Issue 137 Obama Care: Really??? August 7, 2013

I will tell you that I never supported the Affordable Care act, better known as Obama Care. The reason is due to the fact that it was a law that I knew would fail from the outset, and that is disregarding its use of legal force to make the American populace buy health insurance. By the way the use of force to make some one buy a product from any company violates the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution with respect to the freedom of association derived from the peaceable assembly clause. Simple solutions could have been implemented that would have avoided all this mess and corruption that resulted, but I'm not here to discuss those today. I'm here to tell you why else it is a bad law.

Selective enforcement: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the discretion to give certain groups and businesses exemptions from specific parts of the law. And they have been giving out a lot of exemptions. Exemptions that have been given out so far are to Unions, big businesses that have the money to lobby the HHS and businesses and groups that supported President Obama. More and more people are trying to get away from as many of the mandates as possible. But here is the real problem beyond this selective enforcement of the law. It punishes small to mid -sized businesses so that they have those extra costs placed on them that hinder their growth to the point where they cannot grow to become big businesses. Let us face it, small businesses don't have the money to provide health care via insurance. There are alternatives popping up here and there (see past issues) but they are not enough to save the majority of these businesses and still act as a hindrance to growth. I am not saying providing health insurance, let alone health care is a bad thing, I am just saying the way it was done and how it is enforced in the law is corrupt, especially when the true goal of politicians should be dropping the costs of health care to the point that insurance is not required.

Constitutionality: As I said prior, this law is unconstitutional based on it violating our right to the freedom of association. That is right, the freedom of association expands to private businesses as well otherwise how are we be able to boycott a business without such a right. The penalties that force people to buy health insurance are also unconstitutional irrespective of the Supreme Court ruling that was handed down. A penalty is not a tax in any way shape or form, but the court ruled against the people in a 5 to 4 decision. However, there is a loophole that can be exploited. The U.S. Constitution lists exactly 4 types of taxation. They are Impost, Expost, excise and income taxes. Impost and Expost have to do with the import and export of goods while excise taxes are taxes on goods and services in general. Income taxes are obvious. So it can now be argued that the Federal government can only tax the American people with these 4 types of taxes exclusively. So as I said, it is another possible out.

They could have just spread the wealth: Obama care is going to cost over 1 trillion dollars. That is a 100 million billion. A very large number. But guess what, if the Federal government collected just 311 billion, they could have made each U.S. citizen a billionaire. As it cost well over a trillion, the U.S. can afford to give every single person on the planet at least 1 billion dollars. Does it make sense that it costs so much to insure and enforce a law that is made to make people buy health insurance, or to provide them with health insurance in the event they cannot afford it. Heck, some Native Americans, Blacks, Latinos, and other ethnic groups claim that the government owes them for what occurred during slavery and for when they were discriminated against. This could become the ultimate form of reparations. But no, we are spending billions to provide health care and enforce a law for an estimated 150 million people (those who can get insurance, and those who cannot afford insurance combined). It does not make sense at all does it?

Conclusion: Obama care is a total flop. It has provisions in it that have nothing to do with health care such as the usual pork barrel projects like shrimp on a treadmill, bridges to no where and studying the sex habits of drunk Chinese prostitutes (don't laugh, the Federal government actually paid for those programs). On top of that, Obama care adds taxes on medical devices, and other parts of the health care industry causing costs to rise. I have seen personally in New York, co-pays alone rise on prescription drugs. Namely Eye drops, Ear drops, and inhalers, along with selective increases in women's birth control medications where one is completely covered for a few months, only for coverage to switch to a different birth control medication later on, and then change again a few months after that. Our health care costs are rising, and that even includes health care premiums like that in California and Maine where cost have risen well over 15% and even broaching 65%. Can you see now why we need to repeal this law, and even some older ones with it to start from scratch?

Issue 136 predictive policing August 6, 2013

Did you know that police are now able to use software to predict where some crimes may occur? Apparently crimes committed in areas form a pattern. This data can then be used to figure out such things as when a crime is likely to occur and where it might occur.

How it works: By taking data from how often crime occurs in an area and the times in which they occur along with the likely target of a particular type of crime police can send out a patrol to deter that crime before it starts. When police receive a call, they operate as normal, but other wise they are placed in a spot where crime is likely to occur based on the software which takes into account broken lights and unsecured property that may encourage crime. By using this data, they can in certain instances have police cars driven through an area by trainers as the symbol of a police car deters crime to begin with.

