Stupid Voters Not, Uninformed Voters Yes

Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist, has received a lot of bad press lately for speaking his mind so freely about our collective knowledge level and subsequent gullibility, which he claimed could be leveraged to make and pass the demonstratively proven poor piece of Federal legislation known as Obamacare (AKA the Affordable Care Act [ACA]).  We should actually thank and praise him for his honesty.

Why do we not value his honesty?  Maybe because it is so offensive?  I hope not.  I hope the contempt we hold is because he made his proclamations behind our backs versus in an open forum. More importantly, we should hold contempt for all those whom embraced his language and did not bring to the fore his observations because if they did then people would have not lost their health insurance, rates may have not continued to increase greater than the rate of inflation, etc....

We are not stupid, just uninformed due to a multitude of reasons, some of which I have written about in the past.  While it is our responsibility to be knowledgeable, we are not omniscient.  We must trust and rely on those whom we charge to act on our behalf.  Trading on that trust for short term gain is what is most offensive about this sordid mess.

I encourage us all to become more involved so we do a better job of electing those that represent us whether in local, state or federal government.

No Go For Glo

No surprise, Corrine Brown soundly wins another term in Congress. As I expected she handily beat Glo Smith, her Republican challenger. Ms. Brown received 66% of the vote while Mrs. Smith received the remainder.  

These results line up with what my research predicted four years ago. As I noted then and still believe today, approximately 20% of the voters were undecided, but these voters lived in the inner city. I found that these voters want someone they can trust to help them improve their lives. While Ms. Brown is not the best, she is someone they know.

I still believe Ms. Brown is beatable, even in one of the most Gerrymander districts in the nation today.  Sadly no one has taken me up on my offer to help.

Unpack The Tent! - At least for now

We wake to find that the Republican tent has been unpack and spread open for all to come in.  Their victories yesterday say more about the Democrats' failings rather than the Republican successes.

One thing the Republicans did do correctly was avoid shooting themselves in the foot this time around.  Joe Biden could learn a thing or two from them after his ill-timed comments pertaining to the Kansas senatorial election yesterday; he should have waited a day. Secondly, last night's victories should give some hope to the Republicans that they can cross racial lines and overcome perceived misogynist positions with the elections of Tim Scott in South Carolina, Mia Love in Utah and Joni Ernst in Iowa.

For these successes to continue and not be one-offs then I believe the Republicans need to focus on the basics, such as improving the economy, shrinking government and most importantly, enabling and helping people take responsibility for their own success.  If they do then it is possible that I was mistaken two years ago when I suggested we help them pack the tent.  However, I still have reason to believe that I am correct for the following reason: People do not involve themselves much in the political process, which leaves a void that is subsequently filled by well-funded interests that do not necessarily align with the founding fathers' principles.

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 10 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my tenth post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here and then reading each successive post until you arrive at this one.  Please note that interspersed between these successive posts are posts on distinctly different issues.

The following portion of the letter explains why I distributed my letter via the USPS:

Obviously, I value freedom of choice, but I readily acknowledge that requires personal responsibility on my part.  I think most Americans value freedom, but sadly fail to know that personal responsibility is also required. As anecdotal evidence, very few people actively participate in our elected government and if they do, it is to invest just an hour or so of their time on the first Tuesday in November on alternating years.

Thomas Jefferson once stated, “We do not have a government of the majority, we have a government of the majority that participate.” Those that participate are the well-heeled interests that call upon you daily, which leaves me to wonder, who did you help if your vote for ACA failed to achieve the publicly stated objectives? I am left to believe as I suspect millions more Americans believe that those helped were the well-heeled special interests.

As anecdotal evidence, I write this personal letter because I cannot send some members of Congress, such as Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Durbin and possibly many others, an email for the simple reason I live outside their state/district.  Yet, I have high confidence that these same representatives do not block emails from lobbyists and sizeable campaign donors that live outside their state/district.

OxFam recently published a study that highlights the income disparity between the poor and wealthy and stated the cause of this effect was that wealthy interests had greater access to those in government.  It does not matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. It is extremely hard not to be influenced by special interests because they actively participate much more so than individual citizens to help you and others in Washington to win elections. We are as much to blame for this mess as you.

