The Critical Thinker Considers His Own Personal Demands For American Health Care Reform

The Critical Thinker

Considers His Own Personal 

Demands

For American Health Care Reform 

By

D.S.Brown


Canada is not the answer.  Britain is not the answer.  France is not the answer.  Switzerland is not the answer.  Cuba is not the answer.  Michael Moore’s film SICKO was in my opinion a great movie,but it by no means provided the answer. What we need to accept and aggressively promote is the fact that America is the answer.  America must commit to providing the best to all its citizens.  It must look critically at what has been provided around theworld, take what it can, innovate what it must, and deploy what will be most effective. 

Please, my friends, Americans and others around the world,let’s clarify the situation from my perspective, the perspective of an aspiring critical thinker who claims the title of Critical Thinker because I believe in the best of a thing, and thinking a thing best into existence, and working hard to achieve it increases the probability that such a thing can come to pass, such is the nature of Critical Success. And what is Critical Success? It is the planned achievement of something urgent and essential utilizing careful planning and judgment for the express purpose of attaining personal prosperity. 

www.2rulesof3.com

Our nation as a whole should be rallied around the national tragedy that is health care.  I firmly believe that far too many of us do not have the proper perspective on this issue.  You have GOP rank-and-file inciting, and talking about Death Panels, winnowing the intelligent from their ranks and focusing more on hyperbole and the attainment of personal and party power in the mid-term elections. 

There are GOP constituents who are understandably upset about government expenditures, yet they are not critically considering the size and weight of the debt we have incurred in the past, or the need of the additional debt we’ve incurred since the transition from the previous administration.  They think they are considering it critically, but they are not.  How can this be true?  

Their leaders, such as Congressman Cantor, make statements lauding the President for supporting Afghanistan, and call for an immediate troop surge, and state nothing regarding the cost of said surge.  They play power politics as we continue to spend billions in Iraq.  We must concede that these military actions are necessary in order to ensure global stability(after a fashion), but they do nothing to eliminate the debt.  

The GOP is not attempting to discuss how these proposals will require funding, just as their Medicare Part D drug plan required funding,generating a debt that was kicked down to the next generation.  Where were the TEA citizens then?  Where are the TEA citizens today on the GOP’s own health care reform costs? They have put forth proposals, and those proposals will require additional funding.  Where are theTEA citizens on the outrageous costs of the global expansion of military initiatives?  The GOP leadership is silent on the costs, as they happily support and pursue additional expenditures.  Secretary Gates, a die-hard Republican, seeks to balance military need with costs.  He is a critical thinker, and an aspiring fiscal conservative, a man after my own heart.  But he appears to be a man without a party, as if the party was on a boat, they stopped, he stepped off, and the party boat went on without him. Incidentally, if you ask some folks they’ll tell you the boat is sinking.  Every time Michael Steele speaks … well.

The GOP constituent doesn’t appear to begin to think critically about this situation.  I’m not making an insult. I’m simply making an observation that seems to  be increasingly clear with each passing day.  They are more apt to go to a rally with a sign saying get me my gun, or from my cold dead hands.  Or, they’ll actually go to a rally carrying an unloaded gun.  They’ll talk about veterans, supporting the military, dress up in fatigues, and proceed to aggressively dress-down everyone they encounter who they perceive to be a liberal. 

THEY AREN’T THINKING!!!! 

I say this because it’s clearly evident.  I believe in the right to bear arms.  I fire guns.  I’m pretty good at it.  It might surprise you to know I will be the first to say from my cold dead hands.  However, I don’t equate this with any of the previous critical national issues.  I know and understand that the prosecution of war costs money, a ton of money.  Supporting our veterans costs money, a ton of money.  Remember when our military was fighting in Iraq with substandard body armor, and put HUMVEES in the field that lacked armor plating, allowing insurgent SHOCK and AWE to come right up through the bottom of a jeep, blasting our proud soldiers all to hell and back?  I know we Americans have short memories, but I’m fairly certain most of you remember.  Do you remember why?  Do you remember it being a matter of costs? 

Do you remember?

