Issue 436 Paying for Political Primaries October 9, 2014

Political primaries are essentially votes to see who is going to run in an election while representing a particular political group.  Hence we have a Republican primary, a Democratic primary, and even a primary for independents and other groups who wish to see their candidates run for a selected office.  But why the heck are these primaries paid for with taxpayer dollars?

Corruption:  The reason these primaries are paid for by our hard earned taxpayer dollars is because of the corrupt nature of the American electoral system (democracy).  This is because those in charge (Democrats and Republicans) can shift money while their members hold office to secure their hold on American politics.  Thus it makes it impossible for another group to hold a political primary unless they can fund it themselves or manipulate the major parties from within, while these main political primaries control all the monitorial resources. So what should be done?

The solution:  As I see it, primaries are by very nature an election amongst members of a club who seek a representative to represent their interests in something else.  In this case a political office.  Hence, while the actual election to fill a political office should be paid for, the primary which selects the candidates should not.  Therefore each the governments in the United States should cut funding toward the political parties.  Remember, the parties themselves are more of a club than anything where people of similar interests gather and talk about politics.  They have more than enough money to run their own primaries without the aid of any government.

Making it cheap:  Before I did say that most of these parties required financial support save the big parties, which is way the two major parties will be unaffected financially save them paying for their own political primaries.  However, the smaller groups involved in politics still need to choose members to run for particular offices.  Thus, why do they not simply give each of their members a number and have them vote online.  There is no need for a brick and mortar voting box for a political primary in the first place as it is a vote amongst members of a club. This ensures that it is cheap and members can be tracked to see how many voted in each area of the country (depending on the office that is to be filled) to identify active and inactive members.  It ensures transparency as well and costs not a single penny with respect to taxpayers.  Heck, it is no longer limited to a single day either which helps insure that everyone within the political party has a chance to vote.  So why not do it this way?

Conclusion:  I have sat as a member of the board of elections time and time again for a political primary.  As such I have seen firsthand the number of people voting in primaries is not worth the thousands and sometimes millions spent to hold them by government.  Primary elections are not even part of the United States Constitution.  At my voting station alone last primary, I had three people of 16 vote in the conservative primary, 14 of 56 vote in the Democratic primary, and 1 out of 3 in the Conservative primary.  I even heard that in some voting areas, they had one single person.  Meanwhile, I was one of six people paid $180 (or more) to sit on my rear end for 16 hours and literally do nothing at all.  Kind of dumb is it not.  A total waste of everyone’s time.  So can we stop this club nonsense and stop wasting taxpayer dollars on a club activity.

Issue 435 Medicaid should be used differently. October 8, 2014

So Medicaid in each part of the United States acts like an insurance to cover the costs of the poorer masses health care needs.  Issue is that it is becoming more and more expensive to cover such costs on such a large scale.  So what do we do about it?

The Idea:  Yes this is one of mine.  I freely admit it, but I doubt I thought of this idea first.  The concept is simple, turn Medicaid into a kind of health savings account.  Basically it will act the same way as food stamps does, but for medicine and doctors’ visits.  So if you have a prescription, the card would be used to pay for the cost rather than having to worry about changing numbers on your insurance cards each year due to new numbers.  It can also be used to cover doctor visits as well.  However, it can work like an insurance to specify a co-pay.  To do this it would cover the medicine or doctor’s office cost up a specified amount based on how much income you earn yearly.  So it insures that a $3,000 medicine would be covered, but would make you pay the final dollar if you can afford it.  A doctor’s visit which without insurance would cost around $120 or more would be paid by simply sliding the card through in the same way a food stamps card covers fruits and veggies.  It becomes simple and easy to use.

Why do it this way:  Well, as a person who works in a pharmacy, billing insurance even electronically can be a hassle.  There are glitches in the system which cause the cards to not go through, each State may have their own cards for their own version of Medicaid, and each year these numbers can change causing what is known to people in the pharmacy as hell month (January) where all the insurance cards get new numbers and we have the unfortunate pain of updating any number of our 1,600 patients insurance information.  But this is more complicated by Medicaid.  As not only do we have the numbers changing, but certain drugs and certain brands like Pfizer or Mylan will be covered while others will not.  This can cause a higher copay than necessary or cause a lifesaving medicine to not be covered at all (thanks lobbyists and government death panels, you really kill people).  But by switching to a savings card format, you eliminate this issue with respect to Medicaid.  Literally it simplifies the system to the point that the patient and the pharmacy staff do not have to worry about insurance rejections anymore.  And guess what, if you already have insurance or Medicare, but still need Medicaid, the copays can and should be covered by this savings account.  

How it works:  So every month the State would deposit money into the account to cover the cost of the medications you buy with a little extra just in case.  If the copays are higher than normal that month due to you trying a new medication, or your Medicare is not covering as much, the overdraft component will trigger.  This will add a little extra money next month to cover the cost next time while the difference will still be given to the pharmacy or doctor's office you are paying to insure they are not jipped on payment.  Of course certain doctors’ offices will be part of the plan due to costs being cheaper while being equally as effective as someone else.  So a list will be given to each Medicaid patient to say who is and is not preferred or else they will suffer a larger copayment or even have their money reduced in their account as a way to heard them toward the cheaper option.

