Alternative to the ACA

CBO Misses Its Obamacare Projection by 24 Million People

March 2016

I was excited to buy "group" health insurance for the first time in my life. It took almost a month for me to get the website to work and I ended up getting three policy packages but still I was excited.

Then I determined I couldn't keep my doctor with any the offered ACA plans and although I signed up for dental it never worked.

A few years back a wonderful women who is a senior manager for a hospital chain let me in on an idea that is well known in her industry. Most of the things people like about Obamacare are just regulations that don't cost the tax payer a dime. Like preexisting conditions don't matter, cover kids till they turn 27, basic list of fully covered procedures, etc...

Would it make sense to eliminate the special tax treatment given all things medical and prohibited employer and group plans? Reinforce the health care safety net for those under 18 and over 65 and require everyone in the middle to have there own individual health insurance or pay a penalty come April 15th.

Right now 49% of American's are covered by their employers and yes it seems radical to change this but clearly employee offered health insurance has distorted the market to such a degree that it's nearly impossible to determine what a health care procedure is going to cost prior to billing.

This has to change!  

Buying health insurance should be like buying car or home owners insurance with a few basic rules. Rules that are now included in Obama Care.  For starters the idea that you can't find out what something is going to cost by asking your doctor "hey what's this ankle boot going to cost..." has to stop. Seriously, this isn't a new idea for a capitalistic society. Right?

Bernie Sanders Wrong - Emails Matter II

I didn't write the bulk of this but edited it so it's less wordy.

On September 11, 2012, four Americans in Libya were killed in a terrorist attack at the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

Republicans accused Clinton of putting politics over the protection of American personnel which led them to pry into her emails.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi asked for all of the State Department’s Benghazi-related emails, but State only turned over eight from Clinton. That seemed weird, so people began asking questions.

Throughout 2014, House Republicans complained that the State Department was stonewalling them for the emails.  In March 2015, the New York Times revealed why: The State Department didn’t have Clinton’s emails. It turned out Clinton had used a private email server and private account exclusively throughout the duration of her tenure as secretary of state.

Since then, there’s been something of a mad scramble for Clinton’s emails involving basically everyone and their mother. Each of the email hunters has had different incentives for trying to uncover Clinton’s emails.

- The FBI opened its investigation to learn if Clinton broke classification laws.

- Republicans in Congress, at least theoretically, want to learn more about her handling of Benghazi.

- The conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch has filed more than 20 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits over Clinton’s emails, in a move that’s hard to interpret as anything but baldly partisan.

- News outlets like Gawker, Vice News, and the Associated Press also all filed their own legal cases for Clinton’s emails in search of a better understanding of her time in the State Department.

I thought Hillary's violation of the Federal Records Act of 1950 was a big deal. Turns out it is, but it's not.  For starters the head of each agency is responsible for setting up, maintaining and ensuring records are retained and stored. She was the head of the agency which is pretty funny since she was likely the worst violator.  The Federal Records Act of only applies to government employees while employed by the government with the maximum punishment being termination of employment.

Because these different investigations and lawsuits are all slowly unfolding over the same time period, they’ve led to the slow drip of emails being released. Colin Powell was spot on.  As soon as folks started asking about her server she should have turned it over to the FBI and said... You guys got it all and I want someone put in charge to make sure personal information is not released to the public. But instead she cherry picked what she wanted released and deleted and scrubbed the server... Three months after the courts ordered the emails be preserved.

So now I understand why the emails became an issue and why this crap has just gone on and on. Part of it is Hillary the other part is there are so many people, so many cases, etc...  It's going to take years before this is over. Meaning even if she wins she is going to be weighed down by this.  Toss in likely medical issues and I got one word for you:

BERNIE

Global Warming Petition Project

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (“Global Warming Petition Project,” www.petitionproject.org, 2015)

That statement has been signed by 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s.

I love that quote.

Last night my better half made a really good point:  "David why does this settled science bug you so much?"

Three reasons.

#1 Believing something just because someone else believes it just blows me away. Science is when someone has a theory, comes up with ways to test this, publishes their results and other scientists conduct tests and get the same results.  The scientific community has been wrong in the past and even forced out ideas for years the eventually proved to be right. Why can't we learn from this?

