Issue 421 The Circle Maker part 1 September 18, 2014

In the Old Testament there is a prophet called Honi.  He literally has but two stories in the entirety of the text.  But I felt after hearing those stories for the first time that they were important to share.  So here is story number one.

The First tale:  There was a drought in a village in the desert.  No rain had fallen in weeks and the villagers were in a dire situation for obvious reasons.  But Honi stepped up and said he would speak to God himself.  The village thought him insane as he drew a circle around himself and yelled up to God that he would not move until he made it rain for the village.  He sat there for days until God relented and allowed a trickle of water to come from the sky.  But Honi yelled up to God that this was not enough.  So God gave more rain, but Honi was not satisfied as this rain that God sent was still too little.  Then finally after Honi asked yet again, God finally gave Honi a torrential downpour that filled the lake near the village which would provide enough water to satisfy the village’s needs.

Moral/Conclusion:  God can be negotiated with.  This is what this story of Honi is trying to tell.  Both Jesus and Muhammad also talked directly with God as well, so this shows that you can also have a personal relationship with God.  So by interacting with God on a more personal level it allows us to improve ourselves and our own faith.

Issue 420 Should Medicaid have Copays September 17, 2014

Well ladies and gentlemen, we are here to talk about Medicaid and if it should have copays.  As many of you know, Medicaid is State provided health insurance for the poor, but not everyone on Medicaid is actually poor.  So this is the question, when and where should there be copays for these people who cannot afford health insurance?

My experience:  Medicaid has copays setup for individuals based on their income.  So by estimating what money they earn, the State government determines what the copay at the doctor’s office or drug store should be.  As someone who works in a pharmacy, the copay is typically one dollar.  This is good as the income the individual makes helps to make a single dollar affordable whether they are on unemployment or working at a regular job.  It reduces costs at the State level and personally I feel that copays should be expanded to account even further to truly measure what is actually affordable to the patient and what is not.  At the same time, I believe that drugs necessary for the health of the patient should be covered like maintenance medications and cures for common diseases.  Things like over the counter drugs like Tylenol, Aspirin and Advil have no place being covered as they are already more than affordable over the counter.  Vitamins too have been covered by Medicaid and made free despite not being medically proven to actually improve health in some instances, and that they too are over the counter.  As such, I have helped fill so many prescriptions for patients as the pharmacist grumbles looking at their medical history saying only one out of all the medications (as only one was a medication) should even be going through Medicaid.  And finally, once at the counter, the patients in some (not all, but some) cases complains they have to pay a dollar, while they wear fur coats or other expensive clothes.  Kind of dumb is it not.

To the other side:  To try and stay objective, the people saying I am saying all people on Medicaid are robbing our taxpayer dollars is wrong.  It is a known fact that there are legitimate people who cannot afford health care.  As such, they deserve to get health care catered to their income.  However, this does not mean a small nominal fee should not be paid which reduces the overall costs that Medicaid has to pay so long as it is based on income.  Medicaid is welfare given to the poor.  You are entitled to none of the benefits given out by it, and as such the benefits can be changed by the State government at will and you can do nothing about it.  But, this does not mean we will leave actual poor people to die in the street.  So Medicaid or some form of it will always be there for the actual poor, but for those who use the system to take advantage of the benefits should understand that they have to pay more because they earn more than the people who really need it.

Conclusion:  I am not trying to sound evil or harsh even though I know I am coming off that way.  However, people complaining because they think they are entitled to a free lunch is just wrong.  People who are wearing expensive clothes, while on welfare of any kind and continue to buy expensive items because they have a free ride is also wrong.  So if you cannot kick people off welfare like Medicaid, you can at least reduce their burden on the system by making them pay a little more out of their own pocket for their medicine.

Issue 419 Combine Medicare A and C September 16, 2014

Similar to yesterday’s article there can be savings by fusing Parts A and C of Medicare.  Part A deals with hospital visits and other aspects of doctor visits.  Medicare part C does similar but resembles part D in how it teams up with private companies to aid in providing health insurance coverage (albeit not in the same way).  But there is merit to reform and Ill discuss that here.