Conclusion:  Well I like my own idea obviously.  It avoids the issues of insurances being down or rejecting certain medications.  There will be one less middle man to deal with in respect to companies having to fill out paperwork to get reimbursement money from the Medicaid program.  So this saves costs as well on both the company and State level.  Also, Medicaid recipients can see the real cost of their drugs in relation to their accounts and they can be allowed to take initiatives to look for cheaper alternatives as well to preserve extra money in their health care accounts.  We can make it cheap and effective to the point that more doctors may even start accepting more Medicaid patients again (the reimbursement process was a hassle and some doctors were losing major amounts of money taking these patients in which forced them to stop taking them on as patients).  As such, if my idea has merit, then please if you have power, push it through.  If not, then well at least I contributed to the overall conversation.

Issue 434 Food stamps and Ice cream? October 7, 2014

Ok, so I have another beef against food stamps.  Why are things like Ice cream covered under the food stamp program?  You already know my arguments on the money from the government for food stamps being our hard earned taxpayer dollars being wasted, but I have another reason on why this is a bad practice.  Here we go.

Health:  Food Stamps (EBT) cards are supposed to provide the most basic of money for food stuffs necessary to live.  Basically it should pay for fruits and vegetables, meats, and grains and certain dairy products.  But food stamps pays for some of the unhealthiest crap mankind has come up with.  This includes Ice cream, diet sodas (which are even worse for people than regular soda), juice drinks with equal or greater sugar than soda and other unhealthy beverages.  Basically, food stamps covers everything that would make us all fat.  To top this all off the worst stuff covered by food stamps is the cheapest stuff to buy.  Thus limiting these people on a budget to unhealthy options.

What should be covered:  The things covered should be water, pastas, canned goods, fresh fruit and vegetables, milk, cheeses, and yogurts, meats like hamburgers and no sugar added fruit juices.  Beyond these basics, the rest should not be payable by food stamps as it makes no sense making a person in poverty so fat that they become a health problem.  Remember, the people receiving the money have no say on what is allowed to buy because it is being given to them with specified conditions as dictated by law and regulation. So they have no say on this issue.

Conclusion:  Well, you probably think I am being harsh here.  That by denying these welfare recipients these more sugary items that it demeans them and embarrasses them. Well, it does not embarrass them as the fact that they are even forced to be on food stamps is an embarrassment to not only themselves, but for the nation as a whole (I personally would rather starve than be on food stamps). The fact that our government who controls the money supply would let the economy go this out of whack to where inflation and production of goods has become so expensive that it prices out our seniors and other members of society from being able to buy basic food stuffs is just ridiculous.  But this is the society we created by thinking big daddy government can take care of us all.  As such, government becomes the bad guy on saving money on this welfare industry.  We have to limit the people on welfare to healthy options or else the cheaper junk will become their main source of nutrition and thus make them big and fat, or more prone to malnourishment and or diseases like diabetes.  This is a health crisis as well that must be addressed.  

Issue 433 No cash back for EBT cards October 6, 2014

I have noticed a unique problem with the food stamp system used for the poor in America.  Actually, many people have noticed it too, but are powerless to sound off against it or else they look like they are bashing poor people.  This issue is on being able to take out actual cash at ATMs, and from cash back offers from stores when people pay with food stamps (EBT cards).  Let's discuss.

What is this feature:  This is for my foreign readers, so if you already know the term you can skip to the next section.  The term "cash back" is when you are given the opportunity to withdraw money from your bank account when you purchase an item(s) at a store using your checking account. The cards used for welfare known as EBT cards (better known as food stamps) also have this feature.

Why this is a problem:  The main issue is because the money being given to these individuals for food stamps is not their money, it is the taxpayers giving it to them so they can buy food for themselves and their families.  As such, why are they allowed to take this money out which allows it to be used for other purposes?  This is where issue number two comes in.  Food stamps only allows for certain items to be purchased which are deemed healthy.  But when these individuals take the money out, they can use it to buy prohibited items like beer, or cigarettes.  To make matters worse, there have been incidents where these food stamp cards have had money withdrawn at strip clubs, gambling establishments and have also been used to purchase drugs.  So this hard earned money that we give to our government in taxes is being abused.  As such, food stamps in my opinion should not be treated like a debit card with restrictions.  Instead it should act like a credit card with restrictions that disallow money from being withdrawn in any way shape or form.

Conclusion:  These abuses to the system are becoming more and more prevalent.  I have personally witnessed, when I worked in a supermarket, a women on food stamps take out $20 just to pay for the beer after she purchased her other items eligible for purchase with the card.  This is my taxpayer dollars and yours being used in an illegal way.  The simplest way to stop it is removing the withdrawal function because the federal government which runs this system cannot keep up with the sheer number of abuses.  Of the 5,000 cases of abuse investigated each year there are apparently 15,000 more on estimation that continue on with illegally abused food stamps according to the federal government.  So one simple solution fixes a large portion of the problem.  Remember, this is not their money they are spending, it is your tax payer dollars that are being abused.

