Trump policy's:feasibility

We have all been questioning the feasibility of some of Donald Trump's plans/promises.  Primarily the having Mexico build the American version of the Great wall of China, mass deportation of illegal migrants and a ban on Muslims coming into the United States.  (My analysis is based on Bill O'reilly's comments on the "O'reilly Factor").  

The American wall:  Trump intends to have Mexico pay by holding hostage money going to and from America to Mexico.  To do this Trump will block remittances by legals and non-legals alike in exchange for a lump sum of money.  Remittances are money transfers from people in one country (usually a family member) to another.  As such, Trump will try to enforce the near impossible by stopping the transfer of money from Mexicans and other ethnic South American peoples from the United States to their families over the border.  The reason why this is neigh impossible is because the Federal Government cannot monitor every money transfer at every Western Union or similar to block it if the account the money being transferred to is in a South American country.  It is like the NSA trying to listen in on everyone's phone calls, it will melt the computers.  So this is an empty threat to say the least, and even if this could be accomplished, banks and other internet based money transfer systems exist or will come into existence that can work around this.

Mass Deportation:  This is never going to happen.  The reason being is that the Supreme Court has stipulated that each and every illegal is entitled to a hearing.  As such, with over 11 million illegals in this country (including non-South American peoples) it will take a very long time.  According to news commentator and Judge, Judge Andrew Napolitano, it would take 40 years to provide hearings to all these illegals and that is assuming no other illegals come in.

Muslim Ban: This is also never going to happen.  It is impossible to ban a specific ethnic and religious group under our discrimination laws.  As such any action of this nature will be blocked by the courts.

Conclusion:  Trump will not be able to pass any of these.  It is impossible due to the courts and due to enforcement.  Tomorrow we will look at Bernie Sander's, so see you then.

Making Universal Health care work!? part 3

In part three we look into the final steps to making the universal health system work.  Here we go.

Step 6 is making nurses do nearly everything.  Basically where a diagnosis is not needed the nurses will do the job.  They could be physical therapists, act as nutritionists, medical lab testers in addition to taking blood, checking blood pressure and the like.  Basically they could do the basics that do not require a doctor and can be taught in certification classes without the need for college.  For instance, all nurses will know first aid and how to do what nurses do, but they too can go into specializations like the aforementioned physical therapist and can even act like an MRI technician in the same way I have seen some trained to do x-rays so long as it only takes a certification class to become proficient.  Other times if the computer can diagnose, such as through disease testing kits and similar, the nurse can use that tests diagnosis and even recommended treatments via reference materials to provide the patients with what they need for treatment.   This means that doctors will only be required for when things are above a simple diagnosis that nurses could provide.  Additionally doctors will be focused at this point on more specialized fields like performing operations or similar like neurosurgery.  (Note: Can be done in our current healthcare system to reduce costs)

Step 7 revolves around technology.  It basically revolves around self-diagnosis technology similar to what WebMD has, but is improved further so as to supplement doctors thanks to an up and coming technology.  The people who organize X-prize sought to create the tricorder and it's already in testing for market use.  For those who don't know, the tricorder is a self-diagnosis tool, and our cell phones will be the center of this new technology.  Basically by downloading an app our cell phones, possibly with a hardware device plugged in via a USB cable, will allow us to monitor our health each day or weekly by testing our stress level, blood pressure, vision, hearing amongst others.  From there based on these readouts, and a series of questions which according to what I have seen on the news and read ("Beyond Tomorrow" documentary, Fox news, economist, X-prize website) will be able to diagnose you if you have any illnesses.  It will even recommend a blood test which can be linked by wireless systems (probably an altered sugar testing kit that diabetics use or similar) that comes as part of the kit or is bought every time you need one to diagnoses diseases beyond the scope of simple monitoring.  It can then tell you to see a doctor or not.  Adding to that the app stores your data so that you can send updates to your doctor on your health or the doctor can use the app as a tool to aid in diagnosis when a person goes to the doctor.  Essentially it allows your medical records to travel with you.  Similarly, things like sonograms and other diagnostic and health monitors can be integrated into smartphones that the doctor can use to figure out what is wrong with their patients and thus provide treatment. (Note: Can be done in our current healthcare system to reduce costs)