Understand, we should not compromise on the costs for our soldiers.  In fact, for all our people we should not compromise on any of it.  We need to spend the money.  However, if we’re going to spend the money, and satisfy our national requirements, we must think and consider critically the actions we take, and put forth initiatives UNLIKE Medicare Part D, or a war to end the regime of a man who did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction, or an initiative to add a definition of marriage to our Constitution (a cost prohibitive national referendum to fight the future and common sense), or even the creation of nuclear bunker buster bombs (didn’t know that about the previous administration did you?), a ridiculous waste of funds to create a weapon that is a slap in the face to our international allies and a complete disruption to the peaceful direction of worldwide progress through nuclear non-proliferation, all to blast dirty-faced men with guns deep in holes all to hell and back. 

If we’re going to spend money on national initiatives, and it is clear to the critical thinking that we must, then we must spend it on programs that will benefit all Americans. The money must be spent in a manner that will generate efficiencies that contribute to aggressive cost savings in coming years, essentially requiring our expenditures to generate savings that chase down our debts.  We’re Americans, we’re innovators, we can do this.  We will do this.  And we will do it all the more speedier and without acrimony if we attempt to do it together. 

The issue of health care is a national tragedy and it requires a national focus.  It is an emergency that rivals 9/11, or anything we’ve faced in a generation.   It is a situation that will of itself result in the catastrophic disillusion of our nation, if the status quo remains, and we push the issue down the road.  If GOP constituents are concerned about the debt to their posterity as much as we critical thinkers are, then they should open their eyes now, and readily acknowledge this national catastrophe waiting to explode to nation-ending proportions.  This issue alone is the debt that will break the backs of their children, and our own.  We must face this, and end it together.

Something to critically consider in terms of health care reform, I personally think Americans don’t mind at all price shopping on medical services that are not life threatening.  We do it already for some services, going to a local clinic for blood tests and CRT scans.  We can do this within the confines of a new wellness initiative.  Annual checkups, scans, and other services can and should be open to competition, pushing the cost down up the line, based on a combination of the profit motive, and a sincere desire to provide the patient the very best service available. 

However, in terms of trauma and life-threatening diseases,the national mandate should not require the American citizen to go through the emotional, critical, anti-sympathetic activity of price shopping for a possible cancer cure.  The national mandate should follow the lines of what we do for a downed soldier in the field.  Every American demands that we provide our soldiers the very, very best, that they need not worry about that lifesaving operation in the trauma unit, removal of that bullet, saving that arm or leg.  We should regard every single last American the same way.  When it comes to that which threatens our very lives, in America there is no option, because the choice has been made for you, we will move both Heaven and Earth to give the very best money and science can provide, because that is the American way, that is the American ideal. 

As for the money? If you do it … it will come. American medicine is advanced medicine.  It is innovative and ground breaking.  We can make it even more innovative with stem cells, and other advanced lines of research, while at the same time providing a cost and service model un-paralleled anywhere in the world.  Yes, they will come from all over the world, even more than they do now; and yes, for those of you strongly money-minded, they will pay.

Let me state that I started writing this before the President’s speech on Wednesday.  I wrote a basis, some notes, pertinent details that I wanted to be sure to highlight in the finished article. Then, I waited.  I wanted to listen to his speech before finishing the article.  I had made a supposition about the President’s actions, and wanted to see if the supposition held. It did.  The tenor of the speech, the words said rang true. However, I knew it would not make all happy.  Of course, Joe Wilson let the entire world know how he felt by calling the President a liar on International television, a disgusting, unwarranted, and unprecedented act, in extremely poor taste.  Very bad form Congressman Wilson, very bad form. 

Some progressives are still complaining about how the President waited too long to make this speech, that the summer was wasted, and that even though we know the President’s modus operandi, it has become wearying and he should have entered the field much earlier.  They have a perspective, a singular one, which I do not hold.  The summer gave us time to toss about the most heated ideas. The summer gave us time to elevate the game of the detractors.  Perhaps, if one considers it critically, this was a necessary piece, an integral piece in this political interactive.   Many have shown their hands.  Many have placed their cards on the table. 

They have … exposed themselves. 

