The GOP & Its Political Dogma Has Failed America

The GOP is a party of climate change deniers & now coronavirus deniers that will not take responsibility for its actions.

More importantly, its perverted since of capitalism that has played out over the last 40 years has placed our country at risk. Resources are hoarded by the 1% , which has left our country with substantial debt and very little safety net to adequately handle a crisis.

If its political dogma was so great then America would have a president that can champion those values that helped make us great to lead us through our current crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic, but he and his party have trampled on those values, which makes it more likely that we will have a deep and prolonged recession.  Adding insult to injury, I believe few within the GOP have the intellectual honesty to admit that GOP has failed drastically.  Absent that, November can not come fast enough.

More Guns or Better Control

In a span of a week, two separate gun owners, arguably with mental health issues, each committed mass murder with the guns they legally obtained, one in Tallahassee, FL last week and one much larger in Los Angeles, CA yesterday.

The question we should be asking is, do we need more guns or better control? 

Let’s explore both sides.

In reference to more guns, I do not think that is the answer because as I have previously shown conclusively, more guns have led to more deaths; please see the post entitled,  Who Are These People That Kill People? 

In reference to better control, most people believe that I refer to gun control.  I actually refer to people control because “guns do not kill people, people kill people” and those people are typically gun owners under mental duress.  However, if we do not sadly have people control we will end up with gun control, which is why I think the NRA is the threat to our Second Amendment (2A). The NRA fails to acknowledge that people are humans and humans are well human. 

Some people take responsibility for their actions, but not all.  It is those that fail to act responsibly that require laws and regulations to promote and ensure that responsibility.  These laws and regulations are a form of people control.

The first thing we should do is remove guns from those that are deemed mentally unstable or in other words, not of sound mind.  Once these people demonstrate mental stability they can have their guns back.  This is not gun control; this is people control.  Moreover and more importantly, it is F*#@ING common sense.

NPR Seeks To Know What Issues Affect You

In my news feed today I noticed that NPR seeks to know what issues affect us.  I share with you below what I shared with NPR.

The issues that affect me are promoting responsible gun ownership and tackling our nation’s healthcare challenge; however, we cannot focus on these issues because of dysfunctional leadership at the Federal level.

In reference to the latter, dysfunctional leadership, we have a President that lies.  His political party, the GOP, will not hold him accountable.  I do not think the other party, the Democrats, is much better.  This mess is due to campaign finance – primarily, the rich and special interests have considerable control on our choices, which are typically poor, so instead of voting for someone we end up voting against someone.


In reference to guns, the argument needs to change to match reality.  The argument should be “responsible gun ownership” not gun restrictions.  For people to own a gun they should have to demonstrate they are responsible enough to own a weapon.  The Heller opinion states on page 2 that there should be prohibitions on people who are mentally ill.  Moreover, gun dealers, need to demonstrate that are responsible as well to ensure they will not sell weapons to criminals.

In reference to Healthcare, it is only going to get worse.  The increasing costs are crowding out other purchases, such as investments in infrastructure to facilitate economic growth.  This issue continues to be ignored.  Neither solely universal nor solely competitive is the answer.  It is a mixture of both; however, I believe we will go to universal in 10 years to eventually arrive at a mixture 30 years hence.

The Shameful Editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)

Today, I am a very, very disappointed subscriber of the WSJ.  I woke to read that the editors accuse Senator McCain of being a back stabber.  I have both written and called the paper to tell them otherwise.    I post a copy of my letter to the editors below.

I find your caricature of John McCain in your editorial entitled, A Republican Failure, extremely offensive.  Mr. McCain has served our country well.   His refusal to bend and break under unimaginable torture as POW demonstrates his dedication to his fellow man.  If he did not stab his fellow man in the back then why would he do it near the end of his life?

Moreover, you fail to recognize the true problem.  The problem is lack of leadership, which starts at the top.  Donald Trump has been a failure. He does not understand the problem and as such he cannot help the Republicans improve their aim (i.e. stated goal).

The goal should be in three successive steps: first contain, then stop and then reduce the cost of healthcare.  This goal may require repealing parts or all of the ACA, but repealing ACA does not truly address the causes that have led to healthcare costs increasing on average 250 bps more than GDP over the past 50 years.  Government regulation crafted by both parties during this period has created an industry that works in an oligopoly framework.  Both parties must work together to unwind this mess.

Cut Soaring Salaries To Reduce Healthcare Costs

Want to cut healthcare costs?  Cut salaries. 

One need not look far to find data pertaining to healthcare costs.  However, discerning the signal from all the noise has been next to impossible as evidenced by myriad of recommendations and government regulations all the while  healthcare costs continue to grow at a rate greater than GDP, 25o bps greater over the last 50 plus years!

The noise is compelling, just look at a few examples:

1. McKinsey accounts for the cost of healthcare,
2. History of US healthcare spending,
3. Truth about medical malpractice,
4. Harvard Business Review shows how to reduce waste in healthcare spending, and 
5. Kaiser Family Foundation compiles recent data.

