Donald Trump's Healthcare plan

Trump has a decent health plan.  His Of course completely repeals Obama Care so that people will no longer be forced to buy insurance unless they want to.  He will do basically what Ted Cruz advocated at this point allowing people to buy and sell health insurance across State lines, but so long as they meet State health insurance requirements such as catastrophic care or covering specified conditions by State law.  So it is not complete freedom to buy and sell, but it comes very close.  People under Trumps plan will be able to deduct their health insurance premiums from their taxes.  So if your premium is $4,000 a year or a million a year, the full thing is tax deductible.  He also advocates tax free contributions and inheritable health savings accounts (HSA's).  Trump wants these accounts to accumulate (presumably including gaining interest) and that when they are inherited that no death taxes will be applied to them.  At the same time, the HSA account can be used to pay for any member of the family without penalty.  Now with Dr. Ben Carson's endorsement of Donald Trump, these plans may change slightly to reflect some of Carson's ideas, but this remains to be seen as the overall plan is really just an outline at this point.  

Other changes that Trump wants to do are just as helpful to health care as Dr. Carson's, Senator Cruz's and Governor Kasich's ideas.  Trump wants to implement a true price transparency law that would require health professionals, Doctors, and health organizations like clinics and Doctors to publish their prices for their services.  The goal is to allow consumers to pick and choose the places with the cheapest health prices for the same quality services.  Donald Trump also will block grant funding for Medicaid.  What this means is that the Federal Government that provides financial support for Medicaid will give States a specified amount of money per year for States to spend as they wish on Medicaid patients.  Mr. Trump’s logic is that States know more about the needs of their residents and that States will do a superior job of combating waste, fraud and abuse while providing healthcare to the needy (this idea is shared between all the Republican candidates).  The final part of his plan will open the market to drug providers that "offer safer, cheaper and reliable" drugs.  Basically, this means Drug companies from overseas will be able to compete against domestic drug companies and potentially laws governing generic drugs and patent rights may be adjusted to increase competition.

Final Thought:  Trumps outline of a plan is very solid and does what most of the other candidates want to do and possibly even a little more in areas that the other candidates did not think of trying such as opening the market to overseas drug companies.  I am not a fan of Donald Trump, and I end up about every three weeks saying I would never vote for him.  But then he has stuff like this which can do wonders to help people, and it forces me to reconsider him again and again.  I am still a Cruz guy, but hey if you like Trump for his mind rather than his mouth (and potentially loose morals), then it is possible you will not go wrong voting for this guy.

Donald Trump's Tax plan

The Trump plan for taxes is good.  It is not a flat tax, but instead like Rubio and Kasich works with the existing code, but is adjusted to accommodate personal and business income growth.  What it would do is create four categories of people with respect to how much they will be taxed.  For individuals making $25,000 and under, they will not pay any taxes, neither will Married filers making $50,000 and under, and heads of the household making $37,000 and under. Those taxed at a 10% rate will be individuals making $25,001 to $50,000, married couples making $50,001 to $100,000 and heads of households making $37,001 to $75,000.  Both these initial two groupings will not be taxed by the capital gains taxes (money earned through things like investments as opposed to work).  Individuals making $50,001 to $150,000, married couples making $100,001 to $300,000 and heads of households making $75,001 to $225,000 will be taxed at a 20% tax rate and a capital gains tax rate of 15%.  All money beyond these amounts listed will be taxed at a 25% tax rate and a capital gains tax rate of 20%.  Interestingly, Trumps plan has three groups who are taxable and does not combine capital gains taxes with regular income like other plans such as Cruz's and Rubio's.  Of note, Trumps plan makes deductions progressive like the income tax itself.  As such those in the 10% tax category will keep all or most of their deductions, the people in the 20% category will keep a little over half their deductions and those in the 25% category will keep some of their deductions according to his website.  Charitable giving and Mortgage deductions will remain the same as they are now under Trumps plan.  Also, Trumps plan also makes health care premiums completely tax deductible.  Trump aims to eliminate as many special interest deductions as possible, and phase out others that would not work with his tax plan.  For businesses, as Trump recognizes that startups and other small and growing businesses pay their taxes via income taxes as opposed to business taxes.  So Trump will create a 15% business tax which based on his wording will allow these small business owners to choose which tax to pay, while big businesses will pay the 15% rate only.  With all the deductions reduced for the rich, and the new tax code, apparently no small businesses or middle class and lower people will be harmed by the new plan.  As such, Trump is touting that the rich will pay more.  For businesses who keep money abroad and sell outside our borders, the tax deferral on income earned abroad will disappear but the foreign tax credit will remain.  Trump also has a onetime repatriation fee of 10% for money held abroad by corporations, which Trump hopes to encourage businesses to bring home with his new tax code (according to Trump's site, $2.5 trillion is held overseas). Trump will also phase in a tax cap on the deductibility of interest expenses.  Lastly, the death tax will be eliminated.

