Issue 702 Are we responsible? October 19, 2015

When we vote for our representatives and our President, are we responsible for sending our soldiers off to war?  That is the question I ask in today's issue.

I think we are:  We the voters get enamored with our politicians, and we like only our representatives because they give us stuff.  But then they send our soldiers off to war in foreign lands.  It was the politicians that chose to send our troops into Vietnam, Iraq in Gulf War one and then again in Gulf War two to finally be rid of Saddam.  However, that left us going to fight in Iraq longer and the war spreading with us conducting strategic strikes in other countries like Yemen, and Libya amongst others.  In those conflicts we sent our soldiers into harm's way because we elected representatives and Presidents that were willing to send men and women in uniform into battle.   Yes, the soldiers are proud to serve and they are honorable warriors and heroes.  But when they get killed in action and they leave families behind, it is our fault.  We had no need to fight in Iraq and now we got ISIS/ISIL and other terrorist groups to fight as a result.  It was us who elected these scummy politicians who willingly send our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and sons and daughters off to war to a fight we did not start.  It was us who let these representatives send them off to war.

Conclusion:  The thing about representatives is that they represent us and we chose them.  Thus, to a degree it is our fault.  We chose them and then they send us to war.  As such, we should always keep this in mind when we elect our officials, for what they do is a reflection of things we want.  What results is also partly our fault.  The blood is on our hands too.

Issue 701 Smart Immigration October 16, 2015

So we talked about immigration yesterday, but that was on which system worked and was simple enough that avoided discrimination.  But today we are going to discuss smart immigration that can be applied to any immigration system. Let us begin.

Smart Immigration:  For those coming into the country to live here, whether they be non-citizen or a newly naturalized citizen, we want to prevent them from falling into poverty.  We all agree we don't want immigrants and non-citizens on welfare.  But not because they are not citizens or that they just became citizens and we dislike them.  The reason we don't want them getting welfare is because they should not need to be on it in the first place.  As such the government and businesses of all sizes should be able to look at and see if any people coming into the country have the potential to be hired.  Basically if the family member finds a job before they come here then they will be better off.  That is stating the obvious, but a job does no good if the neighborhood has taxes that are so high that it is unaffordable.  So an investment into the immigration system must be made to look at all the communities to find the most livable based on what the skills set of the family coming in and if that job(s) will provide the income they need to be able to thrive in the United States.  Things such as on the job training or training classes would and should be taken into account.  Community support such as local networking, churches/charities and food pantries in case the family falters economically should also be examined. Even establishing early communication between the incoming immigrant/legal resident with their new neighbors would do wonders to aid in making the new arrivals feel welcome.  Basically any support or method to insure that the family member(s) who will be working can support their families and establishing a welcoming community will need to be established.   Of course, if all else fails and the legal resident wants to leave, or the immigrant ceases to want to live in the U.S. and they cannot afford a way home, it should be up to the United States to give them a ticket home as that is the right thing to do.

Conclusion:  Some of these ideas have been discussed and attempted in various ways and in various capacities (most commonly adoption cases).  As such, we know that it can work, but the initial investment may be expensive as the current immigration support systems and ideas here will need to be integrated.  However, the result will be new citizens who can fend for themselves and thrive as part of our national community.

Issue 700 Old Idea: Immigration October 15, 2015

At one point in American History, our immigration system was a bit different.  It relied on how long you lived in country as a guest without committing a crime.  After you lived in the country for the set amount of time, you became a citizen.  So could this idea work now?

Old School Immigration:  How the original immigration system worked was that you had to live in the United States for about ten years without getting into trouble before you became a citizen.  In order to even get into the country however you had to pass a screening exam for diseases, past crimes and if you were from a nation who was hostile to the United States.  Very simple right.  Today's system is more complex due to the politicians desire to have people of certain economic wealth and knowledge come into the country.  Which is understandable as we have a massive welfare apparatus that can be so overburdened that it would collapse under the pressure of population growth. This has resulted in the problems with our current system with respect to illegal immigration and why it leaves other good people who would be great as American citizens in the proverbial dust so to speak.  We have become too selective as opposed to the original systems quota system taking in a specified amount per year based on the country's ability to absorb the people into it at any given time.  But the old system made sense as it did not discriminate based on wealth (our current system is too expensive for people to immigrate by normal means), and you were screened prior to entry into the country to insure diseases were not present and that you were not there to kill us (past violent crimes, terrorists and enemy foreign agents).  Regardless though, both the old and new system were both abused to keep out undesirables. The old system was abused based on ethnic and racial discrimination and the new system we use discriminates based on poverty which to a certain degree also discriminates based on race and ethnicity as well.  However, the old system if followed in a way that does not discriminate such as just allowing a first come first serve based on immediate families during the application process would solve the entire issue of past and potential future racial and ethnic discrimination.  Basically a real line to decide when you could come and move in.  Also a set of rules that must never be broken must be established (basically specific crimes) that if violated would result in deportation.  Basically, do not commit theft, of a certain level, assault of a certain level, riot or murder.  If you can do that and last the full ten years living as a non-citizen who cannot vote and is denied a certain level of welfare (if that should be required) then you become a full-fledged citizen.

Conclusion:  The quota system works best as it ensures that the country can absorb the immigrants economically speaking which is a defining factor in any immigration system.  If the old system is modernized, it can ensure that entire families can come in all at once without each member having to apply separately as I have heard rumors of having to be done with the old and new system. No more separated families is a good thing (this may include grandparents too).  Also, as it is first come first serve, we have a real line for people to come in as opposed to our current systems economic and pseudo racial and ethnic discrimination.  It can work, but we need political will to do it.  So is it worth it to screen people who come in first, and then let them live here long enough to prove that they truly wish to be citizens? I certainly think so.

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?