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.