We know a great deal more than we did entering the summer.  An argument can be made that we might have known as much about the myriad sides of the debate earlier, if the President had pushed his political will onto the process.   Or, perhaps the moves were appropriately calculated, in the mode of a serious critical thinker

With Fall before us and the President engaged, I have given it some thought and laid out what I personally believe would be a good basis for an effective Health Care Reform Bill. The aspiring critical thinker took a shot at it.  Please take a moment to consider what I’ve written.  Think about it, toss it around in your mental ring, look at it, weigh it, beat it, pick it up, see if it’s tough enough, if it has what it takes, and then, only after truly considering it, please render you opinion.  Comment on what I’ve laid out.  As a citizen of these United States of America I, D.S.Brown, the aspiring critical thinker demand that we include the following policy initiatives in the ObamaCare Health Care Reform Bill of 2009, which will include the Kennedy Public Medicare Plan:

 

Demand 1:

Establish health care as an accepted right for every American citizen.  On the day you are born, you are covered either by your parent’s private insurance, or the Kennedy Medicare Program.  As a child, once you reach majority (age 18), you may choose.  You can either be dropped by your parents, or retained by your parents. Or, you can either drop Medicare, or retain Medicare.   Or, you can purchase your own private insurance.

 

Demand 2:

Elimination of the de-facto Private Insurance monopoly.  Establishment of the American Health Care Exchange, where individuals and groups may shop for health insurance that conforms to the Federal standard.

Participation in the Health Care Exchange is not a requirement.  However, be you individual, company, or insurance company, you have the right to exercise your freedom and not participate in the Exchange.  Not participating in the Exchange comes with risks, just like any capitalist enterprise. However, in taking on this risks as a company or individual, one must remember that in being the best of that which is human in us, we must never allow politics or profit to come before human lives.  This factor is not and can never be negotiable.

 

Demand 3:

Creation of 12 Basic Base health care plans that can support all Americans.

Private industry, as taxpayers, must be a part of the Exchange in terms of policy, and participate on the panel that establishes and maintains the base standards.  This sets the ground rules for competition between public, private and private.  It levels the field and provides Americans with a simple basis by which to compare and shop.  Incidentally, it will also create new opportunities for innovative companies to alleviate the burden of seeking out the best policy, similar to what you see in car insurance, life insurance, and home mortgages.   

Apply overall insurance policy reform that patterns insurance expenditures on services based on comparative effectiveness research.  Allow policy options that permit increased expenditures based on varying factors and/or patient payment.  If the patient wants it,and is willing to pay for it, then give it to them.  Services along these lines will be competitive between insurance companies, clinics, and other medical facilities.

New businesses will crop up around this model whose sole purpose and revenue generation will be in guiding American’s to the best health care options.

 

Demand 4:

Health care need not and should not be mandatory after the age of majority (age 18).  We can get the numbers necessary to induce competition, and generate cost savings just by opening the doors of Kennedy Medicare. I guarantee just providing the option will create a flood of new customers, without making it mandatory. However, just like American citizenship, you can choose to relinquish it.  We need not force people into a health care program.  To me, forcing them is just not the American thing to do.  We usually have options.  You don’t have to have car insurance.  Of course, if you don’t, you just can’t, or rather legally you can’t, drive a car.  However, and this is critically important, just like driving a car illegally, seeking medical services without the ability to cover charges will be illegal, and seen as an egregious act against your fellow American taxpayers. 

 

Demand 5:

By not signing up for insurance after the age of majority each American is responsible for the risk of covering their own medical expenses.  If an individual seeks medical services and cannot pay they will immediately at that moment be logged in the national medical database as a member of the Kennedy Medicare Program,and will incur penalties, as well as interest on the outstanding service fee.  The new enrollee will stay on the Public Plan for a specified amount of time AFTER penalties and interests have been paid.  This shows good faith and an ability to pay.  At this point, they will have the option to go with a private company.

 

Demand 6:

Enroll the indigent in the Kennedy Medicare Program immediately.  Allow Americans 55 and older to enroll in Kennedy Medicare in the first year.  In the second year allow Americans 45 and older to enroll in Kennedy Medicare. In the third year allow Americans 30 and older to enroll in Kennedy Medicare.  In the fourth year allow all Americans to enroll in Kennedy Medicare if they so choose.  All enrollees go through a validation process to guaranty America citizenship. No person currently enrolled in Medicare will be dropped through this process.   

 

Demand 7:

For small businesses that seek services in the Exchange we will provide strong cost discounts on coverage plans determined by an applicable scale based on business performance factors such as income, balance, and cashflow.  This will be preferable to tax credits, and far easier to understand.

 

Demand 8:

End discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions for any insurance company participating in the Health Care Exchange.  This will allow companies to pursue insurance options that might cater to a customer with factors that make them eligible for a different product outside the Base 12 because of their health status.  It fosters innovation, includes high risks, and creates even more competitive options.