It currently works best against burglary and theft of vehicles and their contents, as the historical data is very extensive with respect to these types of crimes. Adding details such as road maps and road networks enhance the effectiveness of the software. According to the Criminologist Shane Johnson at the University of College London a criminal offender likes vulnerable targets that are easy to spot, with easy access and can make a quick getaway. Thus, the data aids in finding those spots criminals like best. Even such things as when people get paid, the weather and local events affect the out come of the predictions.

Problems: This tool of law enforcement if not capable of stopping crimes root causes. It just helps with deterring crime. It positions police in a crime hot spot, but does not stop a criminal seeking out a less likely target in an area that was not predicted to be a crime hot spot.

Another issue is that if the data is misused or overused in a way other than intended, it may create a bias toward certain areas and the people that live in them. This may mean that police may become more active in rich neighborhoods rather than poor ones where the most crime typically occurs. Though, these same numbers have the potential to eliminate prejudice as well when it comes to deciding if some one should be paroled rather than deciding by stereotypes.

It starts a conversation: It makes people decide what they want from their justice system. For instance if you want to curb people from becoming repeat offenders authorities have to define how tough they are going to be on high risk and low risk parolees. But there is a fear of the justice system becoming too reliant on this technology and thus garner the same problem as the justice system has already with the CSI effect (thinking evidence has to be present to convict someone or exonerate someone irrespective of reason).

Fear: So far, the software developed has been used to target criminals and even to predict their future behavior. However, the Department of Homeland Security is using it to detect suspicious behavior, while some law enforcement is using it to see if parents using social services are likely to abuse their children. But it does not stop there as information like this can be used to predict our behavior from such things as social media. It has the potential to tell government what patterns we make as we go about our daily lives. Even if you use it to predict if a person is likely to commit a crime for the first time, how do you distinguish from the show boats, the load mouths and people just blowing off some steam. And guess what, social media has their own software doing the same thing to alert investigators to a potential threat, but unlike police they don't need a warrant.

Conclusion: There is some great potential in this technology. It has the power to reduce the most pervasive of crimes and may even be useful in arming citizens with information that they can use to batter secure their property. However, privacy concerns and misuse are still an issue. How much information are you willing to share for safety and security? Questions like these must be asked if this technology goes beyond just predicting crime hot spots.

For more see the article in "The Economist" magazine July 20th-26th 2013 issue, article name "Predictive Policing: Don't even think about it."

Issue 135 FDIC reform!? August 5, 2013

Have you ever heard of a Re- Insurer? It is a concept that Conservatives came up with as an alternative to the current Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) current form of bank insurance. Basically, this change would be used to save money in the event of a financial crisis like the one that started back in 2007. Let's get started.

What is the FDIC: Created in 1933, the FDIC is a quasi government agency that protects all bank accounts in the United States in the event of financial crisis. They insure that each account is covered so that if you loose money due to a financial or bank collapse you will still have money so as to prevent you falling into poverty. Interesting to note is that you do not have to be a United States citizen, or be a resident of the U.S. to have your money insured as the FDIC protects depositors who deposit money in U.S. banks, and only that. If your bank should fail the FDIC insurance will insure up to the first $250,000 with only a few exceptions getting more depending on how they deposit their money. The FDIC also has a role in managing failed banks helping to ease the transition of failure or even being bought out.

Current: Right now however, traditional insurance companies have take over much of the role of the FDIC. During the financial crisis, they provided money to banks that were failing to prevent their collapse while insuring the money of the banks depositors. In some instances protecting (insuring) more money than the FDIC's $250,000 limit. During the financial collapse however, some of these private insurance companies ran out of money (some of them even had the money they were sending out insured as well). Once they ran out of money, the banks collapsed despite the FDIC stepping in to help. This is where the idea for change came in.

The change: It was felt that these private insurers did a better job at keeping these banks open and may have contributed to preventing a worse situation during the financial crisis. So the idea was to have the FDIC switch from insuring bank accounts, to insuring a banks private deposit insurance companies instead who would only access the money in a financial collapse and they ran out of money themselves. Thus the creation of the term "re-insurer" to provide financial backup to insurance companies that run out of money. Basically, it help keep the government from having to bail out individual accounts and even getting involved until it is absolutely necessary while having the private insurance companies protect peoples accounts first. As to whether traditional FDIC insurance being necessary in this new role is questionable as private companies tend to be more efficient at cost savings, have a penchant for innovation and generally provide better benefits and do a better job. So it is imagined that the old form of insurance would disappear.

