is all too apparent that the left only cares about leveling society.

If you can save even one life...

I've heard this line too many times recently, and it showed up today in the president's speech as he talked about gun violence.  If we can save even one life by taking this action, then we ought to do it.  If that were true then we would have a national speed limit of 1 mph, since that would certainly save at least one life.  It's not like we have a right to move fast, so why don't we have a national speed limit?  Because at the end of the day we do value some things more than someone's life, even the life of a child.  If you can save even 1 minute of rational thought, you'll never use the "save one life" argument again.

Fair or Effective

Let's be honest, a fair amount for someone to pay in taxes is the exact amount of government services they use in dollars.  So add up the time you spend driving public roads, plus the cost to run the fire and police dept in your area, plus the cost per person of military spending etc.  That would be fair; you pay for the services you use.  This should be familiar, it's the way we pay for electricity, water, heat, gasoline and so forth.  Now here is the big problem, its not an effective way to run a civil society.  Those who make very little would see most or all their earnings go to the government and result in increased real poverty. Not, "my t.v. is too thick, data speed on my smart phone is too slow", American style poverty.  As a result you'd have to hire a body guard to walk to the park, pay for food delivery, pay more for law enforcement, and live every day thinking that if you made a few mistakes or came by some misfortune, it could be you.  You're better off just paying more than your fair share in taxes to keep the masses happy.  That's an effective tax, and if we asked the wealthy to pay a more effective tax, we probably could have raised taxes with out much of a fuss and everyone who had the time to participate in tea party protests and occupy wall street could have done something more productive with their time.  Let's thank the wealthy for already paying more than their fair share while making the case for an effective share.

FDA Requirements should be applied to congressional bills.

The house of representatives allowed the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to expire without a vote this week.  I didn't read the bill.  I don't know what's in it, and neither do you.  My concern is over the branding, if you will, of the bill itself.  It is the equivalent of buying a granola bar where the packaging on the front reads "Nature's Delight" and the back shows molecular diagrams to represent the ingredients.  We decided a long time ago that food manufacturers must provide certain nutritional information clearly and in many cases on the front of the label, think "0 grams trans fat, or 8 whole grains of wheat".

Someone needs to regulate how congressional bills are branded, and I think it will lead to better public discourse and a more knowledgeable and responsible voting populace.  Like a package of hot dogs, I would like to know how much beef it has, as well as 'pork and other fillers'.

Emily's List at National Press Club

The Speaker at the National Press Club today was Stephanie Schriock from Emily's list, a group with a stated mission of getting pro choice women elected to congress.  The transcript is not up yet, so this is not a word for word quote, but she remarked that if we had put women in charge of solving the fiscal cliff, there would have been a deal a long time ago.

I was left wondering if there would be 'equality' for a man if he made a similar statement, try "If we had a man as secretary of state, the Ben Ghazi situation would have been handled better."  I think not, but the double standard is nothing new.

The unfortunate result of that comment and many others made during her speech is that I (and perhaps others) can no longer take her, and Emily's List, seriously on any issue they speak on.

Rhetoric like that may have made you popular in your dorm room, but you're an adult now, and in a position of leadership, it's time to grow up.