Category: policy

Sometimes a reality check is required

Republicans, if you are going to encourage unicorn ranching, then you owe it to the public to explain that ranchers need to find a breeding pair before they start their ranch.

While money is non affectionately said to be the mother’s milk of politics and it is, denial is a very close runner up!  So there is never a statement made by the left that is ever denied by a Republican, lest the opponent be skewered, first by the left and its media allies, then later and even more effectively by ” moderate Republicans” (moderate is a synonym for those, who go along to maintain their seat at the table)  Every Republican leaning voter knows, who they are.  If you don’t, watch CNN and if the guest is labeled as a Republican albeit strategist, officeholder or campaign surrogate and he is not immediately berated after he speaks, then chances are  he or she is a “Moderate Republican”.

Generally Republicans never challenge what is said unless the thought has been in held in ill repute by the public for a good number of years.  e.g. socialism has been generally held in low regard since at least the 1950’s, so any Republican and even a few brave “Blue Dog Democrats” are inclined to speak out against it.  It should be noted, however that while speaking out against the idea of socialism any Republican officeholder will always acknowledge that the proponent of socialism or any new government solution raises a true issue that they will attempt to help resolve.

What is problematic about this?  It is simply this.  No one dares say how wide spread the problem is, versus how drastically the solution will change the status quo for the many.  While it is a cliche’, I am required to repeat it here.  When you promise to everything for everyone, you will do little or nothing for anyone!

Why is this so.  The answer is simple.  It’s because People are and should be free!  Free to choose their own courses of action.   Sometimes the course chosen appears ill advised to us and sometimes it may even appear contrary to the individual’s expressed interest , but it is their choice to make.  What those in opposition to choices or proposed fixes, can do is at least say they find the choice/fix unwise.

Instead they fall upon the sword of political correctness and as they gurgle and seem to lose control of their consciousness.  The opponents lie impaled upon that imaginary sword of political correctness, then the opposition fails to deny the underlying premise of the proposed government solution.   They do so in a vain attempt to demonstrate their continued relevance or the importance of their government position.  Hence,the first paragraph of this Post

Republicans, if you are going to encourage unicorn ranching, then you owe it to the public to explain that ranchers need to find a breeding pair before they start their ranch.

I posit here that we no longer have a two party system.   When every  utterance by those, who only propose government solutions, is met with acceptance of the underlying premise. e.g (Obamacare preexisting condition coverage crisis. This great existential healthcare crisis effected roughly 8% of the population. It predominantly effected those purchasing coverage in the individual healthcare marketplace.  Groups have been governed by HIPPA of 1997, which required coverage of these conditions after a maximum of 18 months delay and even that could be mitigated, if the individual was continuously insured prior to the group coverage change.  Click on the word change link for a more in depth explanation at How Stuff Works.com.).

Amazingly preexisting conditions were seldom discussed in depth with respect to Obamacare law, yet most under 65 get their coverage through employment groups.)  No Republican thought this was important enough to discuss and if they did it was seen as too in the weeds to share!  No Republican discussed how Obamacare inconvenienced the remaining 80+% and changed the coverages available for all.  It also mandated coverages in the belief not certainty that the changes would result in future healthcare savings.

So now we enter the 2020 campaign  and  major Democratic candidates are now discussing free education for all through college.  What that will do, is devalue many advanced educational degrees for those, who have them because when everyone has a degree  available without the need for sacrifice to achieve it,then advanced education will no longer be a sign that an individual possesses the persistence to achieve a difficult goal.  Additionally, since there is no cost.  Educational resources will be misallocated even further.  We will have more degrees that do not match needed skills.  The result will be more unemployment, while jobs go begging because the educational system is turning out the wrong skill sets.  We already have enough educational dysfunction with the grade inflation situation and the plethora of majors, which offer no professional path forward.

We are also told by some Democratic candidates that many services provided by people are now human rights.  This is a talking point  with only emotional appeal.  It is proposed that these services should be offered by the government to all with no mention of payment.  I guess we truly have not learned the lessons of history.  We outlawed one form of slavery and now introduce a new form.  Servitude to the State for the Public good.  Yet all Republicans only talk about socialism like a caveman.  “They utter Socialism bad, Capitalism good!”