Conclusion: The financial crisis hurt everyone back in 2007 and is still impacting us even today. It is believed that if this new concept was implemented at the governmental level (depends on which political party or ideology you talk to) that more banks would have been saved and less people would have lost their money (both rich and poor). So from my perspective it is a concept worth investigating further to see if it can help protect us from a future financial collapse.

Issue 134 Another Approach: Health Care August 2, 2013

There are 2 alternatives to health care that have not been looked at properly. The first is a health care savings account (HSA) and the other is eliminating the insurance company entirely from the health care equation. Interested?

What is an HSA?: An HSA is an actual account that is used solely for the purpose of health care related purchases. Depending on what rules the government places on it, it can be used to pay for doctor’s visits, medications, vitamins and even pay your monthly premium to the insurance company of your choice. The ideal version of this system is an HSA account that is portable so that if you leave one job for another, you don't loose that health care coverage. Currently, most HSA's are set up by an employer where they take a certain amount of money and place it into the account for the employees use with regard to health care. It does not force an employee (under most circumstances) to use the health insurance paid for by the employer. An HSA also frees up the employer from having to provide health insurance thus they also save money.

Under an ideal HSA: In this "ideal" system, your bank would have a special HSA savings account which you would give your employer access to so they can deposit a certain amount of money in monthly. You, the owner of the account can have the bank set aside a certain portion of your paycheck or a percentage of your account to go into the HSA account if you don't want your employer depositing money directly into the account. Under the second scenario, you decide how much is put in, but say you need that money for something else? In order to transfer money from an HSA to a regular savings account or even a checking account a certain amount would be allowed to be transferred at any given time. So you might be able to take $20 a day and put it into your regular account without any further penalty.

What is good about an HSA is that it would earn interest over time so that you can save up for what medical costs you might encounter as you age. It under the ideal scenario will be able to pay for health insurance costs, doctor visit costs, and all medicines with some over the counter medicines. But, unlike traditional insurance where we cannot see the costs, we can see them under this system. As such we can endeavor to save money for only the necessary procedures rather than spend on elective costs that would drain the account. Will it solve the entire problem of health care? No. But it will help in solving the issue of people going bankrupt due to medical costs if they should loose their jobs.

Eliminate the middle man: There is one additional idea that is ignored, and that is making a monthly payment to the doctor instead of an insurance company. In this type of health care, you have your primary care physician and you pay him/her a monthly fee to treat you when you are sick regardless of the costs to treat you. Why does this work? Well that is due to the fact that all money that would have gone to the insurance company is now going toward your doctor instead and as such every treatment and test that your doctor does (and even his/her partners) is covered by that monthly fee. The only time you are charged however is if you walk in without an appointment and that is really the only time. This idea I got from a doctor interviewed on the show Huckabee, hosted by former Governor Mike Huckabee. The doctor interviewed owned his own hospital and charged his patients $75 a month with that number slowly decreasing as more people signed up for this alternative to health insurance. If his patients were a walk in (came in without an appointment) he would charge them something like $16 dollars. This interview occurred in 2008 after President Obama was elected and conservatives were looking every where for innovative alternatives to the system that the President was proposing, of which, this idea was one of them. While it may not do anything for drugs, unless the doctor’s office has its own pharmacy, it is a great alternative to health insurance which may limit what procedures you are allowed to get and at what cost.

Conclusion: These two ideas may be used in tandem, and for the most part, the HSA one is a reality, though is limited by certain rules and restrictions. By freeing up the HSA system and allowing more doctors freedom to team up and offer an out to the insurance companies, we may see a drop in health care as apparently if health insurance goes away, costs may decrease by as much as 50%. So let us get back our freedom of choice with respect to health care, and make it personal again between the us and our doctors. All we have to do is free up parts of the system to make it work, while getting the insurance companies and the government lackeys who manipulate and are manipulated off our backs.

Issue 133 Culture Vs. Cure August 1, 2013

Did you know that a cure can instigate a cultural change? Not just any cure however, but a cure to deafness and even possibly a cure to being gay. Full disclosure, I learned a little sign language and a little bit about deaf culture back in college. As to members of the gay community, I have nothing against them either as I have some gay friends who are really awesome people. This issue is meant to discuss how a cure for deafness and this alleged cure for "gayness" has an effect and a push back from the members of those communities.

Cure for the deaf: Depending on how you became deaf, there is an implant that can be placed onto your brain that controls hearing. Once installed, a deaf person can actually hear. It works best on people who lost their hearing due to accidents or disease later in life as they will be better able to comprehend sound. The technology also works great for young children as their brains are still developing and as such will be able to make sense of the sounds they are hearing later on (A child as young as 3 has gotten the implant and you can find the video of him hearing for the first time online). But the deaf community is concerned. They fear that their unique culture and even members of the deaf community will be eradicated by this technology.