Final Thought: Donald Trump's plan is basically Kasich's and Rubio's plan, but goes further than Kasich and has better rates than Rubio's.  It is not the flat tax that libertarians and conservatives hope for, but it is an improvement.  I think Trump helps the poor and attacks the rich all in the same tax code to show off his progressive credentials and cares about people's perceptions of fairness which he may possibly share based on what I have read in his tax and health plans.   I personally do not like the three separate rates, but his business tax rate on its own is the best compared to Cruz's 16% rate (though it taxes total income and not exclusively profit based on how it is worded).  But Trumps keeping of various tax loopholes and deductions outside of mortgage, charity and his newly added health care premium deduction could hurt him as people may say he did not go far enough, or rich people may still try to leave the country as they could still end up paying more.  I do not think he will satisfy everyone, but hey, he is still an option.

Hillary's Health care plan

Hillary's plan to take on health care builds upon the Affordable Care act, better known as Obama Care.  Her end goal is universal coverage, but it does not seem to work in the same way as Senator Sander's plan.  Her plan would attempt to make it easier and cheaper for people to purchase health care via the exchanges created by Obama Care.  To do this, she will provide a $5,000 tax credit to families to offset out of pocket premium expenses that are 5% above their income.  She will also enhance other tax credits and make it so that no family pays more than 8.5% of their income on health care for people who buy through the exchanges.  Also, she intends to fix the "family glitch" which would allow families to purchase health care on the exchanges if their employer's plan is too expensive.  Hillary will also look to expand Medicaid further to grant further access to health care for poorer Americans.  She intends to advertise to people to help them enroll more into the Medicaid and Obama care systems already in place to achieve "universal coverage".  She also believes that access to Medicaid should be granted to illegal residents and non-citizens alike.  Additionally, she wants to work with State governors to create a public option where people's health will be taken care of via a single payer system, but on a State by State basis.  Her other goals are to lower deductibles, health insurance premiums and drug costs, but she does not give any details on these subjects.

Final Thought:  It seems Hillary has not given up on the single payer idea, but does not want to lose the advantages of the health insurance industry.  So she seems to want to create a hybrid system.  The single payer systems will be implemented per State, while insurance companies will provide the backbone along with Medicaid to the exchanges.  She may be hoping that this hybrid system will counter the high costs and rationing of the European model that Sanders wants to follow for health care.  I personally do not think this system will work and will end up turning the health insurers into public utilities to implement a version of single payer health care.  But, this is Hillary's plan based on what she has stated in her campaign site.  So take it as you will.

Hillary Clinton and Taxes

Hillary's tax plan is non-specific to a degree at this point in time.  So I will present some of the details here that I have garnered from her campaign site.  For one, she intends to reform the tax code by ending the carried interest loophole and implementing the "Buffett Rule".   What this means is that Capital Gains (money derived from sources other than labor) taxes will be integrated into our regular income taxes, thus eliminating two different taxes and merge them into one.  This allows the "Buffet Rule" to be put in place which taxes the total income a person makes, from whatever source derived, thereby taxing people on wall street more "effectively".  Key note is that Republican Candidates like Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Ted Cruz will do something similar with their plans.  

Hillary does want to cut taxes in other areas though, such as keeping the $2,500 tax deduction on students, and an additional 15% tax credit on businesses that share profits with their workers on top of wages and wage increases.  She also intends to remove loopholes in corporate taxes that have encouraged businesses to send their money overseas, and provide tax relief to small businesses.  How all this is to be done though is not clear with respect to what constitutes profit sharing and other small details which would shine light on how these ideas would work.

Final Thought:  So, much of what Hillary wants to do is what the Republicans want to do as well, but in different ways.  Republicans like Cruz will create a flat tax, while Republicans like Rubio will adjust the current income tax.  However, the key difference is that Hillary's plan targets people who make more than people who are considered middle class.  Ultimately though, her plan will complicate the tax code more and encourage businesses to find other loopholes or to lobby for new ones.  So the net result is the same problems with the current tax code, but with an us versus them mentality against the more successful in America further integrated into it.

Ted Cruz on Health Care

Ted Cruz's website lacks any info on his ideas for health reform so I had to look it up somewhere else.  As such according to http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ted_Cruz_Health_Care.htm, Cruz intends to raise the minimum age requirement to receive Medicare which Cruz does not specify, though I would assume is age 70.  Additionally he advocates turning it into a premium support system, basically what Carson's plan does, by helping people afford private insurance companies with the government giving our seniors money to do so.  Likewise, Cruz would repeal Obama Care and allow health insurance companies to sell health insurance across State lines without limit so as to improve competition and thus lower costs according to: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/01/28/ted_cruz_s_horrifying_idea_of_health_reform.html, which is a web article that is critical of Cruz as his ideas do not address pre-existing conditions.  The article sites Cruz directly in the debates and shows that he intends to expand Health Savings Accounts as well.  In an interview on August 3, 2015: Interview with Jack Heath on Voters First Forum, Cruz was asked his views on health reform (source:  http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Cruz/?on=health-care) where his answers from the debate did not differ in the slightest.  Basically, Cruz is probably aiming for what Carson was going to do, but is keeping silent on the details.