 

Demand 9:

All health care companies industry-wide are prevented from dropping coverage when people are sick.

 

Demand 10:

All health care companies industry-wide must set caps on out-of-pocket expenses.

 

Demand 11:

Enact immediate health care policy changes on Medicare.

If you are a doctor that services Medicare patients you now have a choice.  Medicare must be shifted to salary-based programs on an aggressive timetable.  This will give doctors the time they need to choose.  If they elect to stay with Medicare they must adjust their practices.  If they want to keep seeing Medicare patients, they can choose to create business models that satisfy the Mayo model cost structure.  This opens the door to innovative programs that adhere to a basic cost framework.  In the finest American tradition this also allows a doctor to not see Medicare patients and charge whatever he likes for each service, if his service is just that good.  Doctors can operate niche markets to cater to those that want to pay top dollar for their services, which should be above and beyond the 12 Basic Base Plans. 

 

Demand 12:

Elimination of insurance subsidies for private insurance companies.  As those billions are funneled back into the core program, it is imperative that Medicare Advantage customers see no discernable impact to their level of service.  The patient is always our first priority.  Kennedy Medicare will be able to maintain the same level of service without the extra funds because there will be no need to cover the excessive administrative costs private insurance companies must have in their business models in order to maintain and increase market share and profit.

 

Demand 13:

Removal of state barriers against competition. 

It is clear that state barriers are part of the model that has created health care monopolies across the nation.  The elimination of state barriers is core to increasing the level of competition between public, private and private, and absolutely essential to lowering health care costs.

 

Demand 14:

Utilize costs savings to enact the American Wellness Initiative.  Establish an applicable cost savings structure within the Health Care Exchange that applies discounts on services that are eligible. Eligibility will be based on accepted standards of health and the ability to improve in a given area, such as risks for cardiovascular disease.  In addition, it will provide quarterly bonuses to Exchange doctors and nurses that actively promote and succeed in improving the wellness of their patients.   This will also serve as a model for private insurers outside the exchange and will help spur competition. 

 

Demand 15:

Utilize costs savings to give immediate financial relief on loans to medical professionals. Utilize funds to offer grants to students seeking careers in the medical field, especially nurses and primary care physicians.

 

Demand 16:

Tort Reform must be enacted immediately.  It is tearing the industry apart.  Enact aggressive tort reform analysis and employ an immediate action program with a phased time horizon in order to enact changes to tort laws, protecting all citizens from abuse, patients aswell as doctors.

 

Demand 17:

Immediately establish a program to drive the Health Care Exchange to contract with the very best Information Technology companies in the world to develop and deploy in multiple phases (getting services online quickly) the best Electronic Medical Analysis and Record system ever established.  The system will retain doctor, nurse, and patient information.  It will establish interfaces and analytics to examine and analyze data such as pharmacology, giving likely responses by patients to medicines and procedures.  In later phases it will serve as a Medical Knowledge Engine, leveraging information as an incredibly powerful tool facilitating successful medical outcomes formedical facilities across the nation, and citizens around the globe. 

 

Demand 18:

Establish a multi-tiered trigger option with cost impact over the entire Health Care initiative that is executed in the event of cost overruns.  Costs for the program must not exceed $900 Billion, and must be absolutely neutral to the deficit.   If for whatever reasons costs exceed the limit and begin to be accretive to the national debt an emergency committee is to be convened immediately and enact cost cutting measures to the program, being as sensitive as possible, but nevertheless ensuring cost containment first and foremost, and then costs reduction.

 

Those are my 18 demands for Health Care reform.   In my humble opinion, I see these 18 policy initiatives as a clear and concise path towards Critical Success for all Americans.  Health Care reform as a goal attained will not only make those of us alive today healthier and more financially sound, but so to our posterity. 

  

www.2rulesof3.com

blog.2rulesof3.com

www.TheHandMill.com

blog.dsbrownwrites.com

blog.facebooktales.com

www.youtube.com/dsbrown300

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 1
  • 9/16/2009 10:27 AM Steve Young wrote:
    Derrick-

    I am in such a different place than you are regarding what I know about my country and where I expect my freedoms to exist. There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates any 'rights' regarding healthcare.

    The Constitution does not discuss the government's ability to intrude into the life of private citizens, rather it discusses how government should be limited into the intrusion of people's lives.