The Idea:  Part C (while cost efficient) of Medicare can be altered to work in the exact same manner as part D with little effort for better savings potential.  This will provide cost savings across the board.  Part A can then be fused into Part C so as to save money without burdening the system, but with a difference.  Part A health coverage is the only part of Medicare that is paid for using our contributions from the taxes we pay toward Medicare.  Parts B, C and D do not have any contributions from the payroll tax (our contributions) that we pay throughout our life to fund Medicare Part A and Social Security.  So the major advantage of combining these in the system is that our own money which we contributed can actually be used to provide coverage for ourselves using part C modified to work more efficiently like part D.

Impact:  With money from part A benefits (our contributions) the government will not be over budget with respect to trying to provide health coverage as the money we contributed will already be there to pay for it with the government only stepping in when the amount of contributions goes down too much that it cannot meet demand.  However, by using the part C model to replace the original part A that possibility becomes a lot less likely.  As such, Medicare will be saved from self-destruction and we will not have to pay premiums (with certain exceptions to the rich) to get coverage for doctors’ visits or emergency room treatment.

Conclusion:  This idea is cheaper and more effective than yesterday’s idea as it uses the contributions we already pay into the system rather than it being budgeted like the current parts B, C, and D of Medicare.  The government will hence save money and we will get cheaper health in the long run.

Issue 418 Fuse Medicare B and D September 15, 2014

Well here I am going to talk from my job experience in the pharmacy.  After Obama Care (Affordable Healthcare Act) got passed it caused part B of Medicare to be more restrictive.  As some of you know, part B is designed for outpatient care, which handles things you need once you get out of the Hospital.  Prior to Obama Care, part B would just about cover anything.  But now with Obama Care, seniors need some form of health coverage for drugs.  That is where part D comes in to help.  But, that requires a monthly premium which many seniors were not expecting to be forced to get and pay for.  So here is my idea, combine the two.

The Idea:  Part B covers outpatient care and the medicines associated with it.  It is budgeted based on how much the Congress gives it yearly to perform this task.  Part D (the only part of Medicare below budget and stable) is also budgeted and subsidizes senior’s premiums toward private healthcare insurers thus making individual healthcare more affordable.  So by combining part B which is over budget and a drain on the system with part D which already performs a similar task you simplify the system and bring an expensive part of Medicare down to a manageable level by teaming up with a private company.  You are saying "wait a minute" as now seniors will be forced to pay a monthly premium in exchange for having to deal with a more successful and expanded portion of Medicare (part D).  That is true, but whether thankfully or unfortunately, many seniors are already forced into part D already due to Obama Care causing a loss of drug coverage from part B becoming more restrictive.  Also, those who are still somehow covered by part B can be immune from this situation by ensuring that subsidies to them are catered to their income.  I’ll explain.

How this works:  For those already enrolled in part D, the only change is that they now have everything covered that would have been also covered under part B.  In addition, new enrollees into the Medicare program would automatically be enrolled in part D rather than part B as B would be phased out.  For those who still have part B (those over 65) and cannot afford the premiums, it will be indexed toward their income so that the poorest will not have to worry about premiums, and make it so that it can be subsidized further by State run Medicaid.  Thus no senior goes broke due to health care as it is defined based on how much money they make after retiring.

Conclusion:  This idea of mine is designed to ensure the health care of our seniors with respect to drug coverage and outpatient treatment is the most affordable possible while reducing costs on the system and individuals.  We cannot go backwards with Obama Care as its tentacles have already destroyed the status quo of the old system.  So we must move forward with ideas to simplify and reduce spending while protecting our senior citizens health.  Thus by eliminating part B and giving all that B did to part D so that no coverage or benefits are lost, we save money at the federal level and the taxpayers save money as now richer seniors will pay more into their health, while poorer seniors will have to essentially pay less for equal or greater healthcare coverage they would have received under parts B or D alone.

Issue 417 Paying Kids to Come to School September 12, 2014

This idea is controversial.  Many see it as wrong to pay kids to go to school as they do not feel it is a job let alone should be treated as one.  But I think it's a great idea, so let's discuss.

Opponents:  Opponents to this idea cite that education is a right/privilege.  That while it should be free for anyone to get an education from a school, the idea of someone profiting off of it is seen as something wrong.  Beyond this mentality that for profit education is wrong, I know of no other form or legitimate opposition to such an idea.  (The illegitimate excuses is that the government will reduce the aid schools/community receives or reduce the number of tax breaks.  When this switch does occur it has caused education quality to go down in exchange for enriching the area around the school temporarily).  