Glo May Not Go

On August 26 Florida held its primary elections. Glo Smith, who seeks to represent me and others in Florida's Fifth Congressional District, won the Republican primary with 10,968 votes (or 63% of total).  The Democratic incumbent, Corrine Brown, did not have an opponent.

Even though Mrs. Glo Smith won, sadly I believe she is a no go to the U.S. House of Representatives come next January for the following reasons:

1. The turn out this year was less than when Mr. Yost won the Republican primary four years ago, which does not bode well and documented here;
2. Similar to Mr. Yost, Mrs. Smith does not address the core issues in the district and when she does her views are not that substantive to arouse the swing vote, which I address here; and
3. Lastly, I do not think she has worked hard, which she needs to do to unseat Ms. Brown.

In reference to the last point, I reached out months ago to share my thoughts and offered assistance based on my experience.  Mrs. Smith never returned my call.  She may not have valued my thoughts, but why not at least engage me to ask for a donation or even to volunteer?  A campaign can never have too much money nor too many volunteers based on my limited experience.  I expect this oversight on her part to doom her. Lastly, I think voters (on both sides of the aisle) will view her as they viewed Jennifer Carroll when she ran against Corrine Brown.

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 9 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my ninth post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here and then reading each successive post until you arrive at this one.

The following portion of the letter asks the reader questions to help lead them to conclude that they benefit from the economic principles I just described:

You Currently Benefit From These Economic Concepts

You may not know it or if you do, you may not openly acknowledge it, but you benefit from these concepts.  For instance, take your mobile phone, your tablet, your automobile even your under garments, you do not have just three types available, a bronze, silver or gold version for each; there are multitudes.  If you had only three types that were highly regulated do you think the products would be as functional at the price you acquired any of them?  I would argue not. Then why are there three types of insurance plans? Why do we need health insurance for routine check ups?  Do we use our car insurance for an oil change or homeowners insurance to replace our stove? Yet we expect our health insurance to do the equivalent of that. Insurance is a tool to transfer risk; it should be based on personal preference and tailored like under garments to meet personal demands. 

Let's Focus On Providing A Solution

Are you tired of hearing about what's wrong with black/white relations?  Are you tired of hearing about what's wrong with the democrats and republicans? I am.

I ask because:

1. Last night I hear on Mark Levin's radio show about the purported racism that supposedly led to a Liberian man's death in Dallas, TX from Ebola virus;
2. I wake to read a headline that a white policeman shoots and kills another black man in St. Louis; and
3. I was told during lunch of a political satire by Jon Stewart that poked fun at Republicans as it pertained to Ebola and obesity. 

I am frustrated from all of this because these types of discussions help perpetuate the division amongst us.  Frankly, we have too many issues that requires us to work together not against each other.

Instead of blaming racism as a contributor to the Liberian's death, how about we use it as an opportunity to promote honesty as the best policy.  Just think, if the man were truthful and instead of telling lies then he may have received treatment sooner, whether in America or in Africa, that may have led to saving his life. We will never know.  Sadly for the man, he will not know.  Could the hospital done more?  Sure, but the man should have been truthful and that is what we need to focus on because his lies caused a chain of events that led to one sad and tragic death and possibly could lead to others.

Instead of stating the color of the off-duty police officer and the man killed, how about simply stating that an off-duty police officer kills a teenager in St. Louis?  Again, racism is the central issue as promoted by this particular news organization.  Surely, racism cannot be the sole issue, the predominate issue or even an issue at all.  Purportedly, the youth shot and killed initially ran immediately upon seeing the officer.  If true then why did he run?  Some would say the police are not trustful.  However, if running does not arouse suspension in an officer then I doubt a blinking neon light would either. Is the policeman's duty to ignore such behavior or follow up on leads (such as this blinking neon light) that may indicate that a crime has been committed?  If he suspects that a crime has been committed then he must followup on that.  If not, then I believe he would be derelict in his duty.  Do we want our police officers running away from crime?  I do not.  However, does the officer need to shoot 17 times as it has been purported? Of course not.  The question then becomes who is at fault, which most likely can be answered after a thorough investigation, but this sad incident is not strictly about race.  This incident is more encompassing.  It starts with decision making based on values and should lead us to talking about how to help people (especially young men and especially those living in the inner city) from getting involved in crime vs. whether a person is black, white, yellow, green or any color.

