The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There is but
one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Repeal and Replace Obamacare With This… By Michael Busler
For many conservatives and moderates (and maybe more Democrats) that may be uncertain about the Leviathan ObmamaCare and what to do, here is a cogent answer to your arguments with regards to repeal.
For many conservatives and moderates (and maybe more Democrats) that may be uncertain about the Leviathan ObmamaCare and what to do, here is a cogent answer to your arguments with regards to repeal.
At a recent press conference President Obama
chastised members of Congress for spending so much time trying to repeal the
Affordable Care Act or Obamacare as most refer to it. He said that members of
Congress are trying to deny health care coverage to 30 million Americans,
eliminate a provision that covers children on their parents plan up to the age
of 26 and eliminate benefits for the prescription drug "donut hole"
for seniors. Why, he wondered, do they
make this issue their primary concern?
The reality of course is different. Those who want to repeal Obamacare want to do so primarily because the law is a "train wreck" as many have referred to it. Adding 30 million people, who can't afford to pay for their own health care, will drive up the health care cost for the other 300 million Americans who can afford to pay for healthcare and/or supplements. Prior to the law, paying for health care and prescription drugs was too expensive. Paying for health care, prescription drugs and a huge government bureaucracy will only be more expensive.
In addition, every poll indicates that the majority of Americans do not want this law and actually fear its implementation. Small businesses are afraid that the increased cost will reduce their profit significantly and may drive them out of business. Young people fear that forcing them to buy insurance that people in their 20's don't really need, will be a heavy burden on top of their school loans and the lack of opportunity that the President's economic policies have produced. And the rest of us fear the higher taxes from the individual mandate tax, the employer mandate tax, the surtax on investment income, the excise tax on comprehensive insurance plans, the increase in the Medicare payroll tax, the medicine cabinet tax, the HSA withdrawal tax, the cap on spending accounts, the tax on medical device manufacturers, the reduction in medical itemized deductions, the indoor tanning tax, an increase in the excise tax on tobacco, the excise tax on charitable hospitals, the tax on innovative drug companies, the tax on health insurers, and the "black liquor" tax. There are a total of 21 new or increased taxes, some which have already gone into effect.
But the President did raise one very interesting point. While Congress is trying desperately to repeal Obamacare they have not suggested any specific replacement plan. How about this one?
First off, let's determine exactly the problem. The problem is that 1) the price of health care is too high and rapidly increasing and 2) there is not enough reasonably priced services available to cover the needs of the population. In other words the price is too high and the quantity too low. How do we fix this?
The basic concept for a solution is not that difficult to see. In a specific market, whenever the price is too high and the quantity too low, we fix the problem by increasing the supply. This puts downward pressure on price and increases the quantity available. In the market for healthcare services, a better plan is to vastly increase the supply of doctors and other medical professionals. By doing this, there would be more services available to the market. This would add competition which always results in significant downward pressure on price, increases in the quantity of services available and vast improvements in the quality of services. That is, when supply increases, prices fall and the quantity rises.
There are probably 2 to 4 qualified applicants to medical school for every opening. If we built more medical schools and increased enrollments at existing medical schools, it would take four years to see the increase in supply to reach the market. Once there, the doctors would compete for business by offering lower priced and more efficiently delivered health care services.
If the lower price was still out of reach for some Americans we could simply expand Medicaid and/or construct clinics. Perhaps we offer a program to medical students where, instead of them having huge debts from medical school, the taxpayers would cover the medical school cost. In return the new doctors pledge to work in Medicaid type clinics for a short time at a modest salary.
The other part of the solution would be tort reform. The problem here is that lawyers are encouraged to seek huge rewards in malpractice cases, primarily because they receive a percentage, often one fourth to on third, of the settlement. To cure this we change the way attorney's bill from a percentage of the award to a multiple of their normal rate. This recognizes the increased risk to the lawyer of taking a contingency case, even though the data indicates that lawyers win about 90% of the contingency cases they represent. In other words a lawyer agrees to contingency billing only when she is about 90% certain of at least some reward. So if their hourly rate was $500 for regular cases they could charge two or three times that for contingency cases. This would likely reduce the size of the settlements and eliminate the incentive for lawyers to build a huge case.
Repealing Obamacare is a good start, perhaps leaving in place those components that the majority of people want. Then we replace it with a plan to vastly increase the number of doctors and other medical professionals, while instituting tort reform which changes the billing practices of attorneys. For those still not able to purchase health care services, Medicaid or some type of government clinics, staffed by new doctors who use their employment in these clinics to satisfy the cost of medical schools, would be available.
This is a true market based solution.
