OBAMACARE ISN'T AN EVIL PLOT TO GET TO SINGLE PAYER. IT'S MERELY POLITICAL STUPIDITY.

Too many times, I have read or heard the paranoid ones, the ones who see conspiracy behind every tree claim that Obamacare is a ruse designed to fail only so the U.S. Congress can "ride to the rescue" by replacing Obamacare with a single-payer system.

It is unlikely that any conspiracy exists, whose participants purposely designed Obamacare as a fail in a devious plot to move to single payer.

Medical bills paying insurance is a $620 billion industry of over 1,000 firms which employ over 460,000.

No one kills off industry of that size. Besides, the industry leaders likely have too much clout with the U.S. Congress to be killed off.

Rather, because of its largess, successive U.S. Congresses have put profit strains on insurers since the U.S. Congress is the largest bidder for medicine ($6.50 of every $10 spent on medicine).

That entitlement expenditure is breaking successive congressional budgets, crowding out discretionary spending. Without unencumbered money to blow on supporters, Congresses have nothing.

Those of Congress have seen the writing on the wall. This collusion between Congress and insurance execs is designed to transfer people from government medical welfare (parroted as the rhetorical, sweet sounding health care ) to private insurers, while upping the unearned-through-competition profitability of insurers.

OBAMACARE, THE BREAKER OF ALL THINGS

Obamacare ends up not fixing anything, but rather breaking already distorted markets.

The problem with medical economics rests solely with the U.S. Congress and no one else. Successive congresses have set the rules, which have made themselves the biggest bidder for medicine ($6.50 of every $10 spent on medicine is spent by the U.S. Congress). 

Because of tax laws, employers write-off all expenses related to providing medical bills paying insurance to employees. That gives them an undue competitive edge in hiring better work candidates. Everyone who pays taxes, in effect, are subsidizing employers who provide med bills insurance for workers.

THE EASY FIX FOR MEDICAL ECONOMICS

To fix medical economics, wrongly said as "health care costs" (only Medicaid and Medicare are health care costs of Congress), these things need to happen:

1. The U.S. Congress needs to reduce their footprint of expenditures for medicine to at most $2 for every $10 and ideally to $0
2. The supply of medical practitioners needs to rise substantially
3. Efficiency inducing competition needs to arise to squeeze out unearned profits

Acts that could accomplish the foregoing are these:

1. Prohibit employers from offering medical bills paying insurance (again, wrongly parroted as "health care" ).
2. Let insurers compete across state lines.
3. Fold Medicare and Medicaid into one, means tested program, perhaps only for individuals with incomes of $20,000 or less, limiting the annual payout to ten doctor visits for non-life threatening illnesses.
4. Encourage states legislatures to break up the monopoly of medical practice licensing to AMA-approved doctors by letting a new, generalist class of doctor arise, one needing far less schooling who can treat aches, pains, the common cold and who set broken bones.

Read more ...

TYRANTS BIG AND SMALL. DYSTOPIAN UTOPIANS FORCING SOCIAL COMPACTS UPON YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE IT

The other day on G+, someone shared this picture into his stream:

Welfare is the means to power. Power must be grabbed first.Once anyone wrests control of power, then that one can achieve one's political goals.

Unless men and women are willing to arm themselves and kill enough others to gain control by violent overthrow, the means to power is welfare doling.

Politicians can not gain power without securing enough votes. Without enough voters, any pol can not gain office and thus do as his financiers bid her or him. The way poles secure votes is through bribing voters with welfare doling. 

Politicians can not exist without your enemies. Welfare recipients are your true great enemy. Likely, your Medicare grandmother is your enemy, your SSDI cousin is your enemy. The Pell Grant recipient college student from down the street is your enemy.


And then this gem of a fellow, Chuck, chimed in:

By Chuck's words, Chuck seems to be unwilling to rob someone directly, so Chuck champions men and women with real balls to rob everyone else, merely so Chuck can get his  kickback crumbs for supporting them.

Likely, Chuck prefers sweet sounding rhetoric like welfare instead of what he seeks, kickback. So, like millions of others, Chuck shall accept the lie that a kickback is welfare.

Under the constraint of his kickback crumbs, Chuck can express his preferences dishonestly rather than making himself valuable and thus exchange worthy in a voluntary fashion, which would let him get his preferences expressed voluntarily.

I  asked Chuck why, exactly, should anyone be forced to pay income taxes or face prison merely because Chuck wants to live at their expenses? What makes Chuck so important and thus so deserving that anyone not related to him and not voluntarily wanting to give to him should be forced to give to him or become imprisoned?