Lastly, neither republicans or democrats are saints, but we need to encourage them to work together, to find something no matter how small on which they can agree.  From there, we help them build upon this collaboration to work on greater problems - because we have a lot.  The biggest is an anemic economy followed by declining wages with increased household debt, followed by the break down of the family, etc….

We need a better leader because I blame our President for the current divisiveness in our society.  He sets the tone.  The republicans may be a thorn in his side, but if he-were-truly-a-leader-then-he-could-overcome-their-objections and or vice versa.  He needs to lead us all, not just his base; however, we cannot control our President.  Fortunately though, we can control ourselves.

Do you want a better life, not just for yourself and your immediate love ones, but everybody?  I do.  If yes then let's work together. Let's find common ground, even if it is a size of a postage stamp.  We should base our decisions on natural law (the first one being that for every cause there is an effect).  I encourage us to tell the truth, first to ourself and then others.  I encourage us take responsibility for our successes as well as our failures.  I encourage us to do what is right even if it is hard.  Essentially, I am encouraging us to follow the Scout Law, which states that a scout is:

Trustworthy, 

Loyal,

Helpful,

Friendly,

Courteous,

Kind,

Obedient,

Cheerful,

Thrifty,

Brave,

Clean,

and Reverent.

You may snicker at it, but would not the world be a better place if followed more often than not?

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 8 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my eighth post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here and then reading each successive post until you arrive at this one.

The following portion of the letter provides high level suggestions on how to improve our healthcare based on sound economic principles:

Economics 101 Can Provide a Guide For a New Solution

Since the primary goal is make healthcare affordable, we want to move the supply curve to the right and/or the demand curve left, which will lead to lower prices (P_new) and more coverage (Q_new), as shown to the right. 

The supply curve can move to the right by the following means:

1.  Remove regulations – regulations add cost because people (who do not work for free) are needed at both the organization and with a government agency to ensure that the regulations are followed;
2. Enable process innovation to lower the cost of goods or services some or all of which can be passed onto the consumer; and/or
3. Enable product innovation to create new products and services that would provide substitutes to current products (which would lead to process innovation for those products/services currently in the market place as stated above).

Secondly, we can move the demand curve to the left, but this is a little more daunting and will take much longer term; I suggest a possible idea on the following page.  The demand curve can move to the left by the following means:

1. Encourage healthy habits as the First Lady is doing. 

A German and European-based biomedical scientist, Dr. Thomas, advocates for some of these same concepts based on his research published in the 2005 edition of The Journal of Medical Marketing entitled “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?” He argues that medical discoveries (aka product innovation) are due to the wealthier (an incentive to innovate) and competitive environment within the US market. 

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 7 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my seventh post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here and then reading each successive post until you arrive at this one.

The following portion of the letter states the objectives of the ACA using their own marketing.  These objectives are admirable, are they not?

ACA Stated Objectives

Rest assured that a much improved upon solution could still be based on the stated objectives of the ACA, which are to:

1. “Ensure that all [not some, but all] Americans have access to quality, affordable health care and…create the transformation within the health care system necessary to contain costs” as stated by the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC) and
2. Ensure that they and their fellow citizens have “better access to care” and “more affordable coverage” as stated per www.whitehouse.gov.

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 6 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my sixth post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here and then reading each successive post until you arrive at this one.

The following portion of the letter is my attempt to help the reader have a better understanding of basic economics:

Economics 101 Helps Explain the Problem

I think you are familiar with the supply and demand curve shown to the right, which shows that:

               Demand is inversely proportional to costs of services purchased and

        Supply is proportional to cost of services sold.

I surmise that you must have thought by enacting ACA with its taxes and subsidies that the demand and supply curves would move to make healthcare more affordable. You were partially right at best; only the supply curve moved, but regrettably and contrary to your intentions.