Final Thought:  I am saddened to see that Cruz does not have any official details on his health reform ideas which makes Carson's ideas superior here due to details of how it would work and the fact that Carson has greater knowledge of the health care system America currently has.  It would not be surprising for Cruz to mimic Carson's idea is some way to achieve the goals he set out to do which is to make healthcare personal again with respect to patients and doctors while also reforming Medicare and Medicaid.

Ted Cruz on Taxes

Continuing with the theme of looking at the Presidential Candidates tax plans and health ideas I will now discuss Ted Cruz's plan.

Senator Cruz proposes a flat tax rate of 10% where a family of four will not pay taxes for the first $36,000 they make per year.  Additionally, Cruz's plan keeps the child tax credit, and expands the earned income tax credit to enable people to keep more money.  People will have a standard deduction of $10,000 and a personal exception of $4,000.  Also, deductions for charitable donations and mortgage deductions are kept as well.  The death tax, and the alternative minimum tax are eliminated.  Basically, Cruz wants people to be able to file their taxes without the need for an accountant.

Additional changes are the elimination of taxes on the internet, Obama Care taxes as it will be eliminated and the IRS will be eliminated and replaced. The payroll tax will also be eliminated, the tax that funds Social Security and Medicare, and replaced.  Instead of the payroll tax, when people pay their regular taxes an amount is calculated from that amount to go toward people's Social Security and Medicare accounts.  The reason for this change is due to the fact that some people pay much more taxes here than they would under the regular tax system.  So eliminating this actually saves people money.  On top of all this, Cruz calls for the creation of a Universal Savings Account (USA).  The USA allows all Americans to save up to $25,000 yearly pre-taxed (not taxed till taken out).  A USA's money can be used for anything without restrictions and is designed to help people save enough money to afford to buy a house or a car or anything for that matter.  (Note: Here too like with Carson's HEA, I would like this account to be interest bearing so that people can earn more for saving their money).

On the business tax front, the taxes on Businesses will be lowered from 35% to 16%.  This too will be a flat tax, and businesses will be able to deduct expenses such as equipment, computer costs and other business expenses.  Any exports will be untaxed, but imports will all be equally taxed at the 16% rate.  Additionally taxes on profits earned abroad for both individuals and businesses will be eliminated.  

Final Thought:  Overall a good tax plan.  It allows us to keep more of our money and has an excellent business tax plan.  The USA idea works well as it aids people in saving money they otherwise would potentially have a hard time saving.  Again, like Carson's HEA, Cruz's USA can aid people in paying a lower amount of taxes.  Unlike Carson though Cruz keeps more deductions/credits and everyone is taxed at the same rate regardless of income.

Bernie Sanders on healthcare

Health Care is relatively simple when it comes to Sanders' plan.  That plan is a single payer health care system.  So how will that work.  Basically it is Medicare, but it will cover people of all ages, and help deal with Dental, Optical, and long-term and short term care.  All aspects of health care will be covered by this single system.  Based on what Sanders has on his sight, government will set the standards for what constitutes a doctor and the training they require.  This nationalization will most likely apply to Pharmacists and all other health professionals as well.  Likewise, this may mean that drug companies or aspects of the drug companies may be nationalized.  Sanders points out that they will be able to negotiate for lower drug prices because of this, but last this author checked (as I work as a pharmaceutical technician) we inhibit some drug companies from selling their drugs cheaper by adding unnecessary safety standards, requiring drugs to be prescription when they need not to be, and the FDA limits the production on how many drugs can be produced per year thus increasing the cost of drugs.  So government is at least a part of the reason our drug costs are so high in my experience.  But Sanders basically nationalizing them effectively does the same thing it does already so there will be little to no changes there in my opinion with respect to prices. The main advantage to the plan though is that you can go anywhere to any doctor and still have coverage in this one size fits all system as Bernie points out that our system may cause people with the same coverage and condition to be treated differently (I personally think this is what's supposed to happen as each person's body is different and that treating them the same can potentially put people at risk of staying unhealthy and worse).  Sanders though wants to focus on preventative medicine so as to reduce costs in the long run which also makes sense, but how his system will do that without providing incentives to the people to come in for checkups regularly, exercise, or just eat healthy is entirely unclear.  You see without these incentives to enhance or create this preventative care system people will not participate.  Also you actually end up increasing costs using a preventative care model for it costs more to test and evaluate people on a regular basis to try and catch a disease or condition before it starts than it is to treat the condition.  So personally, I think empowering people with medical knowledge on how to screen themselves for cancers and awareness programs work better all the while actually finding a cure, but this is just my two cents.  

