Issue 714 Medicare B,C,D: Not a right! November 4, 2015

Did you know that the Supreme Court case Fleming Vs Nestor says that you do not have a right to the benefits of Medicare if the government denies you or changes the law?  This is because the ruling stated that if the Congress can change the law, then you have no right to it.  Now this dealt primarily with Social Security, but unfortunately, Medicare is an add on to the Social Security legislation.  So how do we make it a right, or at the very least discourage the government from restricting benefits further?

Fix it:  Well, the simple answer as I have stated in past issues on the subject is to merge parts B, C and D with part A.  The reason being is that if part A was to go back to the supreme court it is possible, depending on the arguments made, that that portion alone can be ruled a right.  This is because of the payroll tax we pay into to help that portion operate.  However, while A is funded by our contributions in the form of a tax parts B,C and D are all funded through the general revenue of the United States.  In other words, Congress says how much can go into each one of those components.  Now A deals with Hospitals and doctors’ offices.  This is safe, but over budget.  Part B deals with outpatient care, such as rehabilitation and similar services specific to when people leave the hospital but need some extended care.  Part C intends to combine some of A and B together to make up for any gaps in care via a system that pays doctors through regular health insurance.  Part D was inspired by part C, but does takes care of medications by supplementing the paid premiums Medicare recipients will have to make. Basically, the government pays a portion of the cost to pay for private drug insurance.  As such, part D is the only component that is under budget.  Due to A, B and C being over budget however, it incentives government to make adjustments on what treatments and drugs are to be covered so as to reduce and maintain costs.  It also has resulted in low reimbursement rates for doctors and thus some of them no longer accepting Medicare patients.  Hence why change is needed.  As such, Part D should be expanded to include all outpatient care of part B and also doctors care of part A to mimic part C in that respect.  Then we eliminate Parts A, B, and C in favor of Part D as it will take care of all aspects of senior citizens health care.  It however will be funded by the payroll tax that was funding part A (the part that is our contributions) so as to eliminate governments incentives to alter or change the care we receive.  The reason why using private insurance that is paid for almost entirely though our contributions is better is because private insurance has more expansive options for care.  They are better able to detect fraud, and we should be able to (if the capability is allowed) to jump from insurance to insurance, or use the one that provides us with the cheapest health insurance with the best coverage at any given time (with it switching automatically to accommodate needed treatments that suit our seniors the best).  All this can then be ruled on the basis that we are able to contract with private health insurers which is a right and get the government out of deciding for us what is to be covered and what is not to be covered.  Basically, the government can still call our contributions a tax, but they simply become a bank to aid us in paying for our health insurance in this way.  As such, we secure our rights to Medicare.

Conclusion:  Yes it is a little complex, but only part A is funded by our contributions, while part D works the best out of all the parts of Medicare with respect to budget and treatments.  So by combining everything to work like part D, and funding it like A, would solve the issue of cost overruns and denial of treatments.  Allowing people or having the system automatically switch Medicare patients from private insurance to private insurance so that no matter what, their costs will be covered for whatever treatments they need will also enhance the idea it is a right for it is a contract with private insurance companies.  The government simply helps us pay for it with our payroll tax contributions.  So we can do it, but as Medicare is so volatile with respect to changes, we may not see needed changes for a while.

Issue 713 Public Sexuality November 3, 2015

Public sexuality is an issue that is coming back to the forefront of discussion due to issues of Gay Marriage and similar.  So how far is too far when it comes to sexual expression?

Sexuality:  For our purposes, sexuality will be defined as any public display of affection and exposure of various forms of cleavage of the body.  So can a women bare her breasts?  Well the libertarian answer is yes.  It is her chest and not a sexual organ.  In fact, if she so wishes it, she may breastfeed her baby in public if the need arises.  None of these are sexual acts and women already show midriff and cleavage already (things that were previously banned in public and in some places still are).  In fact hugging and kissing in public was once banned as well.  But that has changed for the better with people being able to pretty much hug anyone in public and kissing, while still restricted (frowned on and discriminated) with respect to male same sex couples, is fine for everyone else.  But what about people's rear ends?  Their butt.  When I was in comic con this October, there were a lot of girls wearing some very "revealing" outfits with respect to their butt cheeks.  Of course the anal cavity was hidden, but in some cases that was the only part hidden.  Women openly wore underwear including thongs. However, this was ok.  Reason being that underwear is basically a bathing suit that cannot go in water.  At least that is the mentality today with my generation and younger.  So this is no longer too far and while also still against the law, it is generally accepted and ignored in some places.  But what about public nudity.  And I am not just talking about nude beaches.  Cultures around the world have public baths, and of course we have communal showers at gyms (suitably sex restricted).  In this instance, these nude spaces are in areas that have been designated as ok to go in the buff.  However, increasingly people are challenging this norm like in Oregon with their nude bike race.  So I would argue that if this trend continues, people will be able to dress in any way they wish including butt naked.  Remember, this sense of modesty and laws supporting it are based on people's sensibilities and societal trends focused through both religion and culture.  But what is too far if we are all going to be allowed to go nude in public and kiss and hug whomever we wish?  Simple, public defecation, and public sex.  No one wants to see someone piss or crap in public (unless you have some sort of fetish), and while it may be entertaining to some, oral, anal, and vaginal sex and its kinky variants are not meant for public display.  At least this is my view, as if it is in the privacy of one's home, I do not have a right to say anything, but in a public park, is well, iffy.

