Issue 696 HSA's the future of HC October 9, 2015

An HSA is a Health Savings Account.  It is basically a credit card or even in some cases a debit card given by your insurance company or workplace that helps to pay the copays for doctor's visits and for your medicines at the pharmacy.  In my opinion it is the future of insurance, and here is my reasons why.

HSA's:  An HSA as I Stated is an account with money in it.  It is thus flexible in what it can purchase.  Therefor it can purchase medicines that would not be covered by your insurance.  A doctor not on your plan, then use your HSA to pay the full cost.  If you have a massive copay, then the HSA can cover that too.  Money you put in, your employer puts in and even the insurance puts in all helps to pay for your doctor and drugs.  It basically eliminates the need for approvals and disapprovals by insurance companies with the tradeoff of you having a limited amount of money to spend on the card.  My HSA has about $2,000 a year put on it, but I am healthy which means I hardly spend it.  What also helps is that the money (depending on the plan) acts like a bank account where the money rolls over per year allowing you to continue growing your HSA account.  It essentially rewards you for being healthy (so long as no caps on how much the account can grow are put in place).

HSA's are also cheaper for insurance companies and your workplace.  They do not have to worry about processing fees and taxes associated with traditional insurance.  Also, as they are placing only a certain amount of money per year in the account, which they can plan for and not worry about coverage for other more expensive medications that otherwise would cause their costs to rise (those costs are what you pay as a consumer).  Basically, your ability to budget yourself is what they are counting on, for you will see the larger costs due to the higher co-pays and out of pocket costs, and thus seek to use the cheaper options which saves your workplace and the insurance company’s money.

This also has the added benefit of making drugs and doctors’ visits cheaper.  By eliminating the fees, taxes and manpower associated with regular insurance, the costs at a doctor's office and pharmacy goes down as they can now afford to charge less.  Additionally, by allowing for higher co-pays and out of pocket costs for the most expensive medications, it shifts patients toward the cheaper options.  Pharmaceutical companies thus will lower their prices as much as possible so that they do not lose profit from their more expensive drugs.  This is all do to HSA's making the market for medicine more individual, and thus the market will accommodate the changes brought on by this which advances the power of you the consumer.  

Conclusion:  These are the reasons why HSA's are so good.  They eliminate denials, and paperwork and other components of healthcare that would otherwise make healthcare far more expensive.  With its natural impact on the market to also make drugs and doctors cheaper, it means all forms of healthcare will slowly become much more affordable as well.  So what say you?  Shouldn't more people be given HSA’s?

Issue 695 Rioters and welfare October 8, 2015

So this past year, America has experienced a number of riots based primarily on race issues.  While some may claim this is free speech, it is not because rioting includes destruction of public and private property and potentially assault on regular people and officers of the law.  As such, what is a good incentive to keep these protests and other future ones from occurring?  In this case it is the denial of all forms of government assistance.  Let us discuss.

No Welfare for you:  Basically, if a person is caught rioting, or looting while on welfare (may include assault as well), they will be denied all forms of government assistance for life. This means that they will not get food stamps, or even potentially social security depending if it goes beyond the State level.  No Medicare or Medicaid either.  Basically, they will be completely on their own for the remainder of their lives for being so foolish.

The businesses they caused to suffer however, would still be suffering from losses.  As such, all the benefits of the welfare the rioter would have received would be converted to cash and given to the businesses damaged during the riots.  This would end only when the businesses have received all the money equivalent to their estimated losses. 

We are not evil however.  For one, any welfare for their children for going to schools, medicine and the like will not be denied.  So only the parents will be punished, not their kids.  Likewise, food pantries, and free clinics will still be useable by these individuals so that they may take care of themselves with regard to food and medicine.  So they will be inconvenienced despite being denied all other benefits.  Also, if they do not riot in future riots and show they are on good behavior by not committing any other crimes, once the businesses are done being paid back, they will be able to receive welfare again.  