    Also, your analysis of the Tea folks is misguided. Most Tea's are not in agreement with the GOP, so your premise is false, and therefore invalid. The Tea's have mostly voted for GOP'ers in the past, but exist only because of their dissatisfaction with the GOP. I suggest you get educated about a movement that just put over a million people in DC last weekend. It is an interesting movement, and at least deserves more coverage than the denial mainstream media has put forth.

    This country is built on making choices, taking chances and living with the consequences of those actions. Government has never successfully built anything that is efficient in this country or any other country throughout history, other than a standing army in ancient Rome. With that track record, how can you expect for our government to successfully pay for services and create a better healthcare, when the government has historically never created a better anything?

    You are in a different place than I, because you are making "demands" from our government and want rights given to you by a government that does not have the authority to give those rights.

    On another point, the government does not have the authority to make anyone get healthcare coverage. It is a part of a citizen's rights to choose, and therefore live with, or suffer the consequences.

    Specifically, where I am in a different place than you is that I love my country, not because of what it does for me, but by what freedom's it gives me.

    Healthcare is in need of reform, but the reform needed is getting big government out of healthcare. Why do you think there are states that allow no competitors in the health insurance industry? That comes exclusively from big government.

    What happens if you don't allow insurance companies to drop patients with pre-existing conditions? Then the insurers will leave the industry because they can make money invested in things other than healthcare. That leaves only a government option left in the industry.

    If we adopt national healthcare at any level, watch what happens to all of the clinics just across from the Canadian border. They will all close, because their customers won't be allowed to get the greatest healthcare available anymore.

    We need reform, not nationalized healthcare. The HR 3200 bill in it's current form is a disaster on the level of Katrina, only on a national basis, and will forever change the face of this country as it continues toward bankruptcy.
  • 9/18/2009 7:52 AM DS Brown wrote:
    Steve,

    Thank you for commenting. Allow me to respond to your specific points.  In my personal opinion I think you are absolutely wrong about where we are, and that your statement is more about perspective and the application or lack thereof of mental filters.  

    Your first statement regarding the Constitution if one that many seem to hold dear, but have no critical education regarding the Constitution or how it is effectively utilized in terms of maintaing, growing, or shrinking government.  Two sections of the Constitution specifically allow the United States Government the power to create laws as required to prosecute the powers as defined, one of which is promoting the general welfare of the United States.  Many strict constructionist may dispute this.  However, time and time again they have fallen to the side, their perspective viewed as the wrong perspective in regard to creating national prosperity.  You are free to hold on to your view, one of those wonderful liberties provided to American citizens, our freedoms allow you to choose.  However, all I would ask, is imagine what our nation might be like if we flipped the federal government on its ear, and demanded today that it only prosecute the powers as stated in the Constitution, and ignored the phrasing that implied the necessary power to pass laws for the general welfare.  It's a good exercise.  Consider it.

    Regarding my analysis of the TEA citizens.  You're reading my article and shaking your head.  I would ask you to stop and let down your mental filter.  Ask yourself critical questions as to why I would hold such a perspective?  Simply stop and think about it.  I'm working from certain observations.  I'm not making assumptions about individuals.  I'm talking about the GOP supporters who are in the TEA movement in my district.  I'm talking about Dick Armey.  I'm talking about Michael Steele.  I'm clearly not talking about you.  However, have a wider view of the situation and truly consider my perspective, and you may see things differently ... or maybe you won't.

    Regarding what governments have and have not done.  Wow.  Steve, you really should lower your mental filters, let go of some the heated passion, and apply a little cold logic.  My friend, if you would, just get online and take a look at the history of modern governments.  Nothing since the standing Army of Rome?  What happened in WWII?  Honestly, so many people have gotten on this horse about bad government that it is starting to get heavy and completely out of hand.  I hate taxes, and abhor bloated bureaucracy and corruption.  A rational minds knows there are very few if any absolutes.  Recognize that your statement is an absolute, and I challenge you to find some things at which governments have been successful. I'll toss one out, Tennessee Valley Authority. Now, and I've done this with others, as you go through this exercise, eschewing rhetoric and holding on to critical cognition, compare govt. programs to Enron, WorldComm, and then Microsoft, Exxon.  We get so excited that we miss critical points.  Both are bad.  Both are good.  One can excel far more efficiently on a thing.  The other can do the same given certain prevailing factors.  I challenge you to find out which. 