Step 8 is the final step.  Here determines what actually should be covered and what should not once steps 1 through 7 are achieved.  The government will have to decide if basic treatment should be covered by a universal health system or just catastrophic care leaving all other cheap and expensive treatments to the people and to health insurance.  I personally think that if universal health is implemented after all this it should focus exclusively on catastrophic care like people in comas and cancer treatments.  Reason being is that these are the main drain on our health industry with respect to hospitals and treatments.  Likewise taking care of the disabled will also factor which is already provided for in part due to Social Security and Medicare.  We can all afford cheap antibiotics and even Percocets' generic with just 30 pills which is $30 tops (I work in a pharmacy remember) not to mention most people don't use health care between the ages of 15 to 50 as they are healthy and thus rarely need to see a doctor.  So many of these drugs are affordable to an extent and that means with other changes all other treatments can be just as cheap too.

Conclusion to part 3:  All together, Steps 3 through 7 (See part 1 and 2 for the details) can be used on our current system to reduce medical costs.  Steps 1,2 and 8 are concerned with universal health care as a whole so as to reduce costs to the overall universal health system for even if we make these changes catastrophic care is the biggest drain on our health system and thus research into curing the worst diseases like cancer becomes all that much more important.  Remember, Medicare, Medicaid, and other forms of socialized medicine will disappear into this system so it will primarily be used to take care of the patients who will be needing health care the most, our seniors who have a higher risk of catastrophic health care events.  As such, the system will never be perfect, but depending on how it is done we may be able to make it work (and that is if it treats catastrophic care only).  I have my doubts though.

Making Universal Health care work!? part 2

Welcome to part two of this little thought experiment.  Yes yesterday's issue was long, but hopefully today's will not be as labor intensive.  Let us start.

Step 3 of making the universal health care system work would mean reducing the amount of things that can be considered a health care profession.  This means things like masseuses, yoga instructors and similar cannot be considered medical professionals.  Even if the techniques they know can be integrated into therapies, the professionals that know them are too specialized in general for them to be worth covering in my opinion and also the universal health care system does not allow for innovation or change which may allow alternate cheaper forms of these techniques like for example the 15 minute street massages that are gaining more popularity.  As such, wherever possible the government should reject any and all professions as much as possible from becoming considered health professions as they will increase costs and thus limit access to these techniques.  At the same time, techniques specific to health care/physical therapy and recovery minus any religious or spiritual aspects (indicative to yoga and tai chi) will be taught to nurses in specialized classes in the same way they are thought to be phlebotomists (people who draw blood) or to administer first aid.  The reason for this is to provide patients with an alternative to getting these therapies once they are discharged by government run hospitals and doctors’ offices or the universal health care system refusing to pay for further treatment.  Having a nurse or doctor perform such techniques let alone treat patients is expensive for the government which is why they will only use it when required to treat the patient.  Taking into consideration the costs to the government and their want to discharge and stop treatment at the first available opportunity it is necessary to provide a non-medical alternative to getting the same treatment on the cheap, especially if the patient is seeking more than just physical treatment, like spiritual health which is sometimes provided by massage and yoga instructors amongst others. (Note:  This can also be done in our current healthcare system to keep costs down).

Step 4 is the legalization of as many pharmaceutical drugs as possible.  In this instance psych drugs and addictive drugs will be restricted to prescription only, and even then some addictive drugs will be able to be OTC's but the age and how much can be sold at any given time will be limited in the same way they do to pseudoephedrine products now which with other ingredients can be turned into meth.  So things like codeine products would be sold behind the register.  Otherwise antibiotics, non-addictive pain relievers, topical burn creams, acne treatments, and others will be over the counter medications unless the side effects are so potentially debilitating or dangerous that they must be provided with a prescription.  Claravis and its sister products come to mind which is to treat acne, but the potential side effect is depression to the point of suicide and birth defects resulting in a test by the patient and questions needing to be answered by the doctor each month just for the drug to be dispensed.  As such, pharmacists will still be needed, but they will be at an info desk to talk to patients and recommend which antibiotics or other products to take to treat what ails the patient based on what a doctor says they have or, if trained to, their own diagnosis of the patient.  Some may be wondering why legalize all these drugs without a prescription in the first place?  Let us use Flonase as an example.  This allergy nasal spray without insurance prior to becoming an OTC was $200 plus dollars, but now that it is an OTC, the cost for the brand is at most $26.  That cost difference is due to the regulatory requirements imposed by the FDA amongst other factors.  Same medication, just as safe to take as it was when it was prescription only.  Likewise, with the change in curriculum mentioned in step one people will have an idea of what to take and when, which saves money by not needing to go to the doctor in the first place.  (Note: This can also be done in our current healthcare system to keep costs down).