Conclusion:  Good incentive for the poor who are on welfare not to riot at the very least, however, those not already on some form of government assistance may find a rude awakening if they lose their job for rioting or criminal acts as they will be denied unemployment.  But if they do not lose their job denying those not already on welfare the ability to use any form of tax breaks could serve as an additional incentive for these individuals not to riot.  Obviously as stated above, children's welfare will not be affected, and people can be forgiven once their debt to the businesses they helped destroy are repaid.  It makes a lot of sense, and can quell the violence at least in riots which may hopefully turn them into peaceful protests.

Issue 694 Spiked Debate October 7, 2015

So this is a modification that can be added to both the double blind debate in issue 686, and the triple blind debate in 693.  In this case we add body language and word experts to the equation.  Here is what it entails.

Spiked debate:  In this case you add a few experts to the equation in debates.  The primary group of experts will be fact checkers who will immediately fact check each candidate's answers and then those fact checks will immediately be revealed to the viewing audience.  This is the simplest one to implement as all they do is have to listen to the "facts" presented by the candidates.  Of course candidates will be allowed to defend themselves if they got a "fact" wrong.  The people need objective correct knowledge and this is what these experts provide even to the candidates.

The second group of experts will analyze the language and tone of the candidates.  They will be the sole group who will be allowed to listen to the answers unaltered by voice changing software, but they will not see the candidates they are critiquing to ensure objectivity.   In this instance, the experts on tone can tell us when candidates have stress, or potential for stress, and whatever other emotions they are showing.  Those experts that focus on word choice only will tell us if they are using coached wording, where they are using buzzwords or if they are improvising.  The goal here is to see what emotions they are showing and whether their emotions are real and if their answers are really their own as well.  Basically, it is designed to see if they are authentic in their answers, and their potential ability to handle pressure.

Our last group of experts will analyze facial expressions and body language.  This group will be the sole group to be able to see the candidates visually, but a group of them will not be allowed to hear the candidate’s answers while the others will.  The group who will not hear the answers is to create a control group to corroborate the experts’ analysis of body language and facial expressions from the group that can hear the candidate’s answers.  Basically, it ensures objectivity.  They will work with the tone and language experts to create a profile on each candidate to judge emotion, and authenticity of each candidate.  As such, these experts and those of the tone and language group will critique the candidates after a set number of answers are given, but will be allowed to give their analysis before the debate ends.  So about half way through would be best.  

All experts could even be handpicked and control groups who can see/hear the candidates will be paired with those who cannot.  Those that can see/hear, basically those who know the identity of the candidates will then be fact checked by the control group that does not know the candidates by voice, or visually.  For those who will see or hear the candidates or both, they can be used to create a profile on the candidates at the start of their campaigning to create a profile that looks for differences in behavior from Start to finish of the campaign process and how they are in debate settings as compared to other stressful situations.  Their analysis will provide indications of how honest and authentic candidates truly are, and if they have proper judgment on decision making via their reactions, word choice, and overall answers.

Conclusion:  These experts bring an entirely new dynamic to the debate scene.  Obviously these experts can be provided to all debate forms.  In my two types they become the sole group of people who will be able to potentially see and hear which candidate is answering the question first.  But this form of debate can even be enhanced further by hooking up heart monitors and other medical devices to see how the candidate’s bodies deal with pressure from a debate.  If lie detectors were actually more accurate and trustworthy, I would say add those in as well to see if the candidates believe in the stuff they are saying.  However, I doubt many candidates would agree to this set up save the fact checkers.  However, you can see how this will show how well candidates deal with stress, their emotional state, and their honesty.  And you know what?  We deserve a more honest and authentic president. 

Issue 693 Triple Blind Debate October 6, 2015

Inspired by my idea for a double blind debate in issue 686 and combining it with Glenn Beck's idea for an interview, I present to you a triple blind debate.  Let us begin.