I am sorry, but life is both a journey and is still a struggle.  No candidate’s wishes can change that fact. In a world of 1 million or 7 billion scarcity still exists. Resources must be allocated according to needs to insure the availability of goods to feed the masses and create sufficient wealth.

Individuals must work to create wealth and nations and society advance as a result of their efforts.  Capitalism is a self regulation mechanism for the elements that create wealth.  Capitalism allows the individual the freedom to choose, which occupation they pursue and rations scarce resources by offering rewards for skills in short supply and disincentives for oversupplied skills. No government or politician has a handle on the multiple data points needed to properly allocate resources. Capital might be in the form of human,monetary or even a commodity.

Individuals choose a course and are rewarded based upon the value of their contribution.  No one has the right to the services of another.  Those services can be paid for or they maybe volunteered at no cost.(charity)  Yes, there is a place for altruism in modern society!  Altruism however is not government mandated.  Mandated unagreed upon labor is still slavery!

Bottom line:

Demand all proposals identify the problem and the extent of that problem.

Ask, Ask, Ask how the solution fits in with the existing system.  Do this whether you like the existing system or despise it.  (Different is not always better and can be much worse!)

What is the role of rationality, when all media and politicians use the emotional hook to push issues?

I have been arguing for a long time that far too much of our political discussions are emotionally based.  Harold Laswell said “politics is about who gets what, when, how.”  This was the standard definition of politics, which I learned forty five years ago as a Political Science major.  This means politics is involved with every aspect of our everyday lives.  We are far too quick to limit the meaning or understand the consequences of politics.

The United States has a Constitutionally limited federal government which results in a free market capitalist system of economics, however the limited nature of our federal government has been steadily eroded.  This has been accomplished by both our legislators, who are unwilling to make the difficult budgetary decisions their offices demand of them and the Courts, who insist on legislating from the bench and increasing the scope and size of government in a vain attempt to avert every citizen’s problem.

What has the use of the emotional hook meant to the everyday life of the US citizen.?   It has meant that decisions are more and more made at the whim of a group of elite politicians whipped into a frenzy by an over dramatized media.  The ultimate result is that personal decisions concerning allocation of your income and resources have been removed from your control and are now less based on rational personal benefit and an individual’s return on investment and more based upon a legislator of judge’s feelings about an issue.

Federal legislators decide issues based upon a snapshot of public opinion.   Federal Judges seem to believe they must act as super legislators and right all the wrongs of the country rather than apply existing law and so  they create new law.  What this means is there will continue to be more government involvement in your everyday life and ultimately this  “feeling centered decision making” may lead to the end to even of the semblance of free speech.

Dissent will be drowned out by the din created in a 24 hour media cycle. Rational individuals may well be dissuaded from voicing their views because they fear immediate economic or reputational damage should they voice disagreement with the current emotionalism of the moment.

Proponents of feeling based decision making believe it will create a more nurturing democratic government and will lead to a more humane society.   Democratic party politicians believe this nurturing view of government is popular among young unmarried bicoastal female voters, a group they consider to be in their tribe.   I contend this type of decision making is bad for all voters and will result in misallocation of both human and financial capital and ultimately a lowered standard of living for all in this country and throughout the world as well as a society where individuals  are afraid to express their opinions.

I have been reading a series of books about rational decision making.  Most recently I have been reading the book, “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling .   There is value in the authors data driven analysis and the rationale approach he uses to generate his world survey questions and answers.   I worry that this author’s analysis is far too dependent on UN sources of data, because these data sources readily  available and he states are the  most comprehensive in scope. I do not share his confidence about how this data is collected and compiled.  Finally, I find some of the author’s concerns  to be as equally unsupported by causal data as he claims many current popular public opinions to be,eg. ( views on global warming and universal healthcare) (He readily admits that weather is subject to a great may variables and can’t be forecasted accurately, yet is ever so concerned about climate change.)I find many of his concerns to be personally intrusive,repugnant and left leaning.

The fact that I  favor a more  free and individually driven , yet rational allocation of economic resources doesn’t however mean I am a heartless and I am certainly not a populist.    I am a Constitutionalist.   Constitutionalist are frequently accused of lacking compassion for the downtrodden in our society or being bigoted because we don’t favor big government welfare programs and unlimited immigration.  I favor, as does our federal constitution a system, where individuals make their own decisions and believe that there are certain God given rights that belong solely to them.  The federal government should interfere in its citizens lives only in very limited and strictly defined areas enumerated by the Constitution. Other areas are reserved to the citizens until more authority is granted by the super majority required to adopt a constitutional amendment and even that authority should be restricted.  Some rights really are truly inalienable and non delegatable.