#2 Global warming now climate change looks like a power grab and it's going to cost trillions which will once again screw over the poorer nations.

#3 Lastly and more importantly it takes our eye off what we should be focused on. Massive pollution created by developing and poor counties continues at a levels that are literal killing people and the planet. I'm not talking about hidden pollution such as heavy metals... which is also a huge problem... I'm talking air you shouldn't breath, soil that is so polluted nothing will grow and rivers that you can't swim.

Cats and Litter Boxes

This morning what's left of Hurricane Hermine maxed our humidity and the house is sticky resulting in something new. My eyes started to itch like sand had blown into them. It was so bad my right eye swelled shut, I felt disorientated and my stomach was upset.

Turns out I'm more allergic to cats and specifically cat pee than I thought. The humidity activated old dried pee and spray resulting in the kitchen and downstairs bathroom reeking of cat pee.

After some research I came across this list of five mistakes people make when it comes to litter boxes. This advice is spot on and lines up with my life long experience with other peoples cats (remember I'm allergic and wouldn't own a cat) be it a girl friends or both of my daughters cats living with me from time to time.

#1 You're not cleaning the litter box enough.

Many cats won’t use the litterbox if it’s not in pristine condition. We know it’s probably not your favorite chore, but you should scoop it out at least twice daily and add more litter as needed. Clean the actual box with baking soda or unscented soap once a week. To make your life a little easier, make a litterbox kit with all the essentials (litter, bags and scoop), so you have everything handy.

#2 The litter box in a less than ideal location.

Place your cat’s litterbox in an area that’s quiet and away from resting areas, as well as food and water bowls. If there’s too much foot traffic or if it’s too close to where they eat your might opt to go to the bathroom somewhere else. Also consider how much privacy the location offers and how easy it for your cat to access it.

#3 You don't have enough litter boxes.

For many cats, having just one litterbox to use is not going to cut it. Instead follow this general rule: one litterbox per cat plus one. So if you have one cat, you’ll need two litter boxes; two cats need three litter boxes. More boxes might be necessary if your house is large or has multiple floors.

#4 The litter box is not big enough.

When it comes to litter boxes, size matters. A 2014 study conducted by veterinarian and behaviorist Norma Guy found that cats tend to prefer big litter boxes to small ones. Ideally, the litterbox should be at least one and half times the length of the cat’s body (not including the tail). Additionally, cats are not always fans of covered litter boxes, so you should try leaving it uncovered.

#5 You're not addressing your cat's stressors.

If your cat is missing the litterbox, it could be a sign that they have anxiety. Common stressors are when there is a move, new person, new baby or new pet in the household. If you have multiple cats, one of them could be bullying your favorite kitty and preventing them from using the litterbox. The stressor could even be more subtle than that. For instance, they might be stressed that you changed to a new type of litter, moved the litter box to a new location or that the depth of litter has changed. If you’re not sure what’s causing your kitty to miss the litter box, talk to your veterinarian, who may refer you to a veterinary behaviorist.

Government for the People by the People?

A President typically can only make a handful of big changes during their time in office. Why not focus on a few changes and run on that?

- Reform our tax code. The 1st Step would be to stop taxing corporations. The concept, although not a sound bite, is rather basic. Corporations don't pay tax they simply pass the cost of taxation onto consumers. Those that argue if the tax is removed corporations will just pocket the savings don't understand capitalism or haven't paid attention to what happened when the federal airline ticket tax lapsed. This one change would reduce government revenue by $320 billion in 2014 while the personal income tax raised $1,394,563,000. How can we make up the shortfall? I don't know maybe we could stop fighting other countries wars? Maybe we could abolish entire departments of the government?

- Repeal the 17th amendment (direct election of Senators).  Like the 18th amendment (probation) the 17th amendment seemed like a good idea at the time but the unintended consequences overly politicized the Senate and changed the balance of power between the legislative branch and states. What would happen? Well for starters Senators no longer have to raise millions of dollars and become beholden to those giving them money.