Conclusion:  People have lost the modesty war.  The trends will continue where even men and women can bath together (Japanese hot spring anyone?) and share bathrooms and gym locker rooms.  So sexually speaking this means we are more tolerant and that the human body becomes less of a mystery to opposite sexes and genders.  It is possible that in this case, people will be less curious about things like sex at this point which could benefit people socially with respect to tolerances (though that remains to be seen).  However, the moment we allow public sex and defecation, we may be in for trouble.  My reasoning is that all modesty will be gone and it will be a sign that people do not care who is watching.  If people do not care who is watching then it is possible, in my opinion, that they will be prone to more criminality at the worst and acts stupidity at the best.  People fearing how society will judge them keeps people in line, so people need some sort of boundary or invisible law.  I could care less about public nudity, but public sex, and the slippery slope of resulting human behavior scars me.

Issue 712 Abortionist Revisited November 2, 2015

I had talked about this idea of having a specialized doctor doing abortions exclusively in a hospital, but I did not really flush the idea out. So here is my attempt to do so.

Abortionist:  The idea behind an abortionist is to create a special class of doctor (or medical practitioner as they violate the Hippocratic Oath).  In this case, these professionals will belong to hospitals only with hopefully all other abortion clinics shut down as a means to eliminate profit motives.  Basically, a hospital will be the only place to get an abortion (still cheap due to the number of hospitals).  This increases the revenue to cash strapped hospitals as well, while also providing a place for the dead children's bodies to be used for medical research or at the very least harvested as such.  But, I do not think that these abortionists should be limited to such a narrow profession.  Sure they will be trained to handle issues when things go wrong during an abortion and they will be able to perform late term abortions if the woman's life is in danger, but it may be too narrow.  As such, they could be trained to aid in assisted suicide.  This relieves regular doctors of the duty so that they do not violate their Hippocratic Oath (especially now as States like California are set to legalize such practices).  Therefore they will be charged with ending a person's life as painlessly as possible by whatever methods they deem appropriate.  It need not even be limited to those who are sick or infirm who wish to die, but can encompass people who simply wish to commit suicide and executions by the State.  Currently, States provide for how things like abortions can be conducted, and how executions should take place (which is sure to happen with assisted suicides as well), but if these abortionists were given authority to decide for themselves the most painless course of action it would be a little more humane.  Also, I will say again, these professionals can harvest the body parts of these dead babies, and now suicide victims for either medical research and even for organ donation.  So in a way, by taking a life, they are also making attempts at saving some too.

Conclusion:  If you have read my past works, then you know I am against abortion save in the case of rape or woman’s life being in danger.  However, abortion is not going away and is a topic of debate not just amongst the political parties, but libertarians as well (along with assisted suicide).  While assisted suicide is less controversial than abortion for it truly is your own body and you are deciding what to do with it, I wanted to eliminate the profit motives of abortion clinics while also professionalizing this service that deals in death.  Thus, by isolating abortions, assisted suicides and executioners to a single profession we can watch and understand the craft.  We will be able to see the select group that performs this sad profession.  Additionally, it will take abortion clinics out of minority areas where they seem to dominate, thus relegating the service to a centralized visible location that services everyone (done in part to eliminate the racial component of Planned Parenthood).  I do not want these people called doctors as they are not doctors due to their violation of the oath, but I cannot say get rid of abortion or doctors aiding people in committing suicide.  As such, this is my compromise.

Issue 711 Policy of Envy October 30, 2015

You know, I have wondered why our country was full of envious people.  I mean we are the land of opportunity right?  Don't know what I am talking about?  Allow me to explain.