Factual information must be available to the public in order to allow each individual and organization to make rational personal economic and value choices.  I agree that decisions must be fact based, but values must also be incorporated into any decision making process.  This is the province of the individual.  It is the small decisions made by the many in their individual daily interests, that should shape our public policy.  Our Constitution allows for a limited federal government and leaves most authority with the States.  This allows for a variety of best practices and failures without universal consequences.

What seems like economic chaos or the lack of a comprehensive economic or governmental plan is actually a constantly adjusting web of individual decision making. This guarantees maximum benefit and freedom for all citizens. It is truly economic organization from what seems like unplanned chaos.  Unfettered emotionalism can cause rash decisions to be made by elitist representatives based upon the latest media whipped over dramatization.  The decisions feel good at the time, but lack checks and balances provided by the free market.  This type of decision making leads to unintended consequences, which could be avoided by utilizing a more limited and best practices and evaluation model.

 

If you don’t want your personal data used in a way you don’t like, then do not post it on any site. If you don’t like a social media site’s privacy policies,then don’t use that site or better yet,band with others and create your own site. Don’t invite the government to regulate! Do not surrender any more of your choices for a false sense of security!

Control your social media information yourself. Don’t be lazy and invite the federal government to limit your choices

 

Watching any cable or network news broadcast is like entering an echo chamber! There are no serious opposition views presented. All views expressed merely echo a given channel’s right or left leaning establishment view.

This means you hear on right leaning broadcasts, lip service given to limited government and capitalism.  Eventually though, all commentary suggests the need for the federal government to save us from ourselves. They say there is a need for a national plan.(this sounds more like a cold war Soviet idea. ie a 5 year plan rather than a chaos driven capitalist economic model) Left leaning channels are more straight forward in their criticisms. The government is the citizen’s only hope! Nineteen Eighty Four is not just a novel on left leading broadcasts, it is a mantra, intended to be a way of life, which is repeated ad nauseum.

Conservative or right leaning consumers of news are busy and use their busy life schedules, as a reason to surrender their choices to an all consuming government.

Remember democracy is a form of government that can be tyrannical the same as a dictatorship. Just because a majority of individuals decide something by a popular vote does not mean you should always be required to abide by their collective will. This is why we have a limited federal government and a bill of rights.  It is to insure individual liberty.

Our Founding Fathers rebelled against a king, but recognized any government could act as a despot and threaten the individual. We have a bill of rights and a federal government of limited authority.  (Gee. the Revolutionary War was fought by armed colonists, maybe the second amendment is intended as a deterrent to run away rule of any kind including majority collective rule.) This should not be seen as threat of violence, but a statement of historic fact.  Power to rule is given to government by the people, but it is limited by God given rights, which no government can confiscate and no majority vote can negate.

We now are on the verge of surrendering our most basic rights because we are too busy or because we need to be nurtured and protected from a brutal reality. Reality remains brutal, whether you seek to hide in a false perception of safety under the protection of a  what you believe to be a benign government.  There are regardless many across the world willing to hurt or kill to possess just a small portion of what Americans take for granted.

There are many “good people” and their are many “bad people” in the world, but most are people just busy working and living boring everyday existences. Choice including economic choice is a freedom. It separates us from those forced by a collective mentality to live in a group or despot defined way.

Can you imagine a society where you are told what job to do.  Many say this would be great! Everyone working- No more unemployment- Guaranteed income! A more sensitive environment! What is the cost? Loss of personal choice? Loss of Religious freedom and free speech? Limited new economic and personal initiatives?

Please remember, there is always an expert that can tell you how to live your life better.  When their predictions are checked against the actual reality, most are miserable prognosticators.  We live in a connected and competitive world.  We must continue to grow our economy to stay ahead or risk losing our world position and high standard of living.

Why not have the most popular current view direct (compel/force)you to live in the best known way. Doesn’t sound quite so friendly when presented as a command does it?  Remember government is the use of force. Doubt me? Try not paying your taxes or violate an EPA property regulation or run a business and forget a required federal filing. Try to serve in a government job or a closed private sector shop without union membership.