Deaf backlash: Members of the deaf community have their own language known as sign language with each country having its own unique version. They have deaf jam concerts that use sound with high vibrations that allow them to feel sound rather than hear it. Turning lights on and off in a room, and tapping some one on the shoulder to get their attention is also apart of the deaf culture. But parents who can hear with children who are deaf want their children to be able to hear. Most deaf children are in fact born to hearing parents and so the deaf community is worried. With a shrinking community, it becomes harder to maintain a culture, let alone an identity. As such, some deaf individuals have taken legal action when and where they can to block or stifle this great technology. Let us face it, a cultural identity that was developed out of outright discrimination (deaf children were abused in schools by tying their hands to their chairs, and they found it hard to get a job due to their unique condition) is hard to give up. But this becomes an issue of choice for parents of the deaf and for those who at one time could hear but now cannot.

Cure for gayness: While I wouldn't call it an actual cure, it is more like they discovered what hormones cause a person to be attracted to the same sex. Apparently, as the science is not all there yet, at a specific point in development in a child's life certain hormones are released that dictate what sex a child will be attracted to. Thus, some scientists believe they can fix this "chemical" imbalance at that stage in development so that the child "never becomes gay." Gays have taken action to protect themselves and their community from eradication, as they call upon civil rights lawyers to block the "early detection" of gayness. Why block the early detection (which I find myself agreeing with)? This is because, if you can detect if a person is gay, deaf, autistic, blind, or any other unique circumstance, a parent may abort that baby. That is right, rather than raise the child as is and overcoming those challenges, a parent may give up and just kill the child before the child is born. As such early detection of gayness has become a target for banning as a medical practice. And I agree with the gay community, no child should be killed before they are born because they are gay, or deaf or anything for that manor (but this is because I'm pro-life). However, this does not stop scientists from adjusting children's hormones to prevent attraction to people of the same sex; it does get stifled a little bit.

Conclusion: A cure can drastically harm a culture or even eliminate it in the case of gay and deaf communities as they are slowly eradicated through technology. While I have no doubt that parental discrimination of an unborn baby will be banned in certain instances in the U.S. and specific foreign countries, it will not be prevented in a country like China or the Middle Eastern countries due to culture and law. Will these communities disappear right away, or even entirely, no that is for certain, but they are going to struggle once again as their voices as a collective group shrinks little by little.

Issue 132 Why don't we save money July 31, 2013

I take inspiration for this Issue from "Pacific Standard" March/April 2013 Issue. Article: Why Americans Don't Save-and What We Can Do About It." Well, why the heck don't we like to save our money?

I like to Borrow: The Federal Reserve has analyzed this trend and believes the availability of credit "can explain about 90 percent of the long decline in American savings." In other words, they believe that because it is easier to just borrow money that people see it as an easier way to get the cash they want and thus buy what they want sooner. Saving for a new car does not mean you can get that new car immediately and thus cannot not get that instant gratification. I however, still prefer to save as at least I won't owe anyone anything and I can use that left over saving for more important things like retirement (yea I'm only 24, but I'm already thinking about what I have to do to get there).

Helping the wrong people: Apparently we spend $130 billion each year via America's tax code to encourage savings for the future. But almost all of it (according to the article) ends up in the hands of the rich who were going to save money any way and did not need help in the first place. According to Pew Charitable Trusts "the highest income quintile receives 70 percent of the benefits from these tax incentives." "The lowest income quintile receives only 0.2 percent." It kind of makes you question the point of the federal tax codes rules and exceptions doesn't it?

Living off the grid: About 30% of Americans have no savings accounts and about 8% have no bank account at all. Apparently, when there is no bank in the picture it makes it harder to accumulate wealth. Part of the problem is that banks don't make it easy to get an account partly due to "minimum balance requirements" and "onerous" fees which drive them away. As a result these people turn to payday loans, check cashing services and money orders "whose high cost further erode wealth and potential savings." But for once, our neighbors in Europe have an idea worth emulating. They have special banking systems for these "small depositors" which usually take the form of post office banks which apparently boost savings rates in the neighborhood by "10 percent." Perhaps this is something that can not only help the Post office get back on its feet, but make it more useful and flexible for the 21st century.