The demand curve did not move because demand is arguably the same today as it was a year ago and as it was four years ago when you voted for ACA. The supply curve did move due to a shock to the system when the ACA, which was approved by your vote, was enacted with all its mandates/regulations. These regulations (as most do) moved the supply curve to the left as shown in the figure to the right.  

Healthcare became more expensive to the suppliers due to the increased cost-of-services sold caused by the mandates, which were subsequently, passed onto the consumer in a higher price (P_new) resulting in less coverage (Q_new), regardless whether paid directly or subsidized by others. I note that the CBO recently projected that the subsidized costs will balloon future deficits.

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 5 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my fifth post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here and then reading each successive post until you arrive at this one.

The following portion of the letter is my attempt to help the reader have a better understanding of the effects caused by their vote:

Salt Added to the Wound

I think you would agree none of these options are ideal. I find it even more galling that Senator Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio), who also voted for ACA, stated in his letter to the Wall Street Journal editor published on January 30, 2014 that “Americans deserve … thoughtful and vigorous discussion of … the looming retirement crisis facing too many Americans” in response to a previous op-ed by Andrew Briggs published on January 24, 2014, yet Senator Brown’s vote along with yours for ACA clearly contributes to our “looming retirement crisis” that he very passionately laments. Is that what you desire? For every cause there is an effect.

Subsidizing (through a transfer payment from some other hard working individual/family to us via the inefficient government conduit) is not an option for us, as we now make just enough income that the subsidies are immaterial, but do not make enough income that the increase in the healthcare premium is not acutely painful as I describe above.  More importantly and I stress more importantly, a transfer payment does not address the root cause that makes healthcare unaffordable and leads to perverse incentives as documented by the recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. A simple understanding of economics explains why.

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 4 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my fourth post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here and then reading each successive post until you arrive at this one.

The following portion of the letter is my attempt to help the reader have a better understanding of the effects caused by their vote:

Undesirable Options

Added Costs

Because of your vote for ACA we must make some very tough choices, none of which are ideal. We can:

1.     Move to a plan with our present insurance provider that meets the mandates (aka regulations) of the ACA, which is similar to our current plan, but at an increase in premium of approximately $600 per month (a monthly increase of ~130%) to $985 per month and an increase in the annual deductible by $2,500 (an annual increase of 25%) to $12,500;

2.     Purchase one of three plans on the exchange, but even the bare bones plan is more expensive with a higher deductible and less physician choices; or

3.     Forgo insurance, but incur a “tax” (for NOT engaging in ‘commerce’ leaving me to wonder whether the tax will extend to ‘not’ buying a gym membership to stay healthy or to ‘not’ buying catfish or other crops subsidized by the recent farm bill).

Paid By Forgoing Long-term Investments In Oneself

Assuming we do not receive a sizeable increase in pay and if we choose one of the two former options then we must give up something.  Our options are limited because our budget is tight like most Americans. We can:

1.     Stop saving for our retirement and our children’s education, which amounts to approximately a paltry $200/month;

2.     Eat less healthy foods (as we rarely eat out and strive to eat many healthy fresh foods), which could amount to approximately $200/month per a study recently published in the BMJ Open journal;

3.     Drop our family gym membership, which amounts to approximately $100/ month; and/or

4.     Change the after school program for our children to one of lower quality that provides much less enrichment, which could save anywhere from $100 to $400 per month depending upon the risk we are willing to assume.

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 3 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my third post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here and then reading each successive post until you arrive at this one.