    I'm making demands of the government because like or not, a bill is about to be passed.  I want the bill to be passed with my demands included.  To do otherwise is to stand up and step away from the table, denying the facts on the ground.  Instead,  be thinking, be critical, be engaged. 

    The government can pass a law demanding that you get healthcare, just as there are laws demanding that you get car insurance if you want to drive a car (albeit an extreme comparison).  Still, did you read the demand I stated?  I don't support demanding that you sign up for healthcare either.  Doesn't feel right. 

    Now, I won't act up too much on this next point.  I felt myself getting upset, as I often do whenever people have the sheer temerity to question my love or passion for this great nation.  It is the only place in all of history on this world that a man like me could be the man I am today.  In no other country could my story have come true, could I have prospered in such a fashion, could I have sought and achieved critical success, an activity on which I am still building.  I know, recognize, intimately understand, and thoroughly enjoy my freedom.  Then, I calmed down and realized the way you structured your sentence was how we love our country.  Steve, really, it's almost laughable.  What my country has done for me?  Are you kidding?  Okay, in my life I have taken nothing for granted.  Nothing has been given to me save for the love of my parents and the basis they provided on which I would build my life.  The rest? I earned it my friend.  I'm still earning it. I have been given nothing, and ask for nothing.  My demands, as stated before, are me being active within the confines of our state, demanding that I have a seat at the table, leveraging the freedom my beloved country provides so that I too can be heard, and have input.  Steve, I AM EXERCISING AMERICAN FREEDOM. 

    Regarding government in healthcare?   Well, they're already in it to such a high degree that it might boggle your mind.  Clearly, you're unaware.  It's a lot more than state lines.  By the way, did you read my demands?  I demand that we remove state restrictions.  Also, I demand a specific reform of Medicare, which makes several people age 65 and over very, very happy.  You also don't understand the fundamental nature of business, innovation, and the drive for profit.  My friend, you would be surprised.  Let me make it clear, there is nothing being considered that will drive a company making over 12.5 billion dollars on healthy 3.5 percent profit margins to simply walk away, not when they still have customers, and can still make money.  You're woefully misguided by rhetoric and yes mainstream media if you believe everyone's simply going to walk away and join the government plan.  I hazard a guess you won't be doing it.  So there, sale number one is Steve, still providing healthy profit for Private Insurance companies.  Next please?  Steve, they are going nowhere.  

    Again, thanks for commenting.  




  • 9/18/2009 8:17 AM Ed F Bias wrote:
    Derrick I appreciate what I perceive as an honest and well thought out vision for health care. I am impressed that you avoided the blame game (mostly) and but forth specific points that create a basis for discussion.

    I happen to fall in line with Steve, however. Our rights are God given and last I checked the bible did not mention insurance policies. At least not the paper kind. The constitution of this country was written to protect us from the government and insure our personal (civil) rights. We have gotten too far from that and allowed Washington to gain too much power (both parties).

    I agree with most of your demands in general terms; if not their implementation. Let me speak to a major point of contention. You state that a government program will help break the Insurance monopoly and contain costs. You use the same, overheated, argument about Medicare and it's lower costs. The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no requirement for them to break even. Sure they avoid the "evil profit" side of the equation. They do so by running billions of dollars in the red. Let me run a company that can lose billions a year and I could contain costs as well. The government option in any form (allowed to run in the red and/or tax to balance it's budget) is unacceptable to me.

    Do not fool yourself that, "it will be budget neutral." You fall into a very simple trap that I used to believe. You ever wonder why, if this is so important and must be done now, it does not go into effect until 2013? There is a simple fact in Washington. Each Congress is independent. This Congress will pass a law, say it must be budget neutral and pass the implementation to the next Congress. The next Congress; being independent; is not subject to the restriction of "budget neutrality". It would be "unfair" for one Congress to set forth rules and limitations on another. Therefore, like all other deficits, they will decline to take up the provision and just let the law run.

    The only way to force budget neutrality and price control is by government action upon the private sector where costs must be balanced. With this known, many of your demands (though valid concerns) must take on a different focus.

    Final comment. Why do the elderly struggle so to give up their driver's license? Freedom. A car and driver's license is freedom. When you give someone else control you give up your freedom. Sure some live their lives and use public transportation, defendant on others. But the vast majority only do so when it is convenient and maintain the option (through the ownership of a car and a valid driver's license) to be able to go as they please. In the end, this is all about freedom and I am not willing to hand my future health decisions to anyone. That includes Insurance. It is the same reason many with Medicare have supplemental Insurance. There is no monopoly.