We are selfish: That is right, one of the reasons we do not save is because we do not care about our future selves. According to the article (who quoted neurologists) that when we think of our future selves, we look and feel about them as if they were a stranger. As such, we value immediate gain over our future selves. Some have tried to mitigate this issue by showing people what they are to look like in the future (digital versions of course) and as a result of that new knowledge actually saved more toward the future. So start thinking about your eventual crinkly, shrunken selves.

Stop making it optional: Well apparently the more rational of us do not have to worry about retirement as we are probably already doing so (yes I've got a 401(k) and stocks along with bonds). But regular people procrastinate (this is according to the article). They wait till the last minute to start saving. Pensions are going bye bye, and Social security is no longer enough (especially as it is predicted to collapse within my life time). However, while people have access to 401(k)'s and similar, they do not use them because of how they procrastinate. So the article suggests that rather than making them optional to join, the companies and businesses make them optional to leave. Basically you are forced to join with a given rate, but you give these people the option to "opt out or adjust the rate." This apparently causes these people in general to "stay the course" and thus have an actual savings. Aka, we need a push and a shove to actually save.

Conclusion: What I got from this is that people are terrible at saving money and psychologically we are predisposed to not worry about the situation until it is too late. Making people opt out is a good idea as private firms can do this, as working for them it becomes a stipulation for employment. Well all I can say is I agree with pretty much every thing and the ideas to get people to save are sound (at least from my perspective). Hopefully you are thinking about your future self like I am.

Issue 131 Another Approach: A Federal Bank July 30, 2013

What would you think if the Federal Government established a new national bank? I'm not talking about the Federal Reserve type that we have now, but an actual bank that replaces all other banks. Here is the concept broken down.

Centralized Banking: All private banks would be forced to give all their accounts to this national bank. In essence it would take the money out of the private banks hands. Thus, when we draw money we would be drawing it from our federal bank account. All of our income (well the income on the books) would go into this account. This would make it easier for government to tax us based on income (if that is kept) and to see where people derive their revenue. It would also eliminate the need to have money backed by the Federal Reserve in case your private bank failed. Well that is a given because the government bank cannot close down ever.

Welfare recipients: To add a perverse incentive to welfare recipients to get off welfare, those on welfare would have their accounts monitored and limited. What does this mean? This means that every transaction that they do is scrutinized, including how much money they take out and how much "cash back" they get at a cash register. All of this data is used to ensure that they are only buying what they need to live, not drugs and alcohol. A step further would be limiting the whole account (private/welfare) to specific types of items. This again would limit how much a welfare recipient can buy and give incentive for them to get off welfare. Of course, this would only work if the only bank in existence is the government one as it would be the only place to put your money away. Though, some version of this government bank can be made in our current system of fiancé to keep the least honest recipients more honest.

Banks new role: Private banks would have a new role in this system. They would offer ATM's like they do now as a service for people to take out money. People can allow these banks access to a certain percentage of their federal account to loan out to people. Basically what they do now when they make a loan, but the difference is that rather than just interest as a reward for allowing them to do this, you would get a percentage of the profit. (Again, something that can be done independently of this idea). Banks can offer all their usual services, the only difference is that they don't have to worry about storing your money for you, the government does.

The negative: While this idea would take a major burden off of traditional banks and give the federal government an easy way to collect taxes and keep an eye on certain citizens, there is one major problem. The major problem is that the government has control of all of our money. This means they can lock us out of our money at will. If they want to get into the loan business, they can do it without permission. No they don't have to give us interest for keeping money in the bank. Also, let us not forget our history back when we had a national bank (the one President Andrew Jackson killed off because of corruption). What you think it cannot happen? Well did you forget that the federal government borrows from Social Security and Medicare to help fund their pet projects. They already owe the people more than $4 trillion do to their borrowing from those beloved programs. What makes you think they won’t do it again (by the way, the one that Jackson killed off acted in the same way). So all the benefits of this idea are fundamentally mute.

Conclusion: Even if the government can do something, it does not mean they should. While it becomes easier for the government to track our money, punish welfare cheats and eliminate some rules and regulations on some businesses, it does not mean things will be batter. New rules and regulations would replace the old ones, and all that money in one place would be a tempting target to politicians. So while I present this idea as an alternative, I do not find it to be any better than the current system. In fact I find the current system superior and flexible because the current one will be able to innovate as commerce progresses. Yes, this idea was mine, or at the very least I came up with this centralized approach just to evaluate its merits in comparison to our system now (if any one came up with similar separately then it is just that, we came up with it separately). At the end of my comparison, I prefer the private business whom I can take my business away from, than a government whose inevitable power and greed will corrupt them and thus steal my money.