Proponents:  This idea to pay kids to learn is a great idea that will make them want to learn even the most boring topics.  The point is to motivate children to learn and then be paid based on their performance on tests which show their mastery of the subject.  I would also pay the students to tutor each other so as to free up teachers for lesson planning and more hands on extra help/lessons.  This also benefits students because school then becomes treated like a job which enables students to get the mindset they need for when they are finally done with school. In addition to this, this gives students a source of income so as to buy their meals and school supplies from the school (thus the money coming back to the school) and for the students to know what it means to save money so they can use it on things they want or even save for college. 

Conclusion:  The education of students is paramount to their success. It should not matter whether they are paid to get it or not, or how they get it.  It all comes down to the fact that the children are taught to think for themselves and get the skills they need to survive in a constantly changing/evolving job market.  So I say, if it gets kids to go to school then pay them because it is better than just letting them sit there staring at a clock rather than listening to a topic that can potentially enhance and lead them to a future career.

Issue 416 Kids Attending School by Threatening Parents Welfare September 11, 2014

The title is fairly self-explanatory.  The idea has been tossed around that if your child does not attend proper school and you are a welfare recipient, then the welfare should be denied.  So why is this idea being tossed around?

Opinion on why:  I believe the reason this idea is being floated around is due to the fact that many parents on welfare have children who generally do not attend school (thus wasting any welfare meant toward their child's education and putting these recipients under threat to reduce the amount of possible abuse of the system).  As such, they wanted to force parents who are on welfare to actually enforce their children's education rather than the school or other government entity.  It is in my opinion a good idea, but with a potential for abuse.

Abuse potential:  I fear that this enforcement will leave out the option of homeschooling for these parents who feel that public (government run) schooling is inadequate.  Also, I fear that parents on welfare who receive vouchers may not be able to send their children to private or other forms of schools if the laws are poorly written and thus excludes them.  So this is my fear.

Conclusion:  By using welfare parents to enforce their children going to school it saves money and time by schools and police.  It gets kids off the street and in school so that these kids can potentially get a proper education rather than resort to crime due to a lack of ability and skills due to a lack of schooling.  However, the law must be properly written or else it can cause problems and block access to a welfare parents choices when it comes to their child’s education.  So we must be cautious in the way the law is written and thus also enforced.

Issue 415 A Civilian Harm Department September 10, 2014

This idea comes from a Foreign Affairs piece called "Concept on Responding to the Needs of Civilian Victims of War" by Sarah Holewinski (opinion section).  Basically, it is all about trying to reduce harm to civilians in the battlefront.  So how does it work and should we even have such a layer of bureaucracy?

The concept:  So Mrs. Holewinski's idea is as follows:

1. Appoint an internal advocate for addressing civilian harm mitigation.

2. Create a team in the Department of defense that focuses on civilian harm to do the following:

     a. Guide war planning

     b. promote acquisition of nonlethal weapons

     c. review the military’s doctrine and training programs

     d. influence the aid the U.S. gives other countries that are actively engaged in combat

     e. review how to minimize long term impacts of U.S. operations on civilian populations such as              environmental degradation and damage to civilian infrastructure.

3. Debrief returning troops about military/civilian interactions to gather information about civilian casualties and analyzing what did and did not work.

Well that’s it in a nutshell.

What I think:  I think it is mostly naive.  Needlessly hindering our soldiers can cost them their lives.  Guns and bombs once shot may go off course and then hit just about anyone including our own troops.  So the idea to have this new waste of bureaucratic red tape guide war planning is pathetic.  Also, the military is already doing their best to reduce harm to civilians in the first place (that’s why they have precision weapons like laser guided bombs rather than destroying entire cities).  So an advocate is entirely unnecessary.  As to the teams to debrief the troops, while admittedly a good idea with respect to gathering intelligence data on the changing attitudes of the civilian population, it is already done by civil affairs groups and psyop forces.  Basically, all this is being done already in some way, shape, or form rendering it all unnecessary.

Conclusion:  While it is admirable that people like Holewinski want to reduce harm to innocent and non-involved people in war time, the fact is it cannot be done save turning our soldiers into assassins who kill nothing but their targets.  But war is not that kind when it comes to determining who the enemy is, especially in an age where terrorist organizations can stand up to the might of several nations and them not wearing any uniforms.  A war is meant to be horrible and destructive, and to fight it any other way I believe is to sanitize war to the point that it invites more wars.