Policy of envy:  Our country is envious of those who succeed.  Well more precisely, those who made it big here in the United States.  This comes in the form of progressive income taxes where we tax richer people at a higher rate rather than the same rate.  Now if you do the math, people taxed at the same rate all pay different amounts, with richer individuals paying more than their less economically well off counterparts.  But they pay taxes at higher rates because they are being punished for their success.  

Another example I see is the gift and death taxes.  If you give a certain amount of money to an individual then the person you're giving the money to is taxed.  If you inherit a certain amount of wealth in the form of income or property you again are taxed.  The reason is because people are annoyed at instant millionaires due to someone's dad or grandad giving their money away to their heirs.  It is jealousy.  It is not our business, but yet we made it our business to be jealous and envious of these people who simply get lucky.

Conclusion:  I do not know about you, but this seems wrong.  It seems that it is people being envious of others and therefore want to bring these well off people down a notch.  Needless to say I think it is wrong.  So see if you see it my way, or if you don't agree with me, at least I made you think (I hope) for it could be you that is a victim of the people's envy.

Issue 710 Population control 101 October 29, 2015

So what are the reasons people want population control and what methods are available to carry out such a task. That is what I will be discussing today.

Reasons for population control:  There are a few reasons for population control.  One of the first is due to natural resources.  A country or a planet has a certain amount of resources that are accessible to a population at any given time due to technology.  Governments are faced with the issue of insuring their populations remain small enough so that they do not outgrow the resources available or else famines, and starvation can occur (this is also a reason for conducting war).  This same reasoning is applied to things like climate change with us humans being the cause.  That if there were less of us, the climate would not be so messed up.  Basically it is all about preserving resources or the environment.  However, the other reason may be to get rid of undesirables.  In this case people of various races, ethnicities, religions, etc. may be subject to population control measures due to discrimination.

Methods:  Methods abound, the simplest one is immigration.  By not letting certain peoples into a country where they may thrive, it is possible to keep them in an unhealthy environment and thus limit how long they will live out their lives.  Or at the very least not strain the country's resources. Marriage and breeding laws.  It is possible to breed out certain segments of the population by promoting ideas of racial purity or similar, or even forcing people to get permission to have children.  Sterilization and government enforced contraceptives are another method.  It actually has been talked about in the U.S. to introduce a sterilizing agent into the water supply by radical environmentalists.  Abortion is another with respect to those who do not have permission to have children, or the advocating of pregnancy as a disease which Margaret Sanger once did as a means to eliminate Black Americans in her plan for voluntary genocide.  Even selective breeding and arranged marriages can be used as another means.  Of course execution/murder is yet another method where the most obvious targets would be criminals, or small minority groups like the mentally disabled (people who again drain resources or are undesirable).  Even willful neglect of the sick or infirm are potential methods. All methods work, but a careful propaganda campaign will be needed to make it all socially palatable.

Conclusion:  Obviously I do not believe in population control.  Not even a little bit as I would rather the inevitable famine and starvation than committing the act of murder.  However people really do advocate and do these things.  China being one of them with their one child policy (now experimenting with two children) and their forced sterilization of women and execution of criminals.  Hitler of course did the racial purity garbage, and he unfortunately was not alone as he got the ideas from Americans who believed in the Eugenics movement.  So why am I telling you about this?  Simple, in order to never allow this to occur again, you must be given all the knowledge of how atrocities are carried out.  You must see humanity's ugliness to prevent us all from becoming a menace.

Issue 709 False Freedom Advocate October 28, 2015

A false freedom advocate is a person(s) who preach about giving and preserving people's freedoms, while at the same time taking them away when it suits their purposes.  Let us discuss.

False Freedom Advocate:  I have met and heard from a number of people who claimed to be lovers of freedom.  They have labeled themselves as liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans.  All, however were hypocrites.  For example, I was discussing zoning laws with two real estate sellers at the Manhattan Institute. They complained about a man in Texas who built his house out of cans and bottles of beer, thus lowering the property values in the area including the ones that these real estate people wanted to sell.  As such, they wanted to use eminent domain to have the government seize the house and kick the man and his beer house off the property.  I disagreed for it was the man's property and thus his right to live on that property as he chose.  Their reaction was a look filled with disgust, and walked away.  Meanwhile, the event I was at was an event to hear conservative ideas as the Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank.  So how can you let two people in who go counter to conservative values like that?  My answer came later when a guest speaker from the Security and Exchange commission was talking about his time working for the federal government.  He described how the commission punished a business who decided to stop producing napalm (an incendiary weapon used in war) during the Vietnam War.  The company chose to stop making it for reasons I do not know, and it was there choice, but the government did not like that.  The crowd with me listening to this were not aghast at the punishment, but to the fact that a business could be unpatriotic to stop making a weapon of war that also messed with the economy a little.  That is when I knew that self-interest and patriotic idealism ran that think tank.  Thus why they are a false freedom advocate.