The reality of course is different. Those who want to repeal Obamacare want to do so primarily because the law is a "train wreck" as many have referred to it. Adding 30 million people, who can't afford to pay for their own health care, will drive up the health care cost for the other 300 million Americans who can afford to pay for healthcare and/or supplements. Prior to the law, paying for health care and prescription drugs was too expensive. Paying for health care, prescription drugs and a huge government bureaucracy will only be more expensive.
In addition, every poll indicates that the majority of Americans do not want this law and actually fear its implementation. Small businesses are afraid that the increased cost will reduce their profit significantly and may drive them out of business. Young people fear that forcing them to buy insurance that people in their 20's don't really need, will be a heavy burden on top of their school loans and the lack of opportunity that the President's economic policies have produced. And the rest of us fear the higher taxes from the individual mandate tax, the employer mandate tax, the surtax on investment income, the excise tax on comprehensive insurance plans, the increase in the Medicare payroll tax, the medicine cabinet tax, the HSA withdrawal tax, the cap on spending accounts, the tax on medical device manufacturers, the reduction in medical itemized deductions, the indoor tanning tax, an increase in the excise tax on tobacco, the excise tax on charitable hospitals, the tax on innovative drug companies, the tax on health insurers, and the "black liquor" tax. There are a total of 21 new or increased taxes, some which have already gone into effect.
But the President did raise one very interesting point. While Congress is trying desperately to repeal Obamacare they have not suggested any specific replacement plan. How about this one?
First off, let's determine exactly the problem. The problem is that 1) the price of health care is too high and rapidly increasing and 2) there is not enough reasonably priced services available to cover the needs of the population. In other words the price is too high and the quantity too low. How do we fix this?
The basic concept for a solution is not that difficult to see. In a specific market, whenever the price is too high and the quantity too low, we fix the problem by increasing the supply. This puts downward pressure on price and increases the quantity available. In the market for healthcare services, a better plan is to vastly increase the supply of doctors and other medical professionals. By doing this, there would be more services available to the market. This would add competition which always results in significant downward pressure on price, increases in the quantity of services available and vast improvements in the quality of services. That is, when supply increases, prices fall and the quantity rises.
There are probably 2 to 4 qualified applicants to medical school for every opening. If we built more medical schools and increased enrollments at existing medical schools, it would take four years to see the increase in supply to reach the market. Once there, the doctors would compete for business by offering lower priced and more efficiently delivered health care services.
If the lower price was still out of reach for some Americans we could simply expand Medicaid and/or construct clinics. Perhaps we offer a program to medical students where, instead of them having huge debts from medical school, the taxpayers would cover the medical school cost. In return the new doctors pledge to work in Medicaid type clinics for a short time at a modest salary.
The other part of the solution would be tort reform. The problem here is that lawyers are encouraged to seek huge rewards in malpractice cases, primarily because they receive a percentage, often one fourth to on third, of the settlement. To cure this we change the way attorney's bill from a percentage of the award to a multiple of their normal rate. This recognizes the increased risk to the lawyer of taking a contingency case, even though the data indicates that lawyers win about 90% of the contingency cases they represent. In other words a lawyer agrees to contingency billing only when she is about 90% certain of at least some reward. So if their hourly rate was $500 for regular cases they could charge two or three times that for contingency cases. This would likely reduce the size of the settlements and eliminate the incentive for lawyers to build a huge case.
Repealing Obamacare is a good start, perhaps leaving in place those components that the majority of people want. Then we replace it with a plan to vastly increase the number of doctors and other medical professionals, while instituting tort reform which changes the billing practices of attorneys. For those still not able to purchase health care services, Medicaid or some type of government clinics, staffed by new doctors who use their employment in these clinics to satisfy the cost of medical schools, would be available.
This is a true market based solution.
NOTE:
The author left off the most significant
actions that lead to today's unaffordable health care; insulating Americans
from the true costs. This trend began in
1974. As the practice moved into the
mainstream, demand skyrocketed and costs along with it. We must have the consumer of medical services
making smart "buying" decisions or the above will be plagued with the
same pressures for the last 40 years.
Michael Busler, Ph.D. is a public policy analyst and an Associate Professor at Richard Stockton College.
Michael Busler, Ph.D. is a public policy analyst and an Associate Professor at Richard Stockton College.