Final Thought:  Overall, Sanders wants to mimic the European healthcare model with a single payer health care system.  Problem I have with it is that government chooses what will and will not be covered and thus people may lose access to certain forms of treatment for it will not be affordable like it is here in the U.S. currently.  Also, our health insurance premiums are high because it is not built around selling to individual people, but instead built around selling to businesses.  So if the Republicans have their way by reversing the status quo, then we will have at the very least cheap health insurance.  To me, a single payer system where healthcare is rationed based on a government's budget is the wrong approach despite all the advantages it may have.  Instead a personal system where we can treat ourselves and only go to a doctor when we have a health issue we cannot handle ourselves is the way to go in my view.  So, yea I am critical of Sanders here, but I work in the current system and see where it can be improved and even fixed.  But if you like Sanders' version of health care, then he is your guy.  Hope you enjoyed the read, and may the best candidate win.

Bernie Sanders on Taxes

So Bernie Sanders fully admits that everyone's taxes will go up.  But how will they go up.  Sander's website breaks down what taxes will pay for what.  For infrastructure, Sanders intends to tax the money that businesses hold in offshore accounts.  This would require the IRS to figure out how much money is held in offshore tax havens and then tax the companies saying that they owe this much money. He will also end loopholes in the tax code as well to help pay for his plan to rebuild America's infrastructure.

To get free community college, he will implement a tax on Wall Street Speculators which will amount to $300 billion according to his web site.  I am personally skeptical on how a base $300 billion per year can accomplish this as Speculators don't all exist in the United States and they have enough money to leave and renounce their citizenship. 

Here is one I do agree with wholeheartedly, to get more money into Social Security and Medicare, Sanders wants the cap taken off of taxable income.  What people don't know, only a certain amount of money can be placed into Social Security and Medicare per person per year thanks to a cap on the tax which allows the richest of us to pay off the tax and then not be taxed the rest of the year.  By eliminating this tax cap, much more money can be collected to help extend the life of Social Security and Medicare.  

Sander's wants to create a young jobs program which will help disadvantaged kids get jobs.  To pay for this estimated $5.5 Billion program, Sanders will eliminate the carried interest loophole which allows for a tax break on people of higher incomes. 

For his paid family and medical leave plan, he intend to implement an additional $1.61 per week per person from the payroll tax (the same tax that funds Social Security and Medicare) to pay for it.  So this is the main area where everyone's taxes will increase as apparently there are instances where people pay more for the payroll tax than any other tax (hence why Republicans want to find a way to alter the way we contribute to Social Security and Medicare). 

Bernie wants to protect pensions of about 1.5 million Americans (there are $300 million of us in total) by closing two loopholes on people receiving money they inherit and on art work. Unfortunately this will affect people who own small businesses the most as it makes the Death tax (estate tax) worse as small businesses can be worth a million dollars plus and thus to pay the tax a family member may be forced to sell that business just to pay the tax.

To pay for renewable energy, Sanders will end all oil, coal, and gas subsidies (giveaways).  Which means he is transferring these "giveaways" to the renewable energy group.  So if you’re against government spending/corporate welfare you will probably have a problem with this as it is simply shifting money from one group to another.

Finally, Sanders health plan will be paid for by a 6.2% tax on a business's income and then an additional 2.2% tax on us the American people.  So our taxes will go up a lot.  Also, the progressive income tax we have already, will now include capital gains and dividends together as income (basically money made from investments), which means we again will be paying a lot more on things like stocks, and maybe even our 401ks depending on how Sanders establishes his tax plan.  He also says via his website that eliminating tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax and our ability to deduct health expenditures will also be subject to change all to help pay for his health plan.

Final Thought:  So, his plan increases taxes for everyone by at least 2.2% of our income minimum.  But if you have savings, or investments which many middle class people now have, you can be paying significantly more.  While his ideas are nice, it is in this writer's opinion that what Senator Sanders wants to accomplish and the method by which he wants to do so will cause all the rich to leave the country, businesses to leave the country, and that taxes will continue to skyrocket till the country collapses financially.  I just see from here idealisms, but nothing here is financially feasible.

Marco Rubio on Health Care

Marco Rubio also wants to be rid of Obama Care.  That is a theme among the Republican Candidates, but with what?  That is what we are going to find out.  In this case, after Rubio repeals Obama Care, he intends to create a refundable tax credit towards buying health insurance for individuals.  After that he says he will reform health care regulations, create protections for those with pre-existing conditions and basically make the entire system focused on individuals so that people can afford to buy their own health care without the aid of an employer.  For Medicaid, Rubio will provide block grants that allow States to use the money as they wish to provide health for their poorer populations, but without the government mandates.  

For Medicare, Rubio will keep it for current seniors, but people coming in will have options.  In this case Rubio like Carson and Cruz will offer some form of option that allows Medicare recipients to choose from a variety of private health insurance plans and the traditional fee for service system.  Basically, it comes close to Carson's idea but still uses government by having the guys who run Medicare approve of which insurance companies and plans may be offered up to our seniors.  You could argue that this protects our seniors from making a mistake in choosing a bad plan, but it hinders the customizable options that comes with Carson's plan.  However, this is still a market driven approach and could be used to test the waters to see if Medicare could survive an evolution into a system like what Carson and potentially Cruz advocates.