I  asked Chuck where are his relatives? Where are his mommy and daddy? Why didn't Chuck forge better relationships or perhaps any at all with his relatives and neighbors? Why aren't they paying for him voluntarily? However, Chuck failed to answer. 

Ironically, it seems as if Chuck hasn't been living up to the social compact through voluntary action, action he had complete control over doing. 

All contracts are voluntary. There is no such thing in law as an involuntary contract. Imposing action upon another by force while no voluntary contract has been agreed upon has a name. We call that slavery. We call that servitude. We see that one has become the chattel and thus the property of another.

Using "society" is disingenuous to mean a people under rule, or a people living within a defended, bounded area. Yet, all too many do so when trying to justify their Dystopian visions.

Men can attest the word society to the 1530s meaning friendly association with others, entering English from the Old French societe, in turn from Latin societatem in turn from socius meaning companion.

Though he differs in degree, how does Chuck differ in kind to any tyrant in the history of humans who wanted others to use force on his behalf so that he could live without honestly producing something wanted by others and then engaging in honest exchange? 

At day's end, humans want to get their preferences expressed and met. If they can't do so voluntarily, they will seek other means.  

Few humans have bravery. Yet, some do. They will impose their will upon others.  

Most who can't get their preferences expressed and met voluntarily, shall seek the few who have bravery to help them achieve their wants. 

And there you have it. This is what is wrong the earth over with humans. This is why there is suffering as there is. 

Even if Chuck isn't seeking welfare, but merely supporting politicians who dole out welfare in exchange for gaining and locking power, then Chuck is as bad as the ones who accept welfare and thus have revealed your immorality, the same as they do.

It's only a matter of degree, but not different kind, when someone champions politician-doled welfare acquired by involuntary means or when someone champions politician-doled subsidy to bomb makers and farmers.

At least an immoral man of bravery would acknowledge reality and say something like ...but I want stuff and I don't want to earn the buying power to get that stuff through honest exchange by first packaging up my skills through time into something all would call a product, selling that product to the highest bidder, so I am going to use my muscles and willingness to murder to get what I want.

The problem with all of the Chucks of our world is their intellects are insufficient while their greed — their want to get something without giving up something else wanted in a voluntary exchange — is all too sufficient for them not to see reality. They try to justify their immorality, their  inhumane action, their  misanthropic action to get their preferences expressed and met by any means, if necessary. 

Others be dammed! As long as the Chucks get their way and gets to live their lives, free-to-them, getting their preferences expressed and met under constraint of what robbers shall dole to them for his pledge of loyalty, well screw everyone else who wants to be free, free in mind, body and soul, free in self. 

To support his push for PPACA, Obama argued that in future, a person is going to need medicine and thus a person ought to be compelled by law to buy medical bills paying insurance, now, to cover that alleged actuarial eventually.

If everyone accepts Obama's premise as true and thus his conclusion, it's then easy to apply the same template and logic to other things.

• All persons shall need housing. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy rent / mortgage bills insurance.
• All persons shall need food. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy food bills insurance.
• All persons shall need electrical energy. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy electric bills paying insurance.
• All persons shall need food. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy food paying insurance.
• All persons shall need new work skills. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy education bills paying insurance.

So I asked Chuck, 

• Why didn't you buy rent / mortgage bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy food bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy clothing bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy electrical energy bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy higher education, new skills acquisition bills insurance?

The irony is that Chucks fail to honor the social compact and fail at responsibility to themselves and to all others with whom you might have relationship, if any. Instead all Chucks advocate tyranny and violence, forcing and coercing others to behave and comport to their Dystopia vision, that in your vacuous, weak-intellect mind seems to be Utopia.

Read more ...

FREELOADING AT THE BUFFET OF THE LIVING

Back on September 19, 2012, the USA Today reported that about two-thirds of adults in Mississippi and several other states could be obese by 2030 if obesity rates continue to climb at current rates (see link below).

Back on September 3rd of last year, the New Scientist reported that a large body of evidence supports the belief that Alzheimer's is primarily a metabolic disease with some scientists calling it Type 3 diabetes (see link below).

In America, no one talks about how the chronically overweight and the obese effectively free ride on everyone, getting full on medical bailouts with Medicare and sometimes sooner with Medicaid. Because no one talks about this, no one talks about how the chronically overweight and obese should pay substantially higher medical bills insurance premiums including those deducted through FICA for Medicaid and Medicare.

Since Judge Roberts wrongly blessed Obamacare,  everyone must buy medical bills paying insurance, politically called health care. The way Obama and his cronies see it, the fit and the healthy should subsidize the unfit and the sickly. They have it all wrong.