Step 5 deals with illegal drugs.  Right now illegal drugs are not allowed to be used to create or be used in experiments to create drugs or even alternative therapies.  This would need to be changed so that more potential treatments can be found.  Also, as many illegal drugs as possible will also be made legally available via the pharmacy or similar.  As such marijuana and similar would be able to be monitored sales wise and even who is taking it to ensure proper medical treatment can be administered.  More serious hard drugs will be in specialized dispensaries run by the government, but the people addicted will have to pay for their drugs to get them as they will be considered over the counter medications, but if they overdose (as they will only be allowed to ingest/inject the drugs there on site), the treatment for saving them in the mini hospital in the back will be free.  The idea here is to monitor these long time patients and new patients so as to gain a better understanding of addiction, keep these people from buying from dealers on the street, protect the addicted person's children by not allowing them to see their parents do drugs and overall provide help to get off these addictive drugs when the person asks/is ready for it. (Note: This can also be done in our current healthcare system to keep costs down).

Conclusion to part 2:  So step 3 is to keep costs down while allowing for alternatives to medical treatments when the doctors and or universal health system no longer wishes to pay for therapies.  In step 4 we eliminate as many prescription drugs as possible by making them OTC or a restricted product like alcohol so as to reduce costs due to regulations, while step 5 ends the drug war allowing for the money used to stop illegal drugs to instead be used to look into new medical treatments and get a better understanding of addition so that we get these poor people out of the shadows and the prisons to give them the health care they deserve.

Making Universal Health Care work?!

Ok, yes I am a libertarian, but I am also curios about how things work and what it would take to make things work.  As such I am willing to learn and try to see if Universal health care can truly be successful in some way shape or form. So here it goes in part 1 of how to make this universal health system work.

Step 1.  Like most changes in society, education will actually be the first thing to change to make universal health care work.  It would require that 13 year olds through 18 year olds go through a health class each and every year (just like English, social studies and math/science classes) that teaches them how to take care of themselves.  As such, the class will deal with biology of the human body with respect to diet, and exercise.  Students will learn about the skeleton, muscles and the digestive system along with our circulatory system to know how to test and cultivate their bodies into the shape and condition they want.  As the course progresses from year to year students will learn meditation and relaxation techniques to reduce stress, improve sleep and deal with societal pressures which all hinder health as we age.  They will learn stretching, and similar techniques as well to retain a nimble and flexible body including proper ways to pick up heavy objects and proper posture. Also included will be training on knowing what foods are healthy in general, when to eat certain foods and overall once they complete this course they will come out knowing everything a nutritionist does.  Likewise these students will have the knowledge and expertise to be physical fitness trainers, yoga instructors and even physical therapists (and maybe even a masseuse).  Additionally, students will learn all about medications and diseases. So they will know when to take what medication if they believe as a last resort that they will need it, and even be able to self-diagnose themselves with respect to simple conditions.  Basically they will be able to ascertain if they need to go to the doctor or not.  This all culminates into a high school graduate that knows all the basics of a doctor and even a pharmacist.

Step 2.  While schools implement step one, step two will be altering the community colleges to provide schooling for students to become a doctor, a nurse, or any other medical professional.  By focusing on this cheaper alternative to private colleges these community colleges (whether free or otherwise) we can increase the supply of doctor’s thus decreasing demand for them and therefore the costs to see them (price to see a doctor is based on supply and demand just like regular goods and services).  However, this alone will not be enough.  The curriculum will be altered as well where all classes/subjects that Medical professionals share in common will be taken together.  So human anatomy, biology and the like will be taken by people in all these disciplines, but in such a way that it reduces the time needed in school without sacrificing the quality of our health care professionals.  These soon to be medical professionals only begin to branch off into specialties later on such as neuro surgeon or pharmacist.  But costs will still need to be saved somehow for this to work, and technology will have the answer for that. 