Government rules by force, whether you agree with the rules or not, you must understand this fact.

This is why government must be limited!

So when you hear “we need the government to protect us from adds, on social media,or to protect our posted private data or protect us from “fake news”, remember you are moving closer to life as portrayed in the novel”1984″.  You also may limit economic and personal growth. ie wealth and job growth (Witness the limitations placed on television and radio by the FCC. The result: you have television and radio channels that still must include announcements  that limit the format of their programming even though technology has rendered these announcements obsolete.)

Congress passes bills then moves on seldom or sometimes never reviewing any law’s effectiveness.  When laws are reviewed, the review is conducted as througha prism that prioritizes maintaining the existing economic hierarchy and existing players and not based upon how well the laws assist in the growth of our wealth.

So I contend in any environment “Less is more and Less government is better government”

Federal power was limited to protect the individual and insure choice. Democracies are not immune to the use of excessive force on its citizens.  Beware the next time you hear

“There ought to be a law!”

 

It’s easy to stand for freedom of speech, when the message delivered is admirable!

Standing for freedom of speech is easy, when the speech is not controversial

I am a resident of a Northwest Ohio suburb. The center of our metropolitan area is Toledo, Ohio. We had a Nazi demonstration in 2015 that was reported in the National Press. Most in our area did not welcome this demonstration. It brought bad additional and unwanted bad press to our area. It certainly was not a boon for local merchants or our local leaders, who were busy trying to court new industries and citizens for our area. This demonstration was inconvenient to say the least and certainly unwelcome by the majority of our citizenry, yet the march and demonstration occurred and for the most part without disorder. See Toledo Blade Article link

I was proud of our citizens!  We saw evil in our midst, but exercised true tolerance by allowing free speech.  We demonstrated that good can prevail over evil, when both ideals are allowed to be expressed and debated.  When the day was done no one died and the citizenry still agreed that white supremacy is an evil doctrine!

The demonstration cost our area financial resources (police resources and police overtime), which we did not have and  paid for a cause, which we not only did not support, but which most our citizenry condemned. I heard many residents voice outrage at the prospect of dedicating scarce local resources to protect this demonstration,yet it was done and it is important that it was. Why you ask?

I already mentioned that I and our citizenry do not support the ideology of these people. Yet I state categorically it is important that even unpopular and yes, even evil individuals are allowed to speak out. It is the right of free speech and the ability to voice differences in the public square that allow us as a nation to maintain our moral compass!  It is when we do not allow our vocal minorities to speak out that our moral compass is jeopardized!  If we only hear homogenous messages, we never have to ask difficult questions about our moral choices.

It is not the duty of the government or even local citizenry to suppress ideas expressed in the public forum. People are capable and do decide whether a message is laudable, laughable or even evil.  The opportunity to express a point of view that is unpopular allows for a public conversation.  It is through public discourse that public policy is properly formulated.

So was our President wrong to assert their was fault on both sides?  Was there violence from both sides?  See NBC News Link  Is it acceptable to bring weapons (bats) to a protest and cover your face in order to counter a demonstration by people that you believe are evil? Do you have the right to intimidate those, whose views you believe to be evil?    If your answer is yes, consider whether you are promoting a free discussion of issues.  (Who decides what is evil?)

Ask yourself will my answer allow me to speak, when my view is unpopular or in the minority?  (Roman Catholics consider what will happen to your rights to oppose current social mores, if violent intimidation of free speech becomes the new norm.  Remember, you are now seen as evil to many who promote gay marriage and abortion rights! ) Must any public official now rank the level of evil on each side  of an issue and express their ranking after any violent outbreak? (Remember your feelings are just that feelings.  Ask yourself this.  Are my feelings compelling me to stereotype everyone in a group?  Do I believe in guilt by association?)

Most demonstrations include some activist zealots and some merely interested attendees and all level of individuals between these extremes.  I doubt this demonstration was much different.  When the President said he thought there were good people on both sides, he probably was not wrong!  Yet he is vilified for not lumping all together because evil was clearly present.  (I guess stereotyping is fine as long as it is backed up by a liberal confirmation bias!)