~~~~~~
The Only thing Phony in the White House, is The
Leadership
Last week White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was
asked which of the scandals currently plaguing the White House President Obama
thought was "phony." Shockingly...he had a very specific answer. Benghazi
and the IRS. Carney answered, "Whether it's about the attacks in
Benghazi and the talking points, or revelations about conduct at the IRS --
their attempts to turn this into a scandal have failed." I'm
enraged that our Commander-in-Chief feels that the American people's concern
over what happened in Benghazi is "phony." And further,
President Obama should be outraged by the warrantless targeting of conservative
groups by the IRS. No one has
attempted to make these events into scandals...those inside his administration
who perpetrated these crimes did all the work
~~~~~~
Al-Qaeda Terrorist Attacks and Intent Quadrupled Since
9/11
Al-Qaeda Has Grown Much More Powerful
Under Obama Administration; since the killing of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda has
decentralized and improved its financing methods, attack approaches and
communication techniques. Under new rule, al-Qaeda is a more dangerous
terrorist organization than it was before 9/11, responsible for four times as
many terrorist attacks Click here to read the summary report from top
intelligence experts at
~~~~~~
How a 21st-century Hitler could succeed By
Lt. Colonel JAMES ZUMWALT retired
Was
Adolf Hitler born too early? That is, could a 21st-century Hitler have
prevailed in imposing Nazism upon the world where a 20th-century Hitler failed? An argument can be made the West is much
more susceptible to Hitler's efforts today than it was in the early 20th
century. Ninety-four years ago,
Nazism was on the rise. Hitler joined the German Workers' Party soon after its
formation in 1919, quickly becoming its leader. His speeches created scapegoats
for Germany's problems -- the World War I allies, the Communists and the Jews.
The party -- renaming itself the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) in
1920 -- was initially nationalist and socialist. But Nazism became a different
ideology in 1925 when Hitler wrote -- while in prison for political crimes --
and published "Mein Kampf"
("My Survival"), which became Nazism's holy book.
Nazism
was a form of fascism incorporating biological racism and anti-Semitism --
rolled into the Nazi Party's political ideology. It called for society's domination by
the racially superior -- a master race of "Aryans." Inferior
humans were to be eliminated as a threat to national survival, suggesting their
elimination was more humane than wasting assets to support them. Ultimate
leadership fell to a "Fuhrer" to whom all others were subordinate,
with his dictates having the force of law. Hitler, unsurprisingly, promoted
himself as Fuhrer.
Nazism
encouraged rallying 'round the common bond of national unity. It preached, as a
law of nature, a master race's requirement for "Lebensraum" (living
space), with territorial expansion a part of its "historic destiny."
Universal human rights were non-existent, with only Aryans entitled to them. While the trigger for Hitler's
anti-Semitism is uncertain, his book interestingly discusses his initial
liberal and tolerant attitude toward Jews. However, by book's end, that
attitude significantly changed. The
underlying political message of "Mein Kampf:" Nazi aggression
against, and elimination of, non-Aryans. Fast forwarding to 2013, different
characters play the same roles.
Replace
"Hitler" with "Muhammad" and "Mein Kampf" with
the "Koran." Multiple Hitlers are involved as Muslim sects promote
their own religious Fuhrers. For Shiite majority Iran, it is their
"Supreme Leader;" for Sunni majority Egypt, it is their "Supreme
Guide." Muslim leaders call for followers to rally
'round the common bond of Islam -- the Koran mandating their historic
destiny. It is one of territorial expansion to create a world free of borders
and united by Islam --achieved by violent followers who eliminate all
non-Muslims, confiscating their lands. It
is a world subject to Islamic law alone, known as "Shariah." It is a
world by which Muslims are a "master race," with all non-Muslims
either submitting to Islam or being put to death. Universal human rights are
non-existent with only Muslim males primarily entitled to them. The underlying political message of the
Koran: Muslim aggression against, and elimination of, non-Muslims.
Like
"Mein Kampf," the Koran initially suggests tolerance toward
non-Muslims, only to later change its tune. Just as Nazism became a political
ideology, so too does Islam. Had
Hitler been born much later, establishing Nazism as a religion, he would have
found so many more doors open for him today. In a world where Western concerns
about political correctness have impaired our better judgment, we allow the
Koran's violent undertones to permeate more and more of our culture because
Islam's hatred for non-Muslims is promoted as a religion. Those who haven't read the Koran maintain the
illusion Islam is a religion of peace -- a theme unsupported by the holy book.
We sleep at the wheel as the threat of Islamic law creeps deeper into our
society. Shockingly, it has already been applied by judges giving it precedence
over the law of our land.