- Reform medical care. The idea that the government or your employer should provide health insurance makes about as much sense as them providing auto or home owners insurance. The current system is so convoluted it's basically impossible to find out what a doctor's visit or procedure will cost until you are billed. Government creating rules such as making health insurance mandatory, eliminating preexisting condition, removing lifetime caps, letting kids remain on parents plans, basic covered items, malpractice liability caps, etc... Conforms with the principles of government not running anything but serving to create a level playing field for the rest of us. 

- Instant Runoff Voting.  It's an electoral system whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the event that one candidate fails to achieve 50+ percent of the vote, the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and these voters second choice is used with the process being repeated until one candidate achieves the required majority. Why? The two parties system was never meant to be so dominant it's actually codified.  IRV would allow voters to vote for who they think the best candidate would be without feeling like they are wasting their vote. A few States already do this outright and many do it with absentee voting.

- In order to accomplish the first goal of eliminating corporate income taxes it would likely be necessary to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government. Do we really need all fifteen cabinet level Departments of the executive branch of government?

Department of the Treasury - Established: 1789

Department of State - Established: 1789

Department of War - Established: 1789  (Became Department of Defense in 1947)

Department of the Interior - Established: 1849

Department of Agriculture - Established: 1862

Department of Justice - Established: 1870

Department of Commerce - Established: 1903

Department of Labor - Established: 1913

Department of Defense - Established: 1947

Department of Health, Education and Welfare - Established: 1953 

Department of Housing and Urban Development - Established: 1965

Department of Transportation - Established: 1966

Department of Energy - Established: 1977

Department of Education - Established: 1979

Department of Veterans Affairs - Established: 1989 (Replaced by the VA in 1930)

Department of Homeland Security - Established: 2002

Why eliminate a huge government agency?  For starts some are clearly ineffective, obsolete, have created more problems than they have solved.  Others are duplicate what the States already do.

I think the following Departments could be massively scaled back it not eliminated: Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Education and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Lastly I would change the Department of Defense back to the Department of War and the Department of Homeland Security would become the Department of Defense.

Clearly this seems radical but if you break it down, department by department it makes sense.  For example do we really need a department of Agriculture anymore? How many kids does the Federal government educate? Isn't the Department of Transportation just duplicating what the States already do?

The Federal government is the definition of bloat.  Mitt Romney likely lost his bid to become president when he commented that 47% of the population takes from the government.  Since when does stating a fact become insensitive? If you add up everyone who works for the government, collects social security, collects a military pension, etc... You get about 47%.

Democrats who say the top 1% of income earners, who currently pay about 43% of income taxes aren't paying their fair share are absolutely nuts.  Government has gotten too big and with 45% of American's paying no income tax something has to give.  I don't want to crush the poor but right now they have no stake in the game and it’s clear the expansion of government is directly linked with American's wanting their government to do more without them having to pay for it.  This is a recipe for a failed system and there are 20,000,000,000 cracks in our foundation and there is no fix in sight.

A good start toward changing this would be honest and educated the American public that corporations don't pay income tax... They just charge more and give the government your money.

Bernie Sanders Wrong - Emails Matter

The Justice Department has made it official that Hillary Clinton had thousands of work-related emails on her private server that were not turned over.

That although they declined to prosecute the Justice Department stated that Hillary Clinton sent emails regarding top secret discussions. Discussions of very serious matters involving national security.

The issue is seemingly basic in that Clinton's personal email server contained government, Clinton foundation and personal emails which at the very least violates widely known government regulations that require the capture and preservation of work-related documents. Her statements that the capture and preservation occurred when she emailed other government officials is plausible but not inline with the spirit of the regulation.

It has been reported that top Democrats are asking reporters if they know of anything or heard anything that still hasn't been released. They are collectively holding their breath to see if anything more will surface before November.

During Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State, State department representative Huma Abedin, Hillary's long time adviser & confident, the wife of the now infamous former Congressman Anthony Weiner, was sent to New York to work with the Clinton Foundation.  For approximately six months she worked for BOTH the state department (Hillary Clinton) and the Clinton Foundation (Bill Clinton).