Online learning will take the place of most of the lectures and reading that is due.  Basically if it can be learned online, then it will be done online so as to save facility costs and also increase access by students to materials the college offers (libraries can also supplement these colleges as access points for people who lack the means to acquire a computer with an internet connection so that they too can take these online classes).  So things like lectures, readings, workbooks, homework, and even quizzes and tests will all be done online so as to limit the costs while improving overall efficiency of the college to impart knowledge.  Once the core classes are done, including classroom time where required, and students shift into their specialties then they will take a series of other online courses in their area of future expertise before they enter the classroom where it will be hands on learning as the college will double as a hospital and medical research laboratory (money for costs must be maximized for this system to really work so combining them into one makes sense).  Additionally, at any time students can take tests to show proficiency in a subject which will allow them to bypass basic classes as they already have the knowledge and expertise needed, again saving the student time and the college money.

The active hospitals on campus allows for students to gain hands on learning experiences while other government funded hospitals will supplement the community colleges when room is an issue to ensure all students can continue with their education.  Private hospitals will rent these students (again to lessen the costs on taxpayers) to supplement their staff with the promise to train students in hands on roles within the hospital themselves including management which they will use to seek to improve the efficiency of their own future health care offices and hospitals they may work in. 

As to the medical laboratory, these community colleges will also conduct research at the behest of drug companies possibly including testing.   These community college medical testing facilities can even double as FDA testing sites so that the students research once completed can immediately go to market to be used to help treat patients (so a portion of the FDA's budget will end up here which again reducing the overall costs).  The drug companies will essentially pay the hospital to perform research and development while the students get hands on skills in medical and drug testing.  Our goal here is to reduce the costs on taxpayers again by drug companies paying our future doctors, and pharmacists to do the work for them to develop drugs and treatments which in turn hopefully will reduce the costs of drugs/treatments as a whole.   Additionally, advertising space will be allowed on campus so that private companies would end up supplementing the government's costs and even further by having corporate sponsored classrooms, research rooms and hospital rooms.

Conclusion to part 1:  Step one focuses on decreasing healthcare costs by addressing the problems with people going to the doctor's office more often thinking that seeing a doctor is free and thus can be abused.  It also plays into the ability to provide preventive medicine by teaching people early on how to prevent diseases and even treat themselves.  Step two provides for cheaper health care by teaching future health professionals in such a way that they spend less time in school and more time actually learning to treat patients.  Additionally, other health professionals can cross train so as to provide multiple health services via this system with for example pharmacists being able to diagnose diseases as well and potentially writing prescriptions or recommending over the counter medications for antibiotics and pain relievers.  This will be the primary steps that will need to be taken to make the universal health care system work.

Trouble with Universal Healthcare

I believe I have talked about this in the past, but it is an important topic to know especially as so many people seem to want universal health care here in the States (Sanders and Clinton supporters among other Democrats).  So what is the weakness of this system?  Let’s discuss.

1) The primary weakness to this system is that in order for it to work, the government needs to decide what cures/treatments will be provided.  In this instance, the government takes on the same role as an insurance company where they decide what is the cheapest, yet most effective, treatments for an illness or a condition.  For example, if a person has cancer, the government may only cover under this system; operations to remove the cancer or placing a radioactive isotope near the tumor to slowly kill the cancer if it is too dangerous to operate on a patient.  Other treatments like Chemotherapy, and others may receive partial payment or none at all due to them not being as cost effective for the government.  They do this because the government has to meet a budget requirement that is created each year by politicians.  Likewise, private insurance companies do the same thing, but they only have to cover a smaller group of individuals which also allows for more things to be covered or partially covered.  Basically, a smaller budgetary requirement as compared to government who has to now treat millions of people.  

2) Another weakness of this system is that when deciding what treatments, the government also looks at the potential success and failure rate of those treatments for each person depending on age, and other factors.  As such, if the government thinks you will simply die regardless of treatment after a few days or even months, then they may refuse to pay for your treatment.  This has been the case with Baby Mathew, (this happened a few years ago and was covered by Fox News) a child born in Canada with an impossible to treat disease. The parents already had lost one child to the condition Mathew had, but wanted to still fight to save their child.  The Canadian government however refused treatment as they saw the case was hopeless and that the child would die regardless. As such, the parents took their child to the United States, paid for the child's treatment granting the child another three months of life before the disease killed Mathew.  Basically, the treatment allowed the parents more time to say goodbye to their child, something the Universal health system in Canada does not care about.