There should be at least two pools of the insured. The fit and the unfit. In short, those who are unfit ought to pay substantial premiums as it is inevitable, nearly so, that the chronically overweight and the obese shall need substantive medical care for a good part of their lives. There is no reason why the fit ought to carry the heavy weight of the chronically overweight as well as the obese. 

The pool of the unfit ought to pay for unfit others. The pool of the fit ought to pay for the fit others.

Twice a year, at the expense of the insured rather than the insurer, anyone could get test for height, weight, heart rate and blood pressure. Depending upon how far from fitness anyone is ought to govern what shall be that one's premium rate.

Actuarial scientists can figure out all of this and project their true costs and thus what their realistic premiums ought to be. As it is now, though, the chronically overweight and obese are freeloading at the all-you-can-eat buffet of life at the expense of the fit.

Read more ...

FIXING OBAMACARE BEFORE IT STARTS; OR IF ONLY OBAMA WERE AS SMART AS I AM

Unfortunately, in the worst judicial decision since Wickard v Filburn, a decision that couldn't be more wrong, English-language challenged, USSC chief robe John Roberts decreed what any right-minded thinker knows to be a fine now as a tax. Roberts pulled a putting lipstick on a pig trick and now wants you to pork it.


Yet, Americans, we need to suck it up. ObamaCare isn't going away.

The Big Lie politicians told to gain the trust of Americans to support Obamacare is that Obamacare would cover the uninsured. Always, politicians tell the Big Lie, whenever they want to establish something that benefits their financial backers instead of the citizenry.

There was no need to create a 2,400 page law. There was no need to create new agencies to regulate and administer the law.   There was no need to hire on tens of thousands of more useless, overpaid, unionized, flunky, paper-pushing government employees.

Having done the foregoing reveals profound intellectual stupidity of our so-called leaders. Obama and the members of Congress who passed Obamacare, guys like Harry Reid and women like Nancy Pelosi are among the stupidest people ever to hold the reins of power. 

If the goal truly were universal coverage as they call it, the fix to achieve such is easy. Here is how it should be done, but first, you need to know what we have now.

Medicare exists for old people. Medicaid exists for the poor. It's what they callmeans tested, which is a fancy way of checking income and family head count, making sure income doesn't exceed an annual sum.

Already, there are payroll taxes called FICA taxes, named after the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. FICA taxes cover Social Security Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) and Medicare. 

And here is the fix. It would have been easy to add another payroll tax to pay for medical insurance. There should be a universal medical bills insurance tax. 

Already, Americans are used to having payroll taxes deducted from their paychecks. Those who have jobs with medical bills insurance experience what it is like to have insurance payments deducted from their paychecks.

Next, Medicaid and Medicare should have been folded into one program for those who are unemployed or who are retired living on Social Security only.

And now for the best parts. Rather than having employers broker insurance for employees, everyone working should be assigned at random to a medical bills paying insurer (wrongly called "health insurance") operating within each workers' respective state. 

Insurers wouldn't know ahead of time, anyone they would be required to insure, regardless of pre-existing condition. Likewise, workers wouldn't know who would be their insurer until assigned. At the start of each year, random assignment could happen.

Also, there should be two payroll tax rates, one for the fit and one for the unfit. The unfit should pay substantially higher taxes, since they are the ones most likely who will need medicine for their unfit bodies. Those who have the right weight for their heights and the right blood pressure and heart rates should pay much lower premiums than those who let themselves go by living slothful, gluttonous, hedonistic lives.

Having two insured pools is the right way to express the actuarial science behind insurance. The unfit would have incentive to get fit and the fit would have incentive to stay fit.

Further, those in retirement with incomes beyond Social Security should have their Social Security taxed at the appropriate rate, either for the fit or the unfit. Thus, the elderly would be treated as anyone else, with no age prejudice against them.

As it is, technically, employers don't pay for insurance for employees, ever. For employers, admin costs become tax write offs. Yet, taxpayers who cannot escape their compulsory taxes are the ones who pay for businesses to provide insurance to employees.

My proposal does what Obama couldn't do — UNIVERSAL COVERAGE FOR ALL AMERICANS. My proposal removes the admin burden from employers, which drags on the economy.

The poor get covered. The productive working class gets covered. The rich get covered. Insurers can stay in business. Richer Social Security recipients would pay their fair share as Obama likes to call it.

If only Obama were as smart as me, our lives as Americans would better by far.

To get a fast lesson on how insurance ought to work, check out  FREELOADING AT THE BUFFET OF THE LIVING.

For all of your Obamacare needs at Bizarro Theater, here you go.

Read more ...