In February 2016, The Washington Post Reported: "The United States Department of State issued a subpoena to the Clinton Foundation in fall of 2015. According to the report, the subpoena focused on "documents about the charity's projects that may have required approval from federal government during Hillary Clinton's term as secretary of state" and "also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton's personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons".

Bob Woodard made it pretty clear last Sunday that this was a massive conflict of interest. Having a close aid to the Secretary of State working with donors to the Clinton foundation and then having some staffers arrange meeting to said donors is not copacetic.

Voter ID laws Should be Overturned

Dear Rob Bell,

I'm a long time, hard core, Virginia Republican and I don't support voter ID requirements.

Why?  Well for starters I've worked the polls for years and know that voter fraud is NOT a problem.

Experts agree we are talking about less than a handful of cases per year in the entire state and I would much rather see your efforts going after real fraud.

A while back one of our state universities did a study with the help of the State Department.

They obtained the current list of legal aliens who were in the process of applying for citizenship.  They bounced this list off of the voter registration list and guess what?

Yep, something like 3,000+ folks were voting who were not citizens likely thanks, I'm guessing, to the motor voter laws that pretty much registers everyone up who gets a drivers license.

So in a nut shell not all Republican's agree with voter ID laws and some of us consider them blatantly unconstitutional.

ID to cash a check - YES!

ID to buy beer - YES!

ID to buy Claritin D - YES!

ID to vote - NO!

Thanks,

Dave

PS  I write because in my world there exists two groups of elected Republicans. Those that pander and those that want to lead. The bill you support is pandering and frankly it pisses me off.

*****

Updated to year 2021 - A few years ago my feelings on this changed. It's rare, but I got this one wrong and I'm okay with saying so. My opinion was based on dealing with small local precincts in Virginia, not large cities where everyone dealing with the elections seemingly are political hacks. Furthermore, I learned something about racism I never even heard of or understood... The racism of low expectations. Thinking that old people have issues with technology and poor people have issues getting IDs was wrong. The numbers of people not capable of getting IDs must be compared to the number not able to bank, buy booze, fly or treat their allergies.

Is High School a Privilege?

The other day I was pondering why private school costs about half as much as public but on whole consistently produce better results?  Sure I've noticed there are more secretaries, principals, support staff and assistant teachers in public schools but the bureaucracy costs associated with a bloated educational system is only part of the problem. It's more likely the cost associated with unfunded Federal mandates that private schools are exempt from, are at the root of the problem.

If a school doesn't accept federal funding it doesn't have to comply with IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).  This alone creates massive savings.  However, I think it's safe to say that private schools do better because they don't have to accept every student.

Here is my thought.  Should moving up to high school be automatic?  Should pretty much all 8th graders go on to high school?  Should the government be required to provide a high school education to age 21?

For example does it make sense for kids with fetal alcohol syndrome to be sitting next to a college bound senior?

I don't have a solution, I just know that an oppositional defiant disorder student "504 - Accommodation" that comes late to school virtually everyday, talks on his cell phone during class, has been arrested several times and is pretty much the worst possible kid to have in class is required by law to be educated is a political correctness nightmare.

The conundrum... It's cheaper to educate then incarcerate and clearly education is much better for society.  Education for most is key but public education suffers when good intentions result in unintended consequences.  What can be done?  All I know is change is needed.  What are other countries doing?

Do not leave packages at my front door...

This Christmas was my first stolen package. When I saw footprints in the newly fallen snow of a young person climbing up my stairs just far enough to check if another package was ready for pilfering I thought about what I could do.

Security cameras?

Put a decoy box out with a locator chip to catch the perpetrator?

Motion sensing spot lights?

Turns out a simple sign asking for packages to be delivered to the side door was all that I needed. It would seem that most perpetrators can read so now they know packages are at the side door. Walking up the drive adds just enough risk and effort to balance the equation in my favor.

Hold Hearings and Vote!

Dear Republican Majority,

Advise and consent on the President's Supreme court nomination. It's your constitutional duty and your job.

The President has nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland give him a hearing.

Sincerely,

David Beemer