Final Thought:  Well this is Rubio's health plan in a nutshell.  At this point I prefer Carson's due to the freedom it gives patients to choose the plans they want, but I want Cruz's idea to enable people to purchase health care over State lines without limit.  However, like Rubio's tax plan, it is an acceptable alternative.  In fact, if I did not know about Carson's plan, and Cruz's was more specific on details, then I may have been in favor of this plan as opposed to Carson's.  But this is just my opinion, and hopefully this gives you enough information for you my readers to make an informed vote.

Marco Rubio on Taxes

Senator Marco Rubio's tax plan does not go for the flat tax idea like Carson or Cruz.  Instead it changes the system's seven tax rates to three.  The rates are: 15% for individuals making 0 to $75,000 and couples making 0 to $150 thousand, 25% for individuals making $75,000 to $150,000 and couples making $150,000 to $300,000 and 35% on everything over the $150,000 mark for individuals and $300,001 for individuals.  Eliminates all deductions save the charitable deduction and an altered mortgage deduction. Creates a new $2,000 (individual)/ $4,000 (couples) refundable tax credit replacing the existing one that phases out for individuals at $150,000 and couples making $300,000.  Additionally this credit will be unavailable to income earners who make $200,000 individual and $400,000 couples.  It eliminates the alternative minimum tax and the marriage penalty.  Also it creates a $2,500 tax credit toward college expenses and jobs skills training but has the same restrictions as the refundable tax credit as mentioned above.  The Rubio tax also creates a new tax credit for kids on top of the existing one for an additional $2,500 and it will be refundable against the payroll tax in addition to regular taxes. His plan offers a 25% refundable tax credit toward businesses that offer paid family leave for four to 12 weeks but is limited to $4,000 per worker.  Also, all business income including taxes on business investments are changed to a single 25% rate.  Cruz does the same thing but his rate is 16%.  Rubio also switches to a territorial tax system where corporate income is only taxed here in the United States and not abroad.  Also, interest is no longer taxed under Rubio's plan with respect to individual bank accounts.

Final thought:  Rubio takes the existing tax code and simplifies it, but you cannot file on a form the size of a postcard like Cruz's or Carson’s.  Is this an acceptable plan? Sure.  Namely because it is an improvement over our existing system.  However, does it go as far as Cruz and Carson's?  You be the judge.

Governor Kasich on Health Care

Governor Kasich seems to want to replicate the success he has had in Ohio with health care, this time nationwide.  Basically he wants to get the whole health industry involved in being concerned about each other's costs to generate a health system that is incentivized to save money rather than spend it to profit.  In what Kasich calls patient centered primary care, all insurers work to incentivize doctors and other medical professionals to treat the patient's issues with preventative medicine practices while reducing as much of the costs as possible, but equal or greater quality of care by rewarding them in some way.  It seems that this is partially done by what Kasich calls episode based payments.  So while doctors are being rewarded for preventive medicine, Kasich wants doctors, specialists, medical device manufacturers and the rest to be rewarded in some way too to incentivize even more savings and higher quality.  This seems to come in the form of insurances rewarding a higher payout to doctors who save them money for conducting a procedure or operation in a way that saves the insurance company money, but is of equal or greater quality that otherwise would have been given regardless.

Final Thought:  Kasich's logic is that providers of healthcare in our fee for service model of medicine are incentivized to perform more services to treat the person who is sick rather than keep them healthy.  While the logic is sound Kasich is talking about a total revolution in healthcare.  However, his wording on his site worries me.  While he does say he wants Obama care repealed as it is an undue burden on businesses and that it mistakes treatment of symptoms for treating the problem, his wording indicates he is in favor of another Federal grab to interfere with healthcare.  I don't know, maybe it is just me.  I like where he is going, but I fear the idea of government getting involved more to create this change in our system.  So I personally think Governor Kasich should stay in Ohio as governor and perfect this model so that it can be replicated by other States rather than risk this model on the whole country when it seems that Ohio is still revising and implementing this new form of health care system (based this opinion on the articles he linked to on his site).

Governor John Kasich on Taxes

Governor Kasich has his own ideas for tax reform.  They resemble Rubio's but seem to be limited in scale in my opinion.  Any case, here is what Kasich will do to taxes as described by the Huffington Post and Fortune. 

Kasich will lower the top rate from 39.6% to 28% and lower the other rates as well, but those new rates are not specified.  Additionally, Kasich plans to reduce the total number of tax brackets from 7 to three.  He will reduce long term capital gains taxes for top income earners from 20% to 15%.  The death tax (estate tax) like every Republican tax plan will be eliminated.  He intends to increase the federal earned income tax credit by 10% while maintaining charitable deductions and mortgage deductions. Business taxes will go from 35% to 25% mimicking Rubio's tax rate, but Kasich doubles the research and development tax credit for small businesses.  Also, a tax discount will be made available to American companies that store money overseas in an attempt to have them bring some of that money back to the United States.  From there he does the same thing as Rubio by switching to a Territorial tax system where the government will only tax corporate income earned in the United States.