A triple Blind debate:  First we must review the double blind debate.  The double blind debate for presidential candidates had the candidate's hidden and their voices changed so as to hide their identities while they answer questions.  No one would know who was who during the course of the debate to provide unbiased listening by the audience and limit the personal attacks by candidates as they would not know who they were talking to on stage, thus they can only react to what each candidate says.  The Triple Blind debate takes this a step further.  In this case, the candidates are completely sequestered first and asked questions.  All the questions are the exact same, but none of the other candidates will be able to hear the others answers.  This provides for answers that are less reactionary, and stick to the question at hand.  Then the candidates will be placed on stage to begin the debate.  However, they will not be asked questions.  Instead the footage of them answering each question (though their identities will be hidden in each video via voice changing, and blocking out their image) will be shown to them with them reacting to each and every video.  Which means they can potentially criticize themselves and their own answers.  But it allows for them to objectively react to each answer given as well.  At the end of each reaction by the candidates the audience can vote which person had the best answer to the initial question being asked in the videos (remember the candidates identities are hidden in the videos) and then the candidate who was voted best will be revealed.  This is meant to do two things.  Identify hypocrites and flip floppers amongst the candidates, and to provide an unbiased platform that eliminates race, color, sex, gender and other factors that cause bias in voters.  Basically, this debate type removes and destroys candidates who are not authentic and makes the audience rethink who they wish to vote for.

Conclusion:  So what do you think?  An objective debate as the candidates merely react to potentially their own answers, or agree with their fellow candidates answers.  Objectivity is hard to accomplish in a debate for President, but this helps to provide it in the same way as my double blind debate from issue 686.  We need to stop looking at labels and peoples exteriors, and instead focus on what these people really stand for.  That is what this debate type is designed to do.

Issue 692 European Social Security October 5, 2015

Europe is interesting.  They are united due to the European Union, but they have not gone and taken the steps necessary to take it a step further with respect to their welfare based systems.  Let us discuss.

European Welfare:  Let's discuss the advantages of uniting their systems of welfare first before we look at why they do not want to do so as of yet.  For one, the key advantage is money.  A greater money pool means more resources to distribute benefits for everyone.  Also, as they have the free movement of people there, a unified system helps to ease the transition of peoples if they are on welfare in one part and still need to be on welfare in another.  Basically, logistically, if you're a citizen in one country some may still be able to get benefits even if they are in another European Union country, or they will be denied benefits once they leave their home nation and have to go through hoops trying to get welfare in their new home country.  So by streamlining it, they fix those issues.  Another benefit is that if they unify the system to extend across Europe, that means local governments and national governments need not worry about such issues anymore. They literally free their national budgets up (if designed to do so), which allows the European nations like Greece to focus more on technology and infrastructure.  European welfare is also not that unique, but is not equal in each country.  As such migrants will generally travel to one country with the best welfare to freeload.  A unified system ends that.

But the European nations do not want to yet.  They like the autonomy and control they have over the welfare system.  It basically gives them power over some of the citizenry.  It is also a bit of nationalization where these countries like to lay claim that they can aid and help their own citizens.  Not to mention all these countries provide different forms of benefits and by giving it over to a unified system, they may inadvertently be denying benefits to their citizens.  As such riots may ensue.  Also, there is the issue that the system cannot keep up with growth of the entire European population, which means that the benefits of a unified system may need to be curtailed or denied due to lack of funds.  These are the reasons why they have yet to take the next step.

Conclusion:  Europe has a lot to gain from joining hands on welfare type programs.  A unified system would handle seniors in retirement, disability, unemployment/job training, medical and due to their brand of welfare and need for increasing native populations, there system will also handle child care and maturity leave.  They can also have the group that runs the program decide the number of hours per week a person is allowed to work, how much pay a person should get per week, and the number of breaks at work a person is allowed to have.  It can be means tested to insure fairness, and be contributed to via a separate tax on every European citizen so that they contribute to their own retirement and welfare in times of trouble.  They can do much here, and I think it is only a matter of time before they begin this shift toward a unified welfare system.

Issue 691 Europe Should Defend Itself October 2, 2015

Europe is in trouble.  The countries there in their European Union face destabilizing factors such as mass immigration, Russia annexing parts of neighboring countries and lack of a unified defense structure.  As such, Europe must begin to defend itself.

European defense:  Europe as it stands relies on NATO, a military organization which is led by the United States.  It was created as a means to counter Soviet aggression, but that enemy has changed to simply Russia acting as a bully via withholding fuel and annexing parts of neighboring countries.  Europe also faces issues of mass illegal immigration and facing off against terrorists.  The European governments do have a small defense force, but they specialize in peacekeeping missions due to pressure by the American and other governments for its feared destabilizing factors, or possibility to ignite aggression in neighboring countries.  Also, many European countries are neutral in all conflicts beyond their borders which hinders recruitment if the EU and the other European nations want to go to war.  Many of these countries budgets are small, so their military's are equally as small.  As such, Europe relies on NATO who will only counter some threats, but not all.  