    Thanks again for the open discussion.
  • 9/19/2009 1:42 AM DS Brown wrote:
    Ed, first let me say thank you for commenting.  Your response is open and amicable, and represents a clear desire for sincere dialogue. 

    Considering rights, I have to honestly say that your basis for rights provided is singular in nature.  You agree with Steve, who as I recall did not mention the bible.  However, that is fine.  I have a strong faith but tend to look askance at religion, since it represents government by another name.   You have to understand that your basis for rights provided to human beings is powerfully informed by your beliefs, and your perspective.  An atheist would vehemently disagree with you.  As for the Constitution, just like Steve your statement shows a fundamental educational gap on that sacred national document.  It was specifically, and expressly written to provide a workable framework OF government FOR the people BY the people.  Yes, it provides protection.  No, it was not written to protect us FROM government.  It was specifically written to enumerate powers within a given framework that provide powers for and establishes government. 

    It seems that you looked at the 18 Demands and gave them sincere consideration.  Thank you for truly taking the time to do so, Ed.  That is really what I've asked people to do.  Okay, to that end let me clarify two points.  First, I can tell by your statements that you have an opinion on the so-called Public Option.  Understand, the only Public Option I would advocate would require a corporate charter and be run in the same fashion as a competing private entity, and operate under the same constraints.  The thing could even be listed on the NYSE for that matter.  The point is that it would have operating costs.  Costs that have to be funded from its own revenue, not tax dollars.  Now, if the crap hit the fan, would the govt. bail it out?  You know I don't have to answer that.  Government Motors is a prime example.  However, I hazard a guess that you and I fundamentally differ on how far we should let free market forces determine the fate of people who were not the investors or founders of GM, but plain old hard working Americans.   I'm an avowed capitalist and innovative entrepreneur.  Still, I don't believe in letting market forces reign to such a degree that we have to suffer the loss of 30,000 jobs in one fell swoop because we simply think it would be better to let an entity fail.  Just fundamental differences.  And here's  a freebie. Government Motors will emerge from bankruptcy and be re-listed on the NYSE next year.  My friend, INVEST!  You won't be disappointed.  My second point, Medicare is restructured under the Mayo model in DEMAND 11.  This is your mandate for break-even.  I'm pushing for profit!  Take the additional revenue and route it to the deficit.  In addition you clearly forgot Demand 18.  This satisfies your requirement of no cost-overruns.  I fully agree with you, which is why I put it in there.  Now, let's be clear, and I've said this before, with the advent of WEB 2.0, how successful do you think subsequent Congresses would be at overturning the legal constraints of Demand 18?  I don't know if you've noticed, but these days even a small minority can make it very difficult for a government official to do some things and keep them completely hidden. 

    The Demands do include government action on the private sector.  I'm assuming because you wanted to clarify a given point, which I do understand, you stepped away from the mandates on private insurance I provide in the Demands.  However, this by no means is the only way to get it done.  In fact, the most expeditious and aggressive way to get it done is a combination of both public and private, as I've provided in the Demands. 

    You final statement is absolutely on point.  I fully agree.  I think once again in a desire to clarify and state your thoughts on the issue you've stepped away from what I've provided in the Demands.  They state that coverage shall be provided for those that can't take of themselves.  However, if you so choose, you can completely opt out.  No one should force you to get coverage.  However, just like what happens when you drive without a license, or insurance, there are repercussions stated in the Demands.  This gives you the power to be free in your choices.  For those of us in a given program, we will have to manage how we control what is dictated to us.  I'm assuming you have no health insurance since you don't let private insurance dictate to you.  Again, your choice.  My doctor basically does whatever I ask.  However, my insurance company over the last two years has taken to doing whatever it likes as well in regard to profit generation, which is not following the prevailing macro-economy, which in turn is taking additional funds out of my pocket each year.  I want to see this trend reversed.  I have the best insurance money can buy, yet it behaves far differently than my auto or life policies, both of which leverage risks.  Should it costs more?  Sure, it does more.  However, offer an appropriate product and practice efficiencies in your business model that control costs.  Remember, we were discussing costs?  Private Insurance needs some forced assistance in this area. Hence, the Demands.  Competition will spur reductions, and give me back my money.  I think that's something we citizens can all agree on. 

    I truly thank you for engaging Ed.  





Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment

Comments are closed.