All the above information makes for fascinating reading, but it can make your head spin, especially so if you seek to truly find ways to contain healthcare costs. 

Healthcare costs cannot continue to outpace GDP or eventually it becomes GDP.  At the current pace, healthcare cost would be ~50% of GDP in 45 years and in 75 years, it will comprise all of GDP. So the question becomes when does healthcare cost slow and eventually grow at a rate less than GDP so that healthcare costs are in-line with other industrialized nations? Restricting access to those with money (as Republicans want) is one way.  Taking from those that have money to give to others (as the Democrats did) is another, but neither is the best.

To properly answer that question, we need to find the signal.  The signal is in front of our very eyes and we miss it. I too, started focusing on the noise, but I could not stop thinking about a recent chance meeting with a young neurosurgeon who has 27 classic cars. 

My focus fixation on all those cars allowed me to observe the signal, which is, hold on ---- “salaries”.  It is that simple, yet we miss it, accept it, whatever, but this cannot continue.

The biggest component of any product or service is salaries, especially so in a service industry such as healthcare.  In case you are wondering about information technology (IT) and medical technology spend, together they account for a a whopping $125 billion or less than five percent (5%) of the overall healthcare spend, essentially, this spend is negligible.

Salaries comprise more than those of doctors.  It comprises administrators, salespersons (medical equipment, drugs, insurance, etc…), etc…  In the case of physicians, their salaries have grown at the same rate as healthcare over the last five decades.  Is it correlation or causation?  I believe it is a little of both.

The reason why salaries have been able to increase is because the healthcare industry has become essentially an oligopoly due to electing more lawyers than economists that have passed laws, which have created all the regulations that have led to this mess.  John McCracken, PhD, of UT Dallas, also believes that the healthcare industry is becoming oligopoly, but for different reasons, which he states in his well written blog post here.

If by some miracle our elected officials see the errors of theirs and their predecessors’ ways and fix this mess, sadly, it will take approximately 40 years to contain costs to where the costs are in line with other industrialized nations (assumes GDP growth stays constant and healthcare growth decelerates at a reasonable rate of 95% of the prior year’s growth and essentially goes flat in 20 years).

In short, expect healthcare to remain a topic of discussion for a long time.

Still Dealing With Whom Is Going To Pay For Healthcare

Healthcare once again rears its ugly head now that the CBO has scored the GOP's ACA replacement and predicts that the rolls of the uninsured would increase which would lower the Federal government's costs.

Sadly, the Republicans that sponsored the bill seek to shift costs, not lower them just like the Democrats and President Obama did years before.  With the ACA, it just happened that individuals and families like mine carried the burden in costs (please see prior posts).  This time it will be the poor and the states.  Yet, we all carry the costs in one form or another.  I guess we all have to share in this misery before real reform takes place.

Interestingly, my first letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) written approximately six years ago referenced healthcare costs, which is as follows:

I agree with Dr. Donald Berwick in his op-ed article entitled, The Right Way to Reform Medicare, that we need to reduce our healthcare costs. He realizes that improving quality while reducing costs benefits consumers, but he woefully fails to see, understand and acknowledge, which is typical of most bureaucrats, that unfettered competition in a capitalistic economic system is the genesis of these consumer benefits, not more government regulation.

Upon reflection, I think what I wrote hits the nail on the head.

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.

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. 

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!

Set Healthcare Free

There has been considerable news pertaining to healthcare in the US and understandably so given: 

1. The amount the industry contributes to GDP and 
2. Needless to say, the recent and ongoing myriad of challenges associated with the ACA (aka Obamacare). 

It should not be a surprise to many of my readers that I claim that we are to blame for this mess - because we elected the politicians that run the dysfunctional Federal government we now have.

Our political system aside, the real problem is not the broken Federal website nor the lack of responsibility or accountability taken by our President; these are just minor annoyances when looked at in the proper perspective.  The problem is the lack of competition in the healthcare industry.  I like the concept of exchanges (as fiscal conservatives did years ago) because exchanges when designed properly help foster competition; however, as I understand it, the ACA seeks to drive us towards a single payer system through government regulations that dictate how the current exchanges should work (via such means as the “bellybutton tax”).  These regulations instead diminish competition. 

Competition leads to innovation and lower prices.  We need not look far, just look at the IT industry and the consumer products we use.  However, this innovation and lower prices comes at a cost.  One such cost is that companies that failed to innovate go out of business and people lose their jobs, but many new companies and jobs are created in the process. Surely there are other drawbacks; nothing is perfect, but I believe in the free market system and I advocate so should you.

We should unchain our healthcare system from constraining and market limiting regulations to set it free to drive innovation; however, for this to occur, we need to contact our politicians in Washington to let them know what we want. I call them regularly, do you?