Final Thought:  Basically Kasich changes the tax code a little bit.  He tweaks it if you will.  Reason being is that he knows Washington D.C. will not, or avoid any dramatic changes to the status quo.  As such, Kasich will have to pull out all the stops if he would try to pass a tax plan like Cruz, or Carson's.  Kasich's plan really changes nothing else with the tax code.  Same corporate loopholes and basically has the same large cumbersome tax code that we all have come to hate.  But you be the judge as to whether Kasich's plan is more reasonable or practical compared to the other candidates.

Do the dead have rights?

I am writing this as a follow up to my article on Apple versus the Government.  The reason being is that I wanted to delve more into the issue on if the dead have rights with respect to property.  In most cases, as to what I know, they only have rights if and only if they leave a last will in testament.  That is the only time rights are actually given unless you my readers can enlighten me in which case I encourage you to message me via Twitter or Facebook or even here in the comments section.  As such, the government cannot touch the items that have been bequeathed by the dead individual to their new owners.  Additionally the body belongs to the family members and is thus their property along with any other items that were not specifically specified to go to individuals in the will.  However, if the family where to throw out any items that once belonged to the dead person, or the deceased had thrown away items, then there is no longer an owner and thus no right to privacy.  Basically, whatever you throw out (typically where you would place it for curbside pickup or in a dumpster) belongs to no one and the government, police, private investigator, or a random stranger has every right to look in your trash can and take whatever they please.  If the deceased has no next of kin, and there is no will, the personal property of the deceased then belongs to the government.  In short, trash, the unclaimed dead and unclaimed property all belong to the State government (or local or county government) depending on how the law is written.  Thus the limits of your right to privacy once you pass on.

Final Thought:  Surprised?  Well, I was a little too, but you basically have a certain level of privacy once you are gone as once you die your stuff is given to your family with their right to ownership taking effect and the government cannot touch the items.  Additionally, contents of cell phones like the dead terrorists IPhone, even if claimed as evidence, cannot be looked at as once the investigation period is over the phone will be given back to the dead man's family as it technically belongs to them now.  As such it is now owned by them and not the deceased. Thanks for reading.

Apple Versus the Government.

Ok, time to put in my two cents into this interesting debate.  The background as to why Apple is going head to head with the government is that one of the San Bernardino shooters had an apple IPhone.  That shooter is dead of course but the government apparently cannot access the information on the phone.  So the government wants Apple to create a back door for them to go into the phone and other Apple phones/products to monitor for terrorist activity.  Apple however grew a pair and said no to the government citing privacy (Apple apparently has previously cooperated with the Federal government on all previous occasions).  

So Apple is being given two options.  The first is to create the backdoor in their firewalls and operating system to allow for government to spy on us at will, or they refuse and maintain the privacy of the individual owner (did I mention the guy who owns the phone in question is dead?).  However, the government should actually do the right thing and get a warrant.  Yea, that thing that the constitution mandates that judges have to issue to search people's private information ("papers" or in this case electronic papers).  Some of you may be remembering that I said the guy was dead though.  So how does that factor in?  Well, this is me just talking, but the dead do not have privacy rights, but their next of kin/the people who get their stuff when they die do.  So if the family claimed the shooter's personal effects then you still need a warrant regardless and that warrant must state that reasons why the information on the phone needs to be accessed.

Final Thought:  So in this instance the government is in the wrong.  It does not matter that the shooter was a domestic terrorist, what does though is that the Constitution requires a warrant.  As such, Apple is in the wrong as well as they cannot outright refuse either.  If the Government produces a warrant, then Apple must comply with the order, but only for that specific phone.  If a warrant is issued that goes beyond the phone in question, or demands access through a back door, then that warrant will not hold up in court as warrants must be narrow in focus with respect to what can be searched, and or who can be arrested and what evidence seized during that arrest.  Our Constitution covers this people and Apple and the government are both being idiots in my humble opinion.  

Dr. Carson on Health Care

Here is part two of my small articles on Dr. Ben Carson.  In this case we will address health care. 

First off, Dr. Carson will replace Obama Care and much of the traditional system with what he calls Health Empowerment Accounts (HEA's).  An HEA is an actual account that is made for each individual citizen in the country that can be used to cover out of pocket costs for healthcare, health insurance premiums and any other incurred medical expenses.  The idea is to set up an apparatus by which people can place money, tax free, into an account to help pay for all their medical expenses.  In fact it will even be transferable from family member to family member as well to help accommodate other people's health care needs and even be inheritable.  Carson's plan revolves around the HEA's as the central pillar to make healthcare personal again between Doctors and Patients.  (Note: I personally think that these accounts should gain interest so as to reward people for saving their money to pay for their health care).

One of the basic ideas is to make out of pocket costs affordable so Carson would deregulate parts of the FDA to make drugs and healthcare cheaper.  Additionally, the owners of the account can link their HEA's to a health insurance company with a high deductible plan of the individual's choice.  The idea is to make it so that insurance only helps to pay for something when the cost of health care would bankrupt an individual.  Basically health insurances would go back to being a safety net, all the while creating health care plans that are cheaper so as to accommodate the more patient centered model of health care that Carson is trying to establish here.  