Relying on NATO does not keep Russia from potentially turning aggressive and starting a new land war in Europe, and does not prevent terrorists from sneaking over the border.  As such, Europe needs a defense force which has a unified budget and standardized equipment to conduct the mission of defense.  This force can be started up with neutral nations like Austria, Ireland and Sweden who will control the extent of the missions they are allowed to perform which solves the issues of citizens of neutral nations being deployed overseas.  Then other smaller nations with military's can also join and those without their own defense forces, and other nations who cannot defend themselves can join.  This force will probably be used exclusively for defensive operations and interdiction of illegal migrants, handle terrorists, and perhaps conduct counter espionage and sabotage missions with special team(s) dedicated to hostage rescue.  Basically, it will be a hybrid between what the United States National Guard and the FBI.  The reason neutral nations should start this up first is because their laws prohibit the use of force save in defense of their own nation.  So by joining with their fellows, they can be assured that their citizens will not be used in a war abroad and other nations can be disarmed of the idea that Europe is rearming itself for war.  Likewise, nations in Europe that have tiny military's, no military or simply lack sufficient means to defend themselves will want to join up over time for mutual protection, but they must promise to become neutral, or to never deploy the defense forces overseas if they desire to have a say in defense policy.  By showing a unified force, the aggression of neighboring countries can be much more easily countered as opposed to the weak piecemeal approach they have now.

Conclusion:  Europe cannot afford to rely on other nations anymore.  America could not protect Ukraine or the Eurasian country of Georgia, so how can they expect their own countries to be protected as well.  It is time that the European nations show they have the muscle to defend themselves.

Issue 690 Taxing goods October 1, 2015

Unlike services goods can be taxed.  The reason for this is as follows.

Taxing goods:  Goods are physical objects unlike services.  A services value can at times be hard to measure but is ultimately not refundable.  Once given, irrespective of its quality, it cannot be returned.  However, goods can be measured for quality and that value can change over time.  Basically it is easier to value than a service prior to it being purchased and thus makes it easier to decide a value that can be taxed.  You see, unlike services where the value of such can be arbitrarily decided, a good's value can be measured at all times such as a house, a car or a toy.  So there is less risk to the buyer.  However, this is not the primary reason why goods can be taxed even though it makes sure taxing it is actually fair to both parties involved (basically, less chances of being swindled).

The real reason why it can be taxed is due to the exchange of one person property for another's.  Yes, that small tiny state of limbo where you give your property to another person’s in exchange for theirs.    That tiny limbo state is when the people making the exchange both own and do not own the items. It is the reason it is taxable.  If there was no physical exchange of property (money counts as one's property), then it would never be able to be taxed.  As such, sales taxes are 100% legal and acceptable.  Sure, goods can be bought to aid in the expression of one's rights, but you are exchanging property.  Even the artist must be taxed for selling his art if it comes in physical form as a consumer goods such as in an art book or a sketch (an art project for a park, or for a company where they are commissioned would be an exception to this as that is considered a service).  Get it?  If you do not exchange property then you cannot be taxed, but as a good is property and money is property, you can be taxed if one is exchanged for the other.

Conclusion:  There are many ways to say it as I have done here, but goods can basically be taxed.  An exception could be your doing a service in exchange for that good, which would make that situation non-taxable under this premise.  However, say you exchanged a bottle of wine for a wedding cake?  Is that a taxable situation?  Yes it is for the items have value and there is an exchange of property occurring. Sure this example does not work in most of the United States but bartering still happens here in the United States like in Alaska, and in other parts of the world like Africa and Asia.  So money is not the only form of property that needs to be exchanged for taxation to take place.  It can occur when a good is exchanged for another good.  So I hope that helps to clarify why goods can be taxed. Feel free to read the previous issue on why services should not be taxed as well to get more clarification about taxation.  Hope you enjoyed reading.