Then there are those who claim to be liberal.  We heard it all before with them wanting to protect us and stop poverty.  They want to provide universal medicine. But do any of their policies actually work?  No.  If they truly wanted to help the poor they would have embraced true economic freedom via the elimination of trade boundaries between States, and the lowering of taxes or making taxes fair by not punishing those who make a little more.  They would use economics to spur businesses to grow which increases jobs rather than dependency.  Sure, not all of them are being a false freedom advocate as they really believe in what they are saying, but if you do not embrace economic freedom, then how do you expect me to have true social freedom?  Ah, that's right, it is not true social freedom they preach.  If you violate their rules such as smoking, or you are pro-life, you are shut down.  Isolated by idealists who value the collective over the individual.  Both sides know that poverty will always exist, and that progressive income taxes only incentives the people to make less so that they are not taxed more.  All that is ignored for their version of the greater good.  Their idealism.

Conclusion:  The world is full of advocates who think they know what is right.  They can all claim that they want to help, and that they only want to maximize your freedom.  However, save the obviously wrongful acts like Murder, assault, rape, and theft, should there be any laws? Do we need all that government who can take our rights away when it suits them?  Do we need people in government that seek to help but only make more laws that restrict our freedoms?  The answer is no.  Government was never meant to be used as a tool to remove people from their homes, to punish them for their successes.  It was meant to be applied to sponsor trade, and protect us from invasion.  It protects us from the obviously wrongful acts and acts as a neutral arbitrator in the form of a court of law.  It is meant to do so few jobs, yet people's selfishness made it grandiose.  We made it big and shoved freedom down the toilet.  Sorry, but if you think government should do something for you, then you may be a hypocrite.  A false freedom advocate.

Issue 708 Trump Immigration plan: part 6 October 27, 2015

Finally the last one.  I can finally stop talking about Donald Trump for a while.  So let me hurry up and critique his plan.

Refugee program for American Children:  Trump wants to increase the standards of admission of refugees and asylum seekers.  He sees the system as abused and thus wants to fix it, while at the same time saving money because let's face it, refugees and asylum seekers bypass the normal channels to come into the country and they may be ill equipped to fend for themselves.  The saved money would be used to place American kids in safer homes and communities while also improving the safety of high crime neighborhoods.  Now I am in favor of what he is trying to do with this, but their of course is a problem.  Crime in a neighborhood is in part a cultural as well as an economic problem that is compounded by issues due to the drug war.  So unless he intends to do something about the drug war and other matters the improving of high crime neighborhoods is pointless.  Also, both the adoption and placement of kids, along with tending to local communities is not a Federal issue despite how nice it may look on paper.  Reason being is that adoption and such are almost exclusively State issues.  So I fail to see how well this will work, and it comes off as a wishy washy give me your vote’s gimmick.  But the Stricter standards for asylum and refugees works.

Immigration moderation:  Trump wants a pause to occur. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers to work in the United States, he would have the businesses of America hire from unemployed U.S. citizens, and legal residents so as to increase American employment.  Basically, no foreign workers will be allowed in for a set period of time so as to force businesses to choose from workers here in the United States.  This is how I am hoping it would occur.  The reason being is that the only alternative would be to force businesses by law to hire U.S. citizens and approved foreign nationals allowed to live in the United States.  Basically, if it is the latter, then we are evoking fascistic principles and potentially racial, ethnic and nationalist racism at that.

Conclusion:  Ok, so if you take these final parts of Trump's plan with the others I have already talked about, you get some good ideas, like raising the minimum wage of approved foreign workers so that they do not compete with lower skilled U.S. workers, and the refugee/asylum standards increase.  However, I see a lot of fluff and of course the potential unconstitutional consequences of altering the 14th Amendment, and the potential part of forcing U.S. businesses to hire people via law as opposed to the freedom of contract protected in the U.S. Constitution.  I thus cannot endorse Trump, not that I particularly think he is the right man for the job (so I am a little biased), as I prefer a different candidate who will not violate the Constitution.