To further facilitate this goal, Carson wants to fix Medicare and Medicaid.  In this case, Medicare and Medicaid will change how they operate as HEA's will be the conduit by which these changes work.  For Medicare, Medicare beneficiaries will receive fixed dollar amounts to their HEA's to buy a health care insurance plan(s) of their choice.  No more government deciding what and how to cover a health issue, but instead seniors getting to choose their own plan in the private marketplace and their premiums being paid for or partially paid for by the government via the government's contribution to the HEA.  Basically, this is how the current Medicare part D works save the fact that patients get to choose which health insurance companies to get coverage from and not the government.  This Medicare version, which I assume eliminates parts A, B, C and D, will have the eligibility adjusted as well. In this case, the age to receive such benefits will be changed to age 70 by adjusting the age requirement by two months per year once implemented.  Medicaid will work similarly with the poor able to pick and choose their own health insurance coverage and be able to save to cover certain out of pocket costs  The only difference is that States will be block granted money by the Federal government by giving the States a fixed dollar amount to be given to the Medicaid recipients (States decide who qualify and how much is to be given to each individual) in their HEA account to use to buy cheap insurance plans and pay for any out of pocket health expenses.  

Final Thought:  Dr. Carson is using this system to eliminate most of the government waste by eliminating the States and the Federal Government's bureaucracy that revolves around Medicare and Medicaid as they turn into a re-insurer type system, or even a Social Security type system that gives money to people rather than decide how people are to spend their money.  HEA's as the backbone of the system aid in this by giving people options to save their money and potentially with Carson's tax plan not pay the higher 14.9% rate (see yesterday's article for details).   Carson is also assuming that with people buying insurance individually with this new system, rather than businesses as with the current system, that health insurance plans will become cheaper and thus affordable to accommodate a customer base that has a more limited budget.  All this gets government and even to a certain extent, businesses out of our personal health, and back into the hands of us, the individuals.

Dr. Carson's Tax plan

Even though Dr. Ben Carson is technically out of the race it does not mean his ideas were no good.  As such in this first of two issues we will talk about his tax plan proposal.  Let us start.  

Dr. Carson proposed a flat tax in the same manner as Ted Cruz and some of the other candidates, but his opted for a 14.9% tax on all income above 150% of poverty level.  As such under Carson's plan, you would pay taxes for each dollar after the first $36, 375 dollars you make.  Pretty nice right, not having to pay that rate save for each dollar made past the $36,375 mark.  This helps the people who are poor or are the working poor as they get to keep more of what they earn and thus reduces the need for things like welfare as their money can only grow.  However the people under the 150% of poverty level will still pay something in what Carson calls a de-minimum tax.  In this case those people making exactly $36,375 and under will still pay a tax so that they have skin in the game so to speak, but the amount will be a much smaller percentage than the 14.9% tax rate where you could potentially pay a single dollar to the IRS.  

To make this plan work though certain requirements must be met.  It will eliminate all double taxation by not taxing people on their capital gains, dividends and interest income at the personal level.  Basically if you invest money, you will not be taxed on the earnings made from those investments, but this may mean that the pretax qualities of a 401K man disappear (Carson did not make this clear).  This is designed to stimulate the economy as taxes on investments actually restrict job growth as seen by when JFK, Reagan and Clinton reduced taxes on investments which got the country out of a recession during each of their Presidencies.  As such this means more jobs and thus more money for the government.  Also the alternative minimum tax which sometimes forces people to pay higher taxes will be eliminated along with the death tax (estate tax which taxes people on inheritance). But under Carson's plan there will be no more deductions for mortgages, charitable giving or State and local taxes.  Carson's logic is that the people who benefit from these deductions are a select group of people. Therefor if I interpret what he is advocating, these are geared toward rich people these deductions and is an undue burden on the tax code.  His logic I assume is that with these deductions eliminated the government can get a larger amount of money without the need to raise the tax rate over time.  Basically more money means less taxation later on as our savings grow.  Additionally, this makes room for Carson's other idea of Health Empowerment Account's (HEA's) (more on those tomorrow) which will be untaxed when people put money in them.

Final Thought:  Carson makes no mention of the payroll tax on his site, which means the payroll tax which funds Medicare Part A and Social Security will still be in effect.  Also, his plan does not address the income taxes on businesses, so those are not touched.  My guess is either he had planned to address it later in the Campaign or when he got into the white house.  Needless to say it is a fairly good plan and I could live with it.  Sad to say Carson is (while not 100%) out of the race for President.

Post Super Tuesday

Now that the results of Super Tuesday (the day when the largest number of States have their Primaries and Caucuses at the same time) have sunk in, we see now a slimmer Republican field.   Dr. Ben Carson has stepped out of the race.  He had a good run and was an honorable man. I thank him for his efforts and hope to continue hearing from him in the future.   