Issue 432 Respect is the basis of all relationships October 3, 2014

Respect is of vital importance to any relationship.  But how does it work?

Earned:  Respect is a concept that revolves around an emotional response we get based on the feelings we have for a person.  There is a form of respect that comes from admiration where you wish to emulate that individual.  Then there is one based on bonds of trust.  Of course there are ones based on fear due to how dangerous a person appears to be or simply their reputation.  But this is always earned.  In this case it is earned based on one person's knowledge of the actions and words of the people they are interacting with.  So a bond of trust comes from always telling the truth and being honest toward a particular person.   A bond of admiration is based on how one perceives another person and their own personal values.  From there, it is almost like tally marks counting how good a person is and thus if they are deserving of respect.

Why is it part of relationships?:  The reason it is part of relationships and the key component of a continued successful one is that again it is based on how people see each other.  As human beings who are subject to fallibility, we rely on what we see and hear and we can infer from them to decide what to think of a person.  If a person acts like a fool, and you do not value people who act that way, you will probably not respect them let alone associate with them.  But if you do value the actions of foolish people, and thus seek to be with them, you begin to form bonds through your respect of the said individuals.  If you do not respect someone, then you will either treat them like dirt or ignore them.  But when you do respect them, you value what a person says and does for it shows that you care about them.  It shows that you take notice of the other individual.

Conclusion:  Now that you know that respect is earned and that it is key toward a successful relationship of any variety, will you value it more as a concept?  I write this issue because I feel we are losing this concept based on how we treat one another.  From people talking on their cell phones while talking to you in person, to bumping into you on the street and not apologizing because they do not care, these are examples of a lack of respect for the basic human being.  Strangers have a kind of respect that evolves from how we wish to be treated, but what happens when we lose respect even for a total stranger who minds their own business, and has done nothing but good things?  What happens is that respect as a concept loses value and thus, we as a society lose cohesion and thus cease to be a united people.

Issue 431 Following the Heart or the Mind October 2, 2014

Both the heart and the mind are what aids us in making the correct decisions and driving us toward the person we want to be or the situation/future we think we deserve.  But when push comes to shove, should you follow your heart first, or should you follow your mind?

The Heart:  The heart is all about passion.  It is what drives you.  Here emotion can give you strength to persevere over obstacles that may be in your path.  Without heart you will have no passion and as a result be miserable.  However, beware as if you follow just your heart without caution it can lead you to ruin.

The Mind:  The mind is all about reason.  Here you use logic and higher thought based on science, evidence, and history to make the best decision based on what you know and what you believe you can achieve.  But, this has no passion.  As such it can result in you making a decision that while appropriate given a particular circumstance, will not make you happy in the long run.

Conclusion:  It is your personal preference on which you follow first.  If at all possible I say use both to make the best possible decision in a given situation.  However, we are talking about those situations where you are at a crossroads between the two.  As such I say it depends on the circumstances.  If it is for the women you love, then follow your heart.  If it is so that you can get a good job, then follow your mind as you can always change jobs latter.  But this is my own personal point of view on the issue.  So therefore follow what you think will lead you to prosperity for both are part of what make you who you are and what you will eventually be.

Issue 430 I am John Galt! October 1, 2014

Again based on Ayn Rand, what if we followed John Galts' philosophy or something similar?  Here is my view on a different kind of group that is above politics.

The philosophy:  Basically this philosophy will revolve around doing what is right over doing what is wrong.  It is not about who gets the credit for it, but just simply doing the right thing. So it totally removes the political parties and their not getting things done (immigration issues, health care etc.) or their vengeance plays against each other.

At the same time, it will be based on fiscal conservatism, where we would avoid using government. If any at all, to carry out tasks.  As a matter of fact, it would revolve around the community getting together to get things done, and only paying money for things the community as a whole deems fit.  This is all to support the idea that government is not needed to fix a pothole, or a broken sidewalk.  Instead the community could raise the money to fix it themselves.

Finally, the members would have to be open to all ideas, but only follow the ideas that make the most practical and reasonable sense without losing our rights as individuals.  So health care would be a traded commodity, with churches having free clinics and as soup kitchens rather than handing out food stamps and other practical solutions that remove government from the equation, but always fixed in the concept of reason.  In short, you must follow your mind before you follow your heart when it comes to issues like gun control, health care, or anything controversial.  The mathematical data, and history of past events are used to make the best and most reasonable of solutions which would then be followed (but shall at no time be limited to this solution if a better one comes up).

Conclusion:  Here the key things are doing what is right over what is wrong (ignoring political parties), being fiscally conservative so as to not waste money, and to be open to ideas and actions that are fixed in reason so as to remove impulsive actions.  Subtlety this removes the need for government and even its infrastructure as communities could then take care of themselves, only asking for help from nearby communities when something becomes more than they can handle themselves.  Thus, a person who thinks and acts with such a mentality I designate a Galt.  So are you able to become a Galt as well, or will you fester with a label like Democrat and Republican with their despotic madness?