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Of The House Healthcare Bill

A more appropriate solution to our healthcare challenge is establishing a task force rather than enacting a healthcare bill (as passed with a very narrow majority in the US House) that fails to address the primary issue. The primary issue is affordability, either due to low income by an individual or high cost for services and products sold to an individual. When we balance the humanitarian component with the financial component, we are more likely to build a solution that benefits all. Both parties share responsibility for the current mess because it has taken us decades to get here. A task force focused more on solving problems and less on politics will most likely come up with a better solution for America than what can come from our Congress.

If the current bill, as passed by the US House, is enacted:
1. The Good is that more Americans will have greater and easier access to healthcare, which undoubtedly benefits a sizeable percentage of people living in Florida Congressional District 3 (CD-3).
2. The Bad is that there will be losers, which builds resentment with those that lost.
3. The Ugly is that our country will be worse off in the future because the primary issue of affordability (that makes healthcare inaccessible) was never solved and in the end those that should benefit most will most likely suffer once again, which is not good for CD-3 long-term.

Point 1 from above should be easily understood, what might not be are Points 2 and 3. Anytime there is vocal opposition, as we have seen in response to the healthcare legislation, then there are losers, perceived and/or real. Most people in business (which is totally different than politics) know that all parties should win in the formation of a deal.

With the current healthcare reform, the President and the controlling party in Congress are trying to ram down some people’s throats a bill that they distaste. This will build resentment and is bad for our country long-term. We need to work together.

We cannot put the parties on a couch or put them in a room to work out their problems so instead we need to turn over the process of crafting a workable solution to a neutral party comprised of experienced healthcare consultants. The consultants would get paid their normal fee for their work, but would also receive incentives over time for achieving milestones such as reducing the cost of providing healthcare from currently 16% of GDP to 11% of GDP (inline with other industrialized nations) while making healthcare accessible to those that currently do not have it.

This will not be easy and it will take time. I suspect it will be a multiple step process that will take ten (10) years or more. There will be an initial research phase followed by implementation of some items followed by evaluation and additional researched followed by ... and so on until we arrive to a solution that the majority of Americans (not elected officials) initially agreed upon.

Blind Leading the Blind

Monday August 24, Clay County Democratic Executive Committee hosted a town hall meeting with Florida Congressional District 3 (CD-3) Representative, Congresswoman Brown. As expected, discussion centered on healthcare reform. Even though the meeting was open to the public, approximately only 100 people were in attendance. The small crowd and Ms. Brown can be seen in the photo below.


The low turnout either indicates that people have little interest in what is occurring in Washington (which is not a positive sign) or that the meeting notice was not as well publicized as initially thought. Fortunately, the meeting was civil and there were few disruptions.

To my dismay, Ms. Brown demonstrated that she has very little understanding of economics and current events based on the following anecdotal evidence:

1. She mentioned that she was saddened that Florida had some of the highest unemployment and foreclosure rates in the country and verbally indicated she did not know why. I would expect my representative to know that Florida’s economy in based in part on tourism and when that dries up due to a sour economy, people lose jobs and when people are unemployed an extended period of time, they are more at risk of losing their home to foreclosure.

2. When she took an informal poll asking the attendees what they wanted in a healthcare bill, one commented that Medicare should be expanded to all, which drew praise from the crowd. I was hoping that someone would ask the hard follow up question about Medicare's funding status (I would have, but only Democrats were allowed to ask questions). I expected Congresswoman Brown to educate the attendees that the Medicare program is at risk of going insolvent, but she did not and I wonder why. I suspect she does not know because she did share negative news about other programs earlier in the meeting. As such, I believe this is a classic case of the blind leading the blind, which is extremely troubling for us long term. I do not expect citizens to know the details of federal government programs, but I think it is imperative that our elected representatives do.

I am not against government providing a healthcare solution or any solution for that matter if it works, but I have yet to see a successful government program implemented on a large scale over an extended period of time. However, I commend our current President for wanting to tackle the situation. We need more of these types of discussions because I believe they serve to educate the populace. With a more informed populace, we should be able to, as a society, make better decisions. Some of those decisions would include prioritizing our spending and saying no to the lower priority items.

What I find interesting with the current discussion on healthcare is that I have yet to hear much talk about fixing Medicare and its cousin, Social Security, which I think is important before expanding government healthcare to all. Both of these social programs will be stressed (even without adding the additional stress of a nationalized healthcare system) in the next two decades due to baby boomers at a time when we will be:

1. Trying to handle one of the largest debt loads the nation has ever faced; and

2. Trying to maintain our supremacy as an economic powerhouse when an ever-strengthening China will surely challenge us.

I understand the need to make healthcare affordable for all, especially for the working class and the uninsurable. If our leadership is blind, as my current representation appears to be, I suggest we go slowly. Conversely, if we want to go fast as our President seems to indicate then I suggest CD-3 needs new representation that has a better problem solving skills and a better understanding of economics.