Those who were merely interested bystanders or who believed an objectionable statute should remain maybe misguided by current social mores, but should not receive the same condemnation given to neo nazis nor should they be deprived of their right to speak their mind even if their viewpoint is objectionable to the majority!

Is there no benefit in remembering the mistakes of history in order to not repeat them?  Should their be a new American mantra “Expression which is offensive to any group must be eliminated because offensive speech is by its nature hurtful to someone.”  Anyone, who dares to hold a different view is our enemy!  (Let’s all welcome in the age of the ministry of information.  Perhaps popular media outlets should purge their archives of views proven incorrect over time. ) Death to the historic record!  Let’s all feel good today!

Freedom and exercise of free will can sometimes be messy!  People make bad choices!  Not everyone always agrees with the majority.  Do you not think there were some, who stood against the Nazi crowds in Germany?  Probably not many given the Nazi government’s propensity to eliminate all opposition, but had there been guaranteed free speech and public dialogue, perhaps the holocaust could have been averted or at least limited in scope.  The beauty of our country is that we protect the rights of all to speak their minds.

It is easy to stand for free speech, when the message is an admirable one, but much more difficult, when scarce resources are expended to allow those, whose speech we find objectionable even evil or when the protected speech violates our own basic code or morality.

Yet it is at these times that we must all rally to protect free speech.  It must be safe to express ideas without the threat of physical intimidation.  Our maintenance of our moral compass relies upon open and  free discussion.  Free discussion can not exist in an environment of intimidation.

Far too many have decided that we have free speech but any leader or individual’s speech must be parsed and then the parsed segments weighed.   If the parsed segments as interpreted threatens the strong feelings against an obvious evil, then the individual expressing such improvident views must be ostracized.  Does this scrutiny promote the idea of free expression or is this no more than the politics of division presenting itself in a different form?

Ask yourself: Do I support freedom of speech and free will only as long as it is easy?  Do words mean anything anymore or am I dominated exclusively by my feelings?  Do I suffer under a confirmation bias?

Allowing the exercise of free speech for those,who we regard as evil is the true test of whether a nation is truly tolerant.  May we always pass the test.  God bless America the land of the free!

Healthcare Reform: More than simply redistribution of insurance cost!

1) Accept that life is not fair and government can not make it fair.

2) Accept that markets are efficient allocators of resources, which will reallocate human and capital resources to meet needs and allows for individual freedom and is not dependent on political power to meet those needs.

3) Accept that human systems are not perfect. There is a place for charity. Charity fills in the gaps or fills in during intervals between resource reallocations. Charity maybe individual,familial,or institutional. It is different from governmental programs because it is based upon a voluntary exercise of personal choice and not an exercise of majority power,

4) Accept that insurance companies are not the sole driver of cost. Health insurance is not and should not be equated to healthcare. Access to insurance does not equal good healthcare. Insurance companies are not inherently good nor are they inherently bad. Health insurance itself is not the sole answer to provision of adequate healthcare and it should not be treated as such.

5) Big government solutions are exercises of power and societal promises that even when outdated they are not rolled back and seldom evaluated in light of a changing environment.

How long will we persist in our belief that government can care for individuals from cradle to grave?  We continue to prop up  every failed government progam and deceive the public as to their long term sustainability.

Now we are on the verge of ushering into permanency unsustainable government health insurance for some unknown number of additional insured’s at the expense of all.  The true costs of this program cannot be determined.  (Congressional Budget Office (CBO)projections have proven themselves inaccurate.  See initial Medicare cost estimates as one example and Obamacare projections as a second example of inaccuracies) Democrats argue that the system would be sustainable with just a little more income redistribution and single payor solution just like the unsustainable medicare program.   (Perhaps the Democrats should campaign on a new more robust second coming of the VA Health system.)  The solvency of the Medicare trust fund is only guaranteed at 100% to 2024.

It is argued that this is the best system available because it removes the profit motive of the private sector. Please consider this.  There are already non profit options available in the insurance universe and when a government solution is adopted, it is seldom evaluated to determine its cost effectiveness or its sustainability.  Only a crisis precipitates second look at a program, then the program is reinvigorated with additional taxpayer funds, but never seriously scrutinized for efficiency and effectiveness.

Never is there consideration given to the lost opportunity cost, when adopting such  programs.  What do I mean by this?  