The following portion of the letter is my attempt to help the reader have a better understanding of four individuals whose lives they have affected by their vote:

Lives Touched

To put my challenges in a better perspective, I think you should know in some detail the four lives whom you have touched and how we seek to deal with the problem that you helped create absent any intervention. From a political perspective, my wife and I are not affiliated with any political party (i.e. we are independents). I lean right and she leans left; hopefully, together we are in the center.   We have two elementary school-age children and together we live in a 1,100 square foot home (~ ½ the median) with three bedrooms and one bathroom, which is currently secured with a mortgage.  We have two cars, one 15 years old, the other six years old with the latter secured with a note.  Our children attend public school and an after-school care facility due to us both working fulltime for which we are truly grateful.  We are grateful because during the depth of the recent recession both of us were underemployed. I even took a position that guaranteed me no income whatsoever, but did guarantee expenses. During this period of underemployment, we incurred additional debt; it was not until late last year after five tough and extremely lean years that our financial situation improved such that we could restructure our debt to begin paying it down and to very modestly renew savings for:

1. A raining day,
2. Our eventual & hopeful retirement, and
3. Our children’s higher education.

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 2 of a Series of Posts)

The following is my second post in a series of posts that shows my letter to those members of Congress who voted for ACA.  If you have not read the first post then I encourage you to do so by clicking here.

The following is the introductory paragraph of my letter:

Dear {Name of Member of Congress}:

When you cast a vote for legislation do you subscribe to an oath similar to that of which physicians subscribe, the Hippocratic oath? I ask because your vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) helped few people and hurt many more. More specifically, Kaiser Family Foundation published a recent study that indicates that over 50% of the uninsured prior to the enactment of ACA remain uninsured due to costs and my family and I comprise four of the estimated 16 million Americans (per Health Policy and Strategy Associates, Inc.) that have lost their affordable healthcare insurance due to your vote for the ACA. I think you would agree that these outcomes constitute a problem. Albert Einstein stated, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Therefore, I encourage you to undertake personal change to learn a new way of thinking to help solve one of our Nation’s daunting challenges.  Please allow me to help you begin the process.

It's Hard to Participate, I Know All to Well (Post 1 of a Series of Posts)

Following my failed attempt over four years ago to have my name on the ballot to possibly earn the opportunity to represent us in Washington, D.C., I have long promoted the concept that we must participate more in our government.  However, I can readily attest that it is extremely hard based on personal experience, which I seek to share through a series of posts beginning with this one.

Even though the date of this post is August 1, 2014, it is based on a letter that I opened in early January of this year, which I initially received two months earlier in November 2013.  That letter was a non-descript form letter sent by Florida Blue, my health insurance provider, informing me that my family’s health insurance would cease to exist due to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) mandates.  It is now obvious that when I wrote my last post, Set Healthcare Free, published November 22, 2013, I was unaware at the time that I was writing about family and me.

Needless to say, once I learned the news, I was angry; sadly, I felt hopeless, too, because I did not think there was much else I could do other than: 1. Make the necessary hard choices; 2. Voice my frustration to those who helped write and approve the legislation and 3. Share this information with as many others as possible (such as through a series of blog posts). In the process of seeking to voice my frustration and more importantly, give possible solutions, I discovered that the process requires a lot of resources (time and money), which are hard to come by. 

While I did not keep formal track of time allotted, I guestimate that I invested approximately 100 hours writing, editing, printing and mailing my letter.  I also spent approximately $300 on print material and postage.  When you read my letter (in a series of subsequent posts) you will come to learn why I sent snail mail versus email. 

It has taken me almost nine months to arrive at this point because there are only 24 hours in a day. I share one allocation of those hours for just one day based on my personal experiences: 9+ hours work, 1+ hour roundtrip commute, 2+ hours to nourish body with food (includes collecting, prepping, consuming, cleaning), 1+/- hours cleaning body internally (i.e. going to the bathroom) and externally (bathing, flossing, etc…), 2+/- hours investing time in children/family, 8- hours sleep and possibly 1 hour remaining for decompression. 

Notice that work consumes the most time as it does with most Americans.  Consequently, either one most work in government or work in an organization that does not prevent activities (i.e. politicking) to best affect our government.  In reference to the latter, I think the only organizations that willing approve of those actively participating are those where the principal owner is doing the activity, which means few truly participate and why I think that David Brat winning his election against Eric Cantor with less than $200,000 in donations could be a watershed moment.  I think the nomination of David Brat demonstrates if and when people participate then the everyday ordinary citizen can influence government more than any money that may flow into an election.

It is hard, but we can do it; we must do it.  WE MUST PARTICIPATE!