We
yield to Muslims -- who freely disparage Jews and non-Muslims -- claiming
"Islamophobia" whenever we raise concerns Shariah infringes upon our
way of life. We do so even after discovering in 2004 the Muslim Brotherhood's secret
strategy to destroy the U.S. Constitution and impose Shariah upon Americans. The Muslin Brotherhood's strategy involves
using front organizations to promote its efforts, many of which are actively
involved today in providing "guidance" to U.S. government agencies,
from recruiting Muslim religious leaders within the military to how law
enforcement can supposedly better communicate and get assistance from Muslim
communities.
Interestingly,
the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts all involve a compliant U.S. government simply
standing aside as these organizations enlarge the Muslim Brotherhood's
influential footprint.
Hitler could have thrived with such access! During World War II, British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill recognized the need to study "Mein Kampf"
to better understand the German leader's mindset.
Churchill
in his book "The Gathering Storm," compared Hitler's book to the
Koran:
"All
was there -- the program of German resurrection, the technique of party
propaganda; the plan for combating Marxism; the concept of a National-Socialist
State; the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world. Here was
the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with
its message."
Similar
to "Mein Kampf's" message of violence against non-Aryans is the
Koran's message of violence against non-Muslims. Just as Churchill encouraged
Westerners to study "Mein Kampf" to better understand the Nazi
threat, U.S. President Barack Obama should encourage Americans to study the
Koran to better understand Islam's threat. Only by reading the Koran,
which should be X-rated for both its violent and sexual content, will
the threat be clear. Such a read should leave non-Muslims
questioning the basis upon which Islam asserts it is a religion of peace. Had
Hitler only had the foresight to call Nazism a religion, we might all be
speaking German today. But failing to study the Koran today could well have us
all speaking Arabic in the future. (A retired U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. James
Zumwalt served in the Vietnam War, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first
Gulf War. He has written "Bare Feet, Iron Will -- Stories from the Other
Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," "Living the Juche Lie: North Korea's
Kim Dynasty" and "Doomsday: Iran -- The Clock is Ticking.")
~~~~~~
State Department
Blasts Enemies of Islam by
Tim Brown
After
reading the above, what is wrong with our own government?
Following
car bombings in Baghdad, which appear to have targeted Shi-ite Muslim
festivities that marked the end of Ramadan, State Department spokesperson Jen
Psaki issued a press release in which she denounced the “enemies of Islam.” “The
United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the cowardly attacks
today in Baghdad. These attacks were aimed at families celebrating the Eid
al-Fitr holiday that marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The
terrorists who committed these acts are enemies of Islam and a shared enemy of
the United States, Iraq, and the international community.” According to
Reuters, there were twelve separate bomb blasts that targeted markets, busy
shopping street and parks, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 80 people. Interestingly,
we haven’t seen a condemnation of a jihadist attack this quickly. Even
now, the administration does what it can to sweep Benghazi under the rug which
was clearly a jihadist attack. However, the “enemies of Islam” don’t get such a
courtesy. Patrick Poole writes: As horrific as these bombings are, obviously
fueled by sectarian differences, it’s troubling to see that the Obama
administration has now put the U.S. government in the business of denouncing
“enemies of Islam.” … Mind you, this is the administration that branded the
Muslim Brotherhood a “largely secular” organization. It
has taken every effort to purge government national-security documents of any
reference tying terrorism to Islam while Janet Napolitano’s Department of
Homeland Security proscribed training by anyone declaring themselves “Muslim
reformers” (while at the same time government contractors tie pro-life,
pro-Second Amendment, and Tea Party views to “violent extremism”). Any
government employees that observe that Islamic terrorists themselves wrap
themselves in the mantle of doctrinal Islam will quickly find themselves
without a job. And when members of Congress have confronted senior
administration officials as to whether elements of radical Islam have declared
war on the U.S., those officials have angrily protested that Congress merely asking such
questions puts them in league with al-Qaeda. This administration has
done everything it can to whitewash Islam. It’s removed references of Islam and jihad
from government training manuals, replacing them with emphasis upon Christian
extremists as perpetrators of terrorism. The administration has given
preferential treatment to Islamists and continues to fund Islamists.
Obama even told the United Nations last year, “The future must not belong to
those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Muslims have been demanding and
getting prayer openly in public schools. The Obama Justice Department
has even had one of its attorneys and FBI special agents threaten
citizens that they could face federal prosecution and prison time if they are
critical of Islam. So far, no word from the State Department about the
final Ramadan Bomb-a-thon body count by Islamic jihadists by this
administration. They only want everyone to acknowledge the celebration
of the Islamic holiday. While the press release did address al-Qaeda, offering
a $10 million reward for information that helps authorities kill or capture Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi, it never ties al-Qaeda to Islam. The hypocrisy of this
administration is readily apparent.
~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment