Issue 699 Group Prayer October 14, 2015

I write this issue as really a contrast to yesterday's issue on war room prayer.  I want to make it clear that individual prayer does not override or replace group prayer in any way.  As such, I want to provide essentially a contrast to individual prayer. Let us begin.

Group Prayer:  Group prayers only real disadvantage is that it lacks individuality.  People may feel like they are losing that personal connection because you are praying in a group.  However, people need that connection with each other.  They must know that they are not alone in their prayers.  As such, prayers in church can create a spiritual atmosphere, and thus that community can deepen one's faith.  Though the prayers at church should be followed by parishioners getting together afterwards to discuss the prayers, the sermons and even the days and weeks events.  Without that communication between the parishioners, the church itself could potentially become useless as the mass will become robotic and stale.

Alternatively, establishing group prayer for a common goal or prayer as a group directed toward a singular effort has potential to make things happen.  For instance, group prayer toward the health and wellbeing of an entire town has actually caused the town to become more peaceful with less crime.  This possibly is due to the town’s people wanting the prayer to come true and thus they subconsciously work together.  It can also be something else entirely such as God, or the spiritual wellbeing of each other rubbing off on each other.  But overall, people praying together provides a lot of power toward a goal and becomes a uniter of people with different ideals and views.

Conclusion:  Yes, I know my explanations are simplistic, but group prayer when applied really helps.  Just the fact that people know they are being prayed for like our soldiers gives them courage.  People who suffer knowing they are on the receiving end of prayer may get the strength to persevere.  Whether prayer has psychological or Godly power (I’m for the latter), it can help save people by giving them the strength they need to overcome and to achieve goals that they may otherwise feel are impossible.

Issue 698 War Room Prayer October 13, 2015

After watching scenes for the new movie "War Room" about how prayer can save people, I began to wonder why it was called war room.  Here is what I gleaned.  

What is a War Room:  With respect to war room, it is not a situation room in the White House or your own personal battle plans to kick serious butt.  Instead it is a room that you can shut yourself in and have your own personal and private discussions with God, study the Bible and apply that prayer and Bible study to issues in your own life.  Basically, when you are suffering, this room is a place to both escape and a place to find strength through God via prayer.   Does this work?  Well it depends on the person.  Some need solitude to solve issues and relying on God and prayer can indeed help people.  You can even post specific prayers and bible passages that apply to a given short term or long term stressful situation on the walls as it is meant to be your own personal space.  War rooms can take the form of a small room or even a closet.  Basically anywhere in the home or out of the home where you can have a private commune with God.  Though there are certain prayers and passages to would be appropriate to aid in situations and thus useful to you if you should decide to create and use your own war room, I am no expert.  My prayers typically are simply asking for strength to get through it and come out a stronger person or at the very least survive the stress or sorrow intact.  But there are guidebooks including those based on the movie which can aid you in finding which prayers to apply to each situation or hurdle in your everyday life.  Basically Prayer can be a powerful weapon in your arsenal.

Conclusion:  Do you need a War Room?  I sometimes did and thus used my room for that purpose when needed.  Others may need that relationship with God to be intimate all the time just to get through the day every day. Or simply because that is their faith and that a war room suits their prayer methods. Can an atheist use a war room?  Yes, but it is really designed around prayer.  So unless they are spiritual or have some other version of a deity that is not a deity, it will have issues working (unless they find some way to pray).  So all I can say is that if a war room is what you need, then go for it.  A little prayer when you need it most never hurt anyone.

Issue 697 HSA: Government Improvements October 12, 2015

Continuing from last week's issue on health savings accounts (HSA's), there are methods to speed up their adoption and make them more useful.  Of course as always it is up to the government to do it because they, as usual, are in the way.

What Government can do:  While HSA's will gradually take over as the primary payer for health coverage over time (my prediction), government can aid in speeding things up via a few methods.

Method 1) let generic drugs stay on the market longer:  By letting these drugs stay on the market longer, and potentially allowing more manufacturers to produce their own versions of these generics, it will flood the market with cheaper drugs.  As such, copays become cheaper, and out of pocket costs become cheaper thanks to greater supply of the drugs and choice of which manufacturer to buy it from.

Method 2) Auto-substitution:  In some States in the United States, pharmacists can substitute one drug with another on their own if the medication is of equivalent therapy.  As such, they can change one heart medication to another if the patient requests it without necessarily consulting the doctor.  This means that drugs that are not covered can be automatically switched out for those that are or are cheaper with respect to a needed therapy for the patient.  To gain this advantage in cost and time savings this ability of pharmacists can be made universal.

Method 3) Mass produce drugs:  Drug companies have to tell the FDA how much they will produce of a drug each year and if they wish to produce more or less of that drug, must get their approval.  This was primarily done to resist greedy drug companies causing price spikes by reducing the amount of drugs they produce to increase the price due to supply or undercut competition via price by producing more.  I could care less if they undercut competition as the patient's benefit, and thus eliminate the need to get FDA approval to produce more of the drugs which makes them cheaper.

Method 4) Sponsor more alternatives:  With respect to alternatives, this means the usage of doctors.  Midwives can replace doctors in delivery rooms, and nurse practitioners can replace doctors in clinics.  Sponsoring more people to be in these alternate professions that do the same job as a doctor makes health care cheaper.  We are not limited to just existing alternatives either.  Other more specialized or generalized positions in health care can be created to suit needs of the current health care system while working with colleges and hospitals to find out the health care systems overall needs.

Method 5) Unlock limits: The Congress makes the rules on HSA's and what they are allowed to cover (as far as my understanding goes).  As such, free up HSA's to have larger yearly limits, have that money roll over to aid in saving for future healthcare issues, and expand what they can purchase to certain over the counter items relating to healthcare like band aids, stomach acid medication and similar.

Method 6) More OTC drugs: There are a number of drugs that are prescription only that can potentially become over the counter items or even become an in-between like Sudafed products like Alive-D, Advil cold and Sinus and Zyrtec-D.  This makes even more drugs readily available to be purchased and thus cheaper to buy.

Conclusion:  As you can see, almost all of these methods revolve around making health care cheaper and thus more affordable.  By doing that, insurances can potentially lower premiums, or cover certain drugs less and use the HSA to do the grunt work with respect to coverage.  With an HSA's flexibility, cheaper drugs and doctor equivalents means more affordable health care

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.