Trump however is still in the lead and Cruz is in second.  However, Cruz and Kasich have called for Rubio who is in third to step down.  Apparently Rubio is behind Trump in Florida (Rubio's home State) while Kasich has the best shot of winning his home State of Ohio.  In short, Rubio appears to be losing ground while Kasich, if Rubio leaves, is set to gain most of Rubio's' former support from the Republican establishment.  Cruz of course wants Rubio out because Rubio is Cruz's only other competition save Donald Trump.  Otherwise the field has stayed the same.

With respect to Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders, Hillary is in the lead due to the number of delegates, but Bernie is not giving up and still has a chance with upcoming Primaries and caucuses as the next set are winner take all with respect to the number of delegates needed to hold the nomination.

Final Thought:  We are still in the horse race of this Presidential election season.  It is really anyone's game as Trump has now just started showing  weaknesses with respect to his David Duke situation, his apparently off the record New York times interview questions (he is not giving us the whole truth) and overall his personality flaws as a whole which people are finally starting to notice (harnessing anger is a double edged sword).  Rubio can still win this and so can Kasich if Rubio leaves, but other than that, the field is the same on both the Democratic and Republican side save the presence of Dr. Carson.

What is Democratic Socialism?

I am going to use Bill O'reilly's explanation as to what Democratic socialism is as I think his explanation is the best one I have ever heard.  So here it goes.  Under a Democratic Socialist government, healthcare, banking, education, retirement/welfare and energy are all nationalized (there may be exceptions to this list or additions depending on structure of a Democratic Socialist government).  To get all this stuff free you pay taxes in excess of 25 to 75% of your income.  So it is not actually free, as you pre-pay for it essentially.  However there is another catch.  You do not have any freedom with respect to how you use these services. 

Let us take education for example.  Your child will have to pass a series of tests to pass into each grade level or even to go to a new school.  Based on these scores though, the government determines if your child must change schools, or determines if the child may go to college or not (if the nation offers free college).  There is no school choice here as the government says what school/college your child may attend, how long a child can be in school/college and even if the child is allowed to attend school or a college in the first place.  The only true exception to this scenario is if a family can afford to pay out of pocket themselves.  In short, they typically have to be very rich for their child to go to a good college as opposed to the government saying which college if any the child may attend.

Healthcare is another classic example.  Under Democratic Socialism, you do not choose your doctor and they determine when you are allowed to see your doctor.  So if you need an MRI or even X-ray you may only get one when the government has cleared it with their budget.  You basically have to wait in an invisible line to be seen by a doctor or a specialist so that the government can accommodate your visit in the budget. 

That is right, your entire life is budgeted with respect to education, healthcare, energy, etc. If the government cannot find room for your MRI in their budget then you cannot get your MRI till they do.  If they think you will not do well in college, then you will not be allowed to attend the free government college.  Basically you have no freedom here.

Final Thought:  I elaborated on Mr. O’reilly’s explanation a little, but I tried to keep it as simple as possible so that all can understand.  The Fact is, that Democratic Socialism has government controlling your freedom of choice with respect to your education, health and other matters.  For me, a libertarian and Constitutionalist, this is scary.  I do not want to be some number on the government's budget books, though technically I already am a number in the United States due to our tax system and the entitlements, but I rather not have my choices taken away.  I do not want anyone's choices taken away.  And thus it is for these reasons why I cannot vote for Bernie Sanders or for Hillary Clinton who support this government model as their vision of America.

Donald Trump and David Duke

By now you probably heard that the former head of the KKK David Duke told all his racist ilk to vote for Donald Trump.  Basically he endorsed Donald Trump in an off handed way.  However Donald Trump has not condemned Duke or even rejected the votes of his KKK brethren and similar.  What would easily have been an open and shut case for Trump to shut down and reject racism as a motivation for electing elected officials, Trump has refused to do.  Trump even claimed that he never heard of David Duke even when he was talking about Duke back in 2000 and his membership in the KKK.  Fox showed the clip of him in the year 2000 where Trump says he would not be part of the "reform party" because someone like David Duke, a member of the KKK was in it.  And yet when interviewed by Jay Tapper of CNN, Trump says he does not even know who David Duke is.  Trump according to reporters with respect to his record is not a racist, but what the heck is going on?  That is what I would like to know.

Final Thought:  What the hell is wrong with you Trump?  You do not condemn David Duke and you even make yourself out to be a liar by claiming you don't even know of him.  Trump should have condemned Duke and his ilk by saying he does not accept any of their votes or their support.  Yet he says nothing and just prattles on like usual.  Donald, are you even in your right mind.  I would feel violated if I were in Trumps position that any of my votes are from openly racist individuals like David Duke (hell I would feel that way already knowing closet racists were voting for me).  This shows poor judgment at minimum with respect to Trump.  As far as I am concerned, he should be done.  He should lose the election right now for this stupidity and outrage with respect to the American people who are trying to eradicate racism from American culture.