Conclusion:  Both the first and second weakness is what amounts to rationing in a universal health care system.  It is also the reason why in Europe that private health insurance companies still exist, but they only help pay for what the government does not cover and only at a premium as only the rich can afford health insurance as it covers only the most expensive treatments.  As such, the government has to take drastic measures to keep costs down as people, thinking that healthcare is free (they pay upwards of 50% to 75% of their income for this system in European countries) are more likely to go visit a doctor which in turn increases costs further as they visit for the smallest of cuts and curable conditions.  Basically they waste the doctor's time and thus the government's money which pays for the visit.  So is there a way to make the Universal health system work while keeping costs down?  In the next few issues I will look at exactly that. 

Carson's CDC Special teams

 Ben Carson former Presidential Candidate and retired Neurosurgeon suggested that the CDC should create special teams to deal with potential infectious diseases.  A concept that I am very interested in.  But what would it entail?  

In this case the CDC would do more than just monitor diseases, and instead take an active role in the fight (assuming they don't already do).  I am guessing, as details were not given on the subject by Carson, that the CDC would have teams that study where each disease comes from, how it contaminates people and at the first sign of its encroachment on the United States will have the team go out and lock down all people exposed.  Then they would have the power probably to lock down travel and use the National Guard to help in case the outbreak gets out of hand.   Other members of the team would go to the diseases country of origin (and others potentially infected and attempt to eradicate the source of infection before it gets to pandemic levels by eliminating carrier animals like mosquitos, or to inoculate people around the infected and provide proper isolation and decontamination procedures (even posing as magicians for those indigenous people who reject science and view diseases as demons or cursus).  Basically they could wipe out a contagious/infectious disease potentially at the very first sign of it infecting someone.

Conclusion:  This idea is worth investigating further as this is something that other countries could copy and support.  Also, it provides a means to study diseases up close in their environment of origin and to hopefully make these deadly diseases as non-life threatening as the common cold.  As to how much a role other agencies like the National Guard and the army will take (they have a system in place to prevent a pandemic) remains to be seen if this idea goes forward. 

Dealing with Islamic Sharia Terrorists

So ISIS/ISIL has claimed responsibility for a number of terror attacks including the Brussels attack.  Now there are calls for racial, religious and ethnic profiling.  Some say this is a bad thing. While others say we got no choice.  But I have a slightly different view.

Now I agree that profiling must be done.  I want ethnic, racial, religious and even ideological profiling, but these should be the final filter after profiling people by other means.  In other words, profile people based on spending habits, is what they buy something that is or can be used to make a weapon?  If they go out of country, is that country a supporter of terrorism?  See who buys that one way trip, and how much luggage they are carrying.  See how they dress, is it something that can conceal a weapon or a bomb?  Is that person or persons acting more nervous than normal?  After answering these questions and more, then you look into Race, religion, ethnicity and ideological views to be the final lenses if all else fails, or they should be included with the others if the criminal activity is carried out in an area where the population is the majority of a particular race, religion, ethnicity and ideology.  But this will not give anyone the right to harass anyone.  Instead it will be a means to provide for further scrutiny of a selected group if said group has people who wish to harm others hiding amongst their number.  Basically, you want to filter out as much of the people who are least likely to be your suspect or even potential terrorist, and focus on the most likely candidates.  At this point an active monitoring system of patrols and espionage should take place where phones are tapped to see if people in the area are calling people in terrorist hot spots, or are receiving calls from people who are suspected terrorists.  If so, then you set up surveillance, and other means of tracking to see if it goes anywhere, if not then you just proved a person's innocence, if it does go somewhere, you just got a lead on a potential terrorist network which can be tracked and then removed before they act.  At no time does racial, ethnic, religious or ideological profiling act alone and at no time does it justify harassment. 

Conclusion:  Now this is if and only if all other profiling methods are done at the same time, and if it is used to prove the innocence of someone.  At no time is the suspect(s) approached or accosted by police unless it is absolutely necessary (if the police have reason for suspicion, but not probable cause, and they need to spook the suspect).  Basically, no one touches or even interacts with the suspect(s) save in extreme circumstances and if they are going to arrest them.  Now this brings up questions about a surveillance State, but that is what laws are for which dictates when, where, how and why the "who" is being surveilled.  So profiling is not bad unless it is used to do bad things like Internment camps as done under President Woodrow Wilson and President FDR or concentration camps or genocide like in Nazi Germany and Rwanda.  Also, it is not bad as long as people of a community know that the police are on their side and not out to harass or to "get them".  I think you get my position as I stand in the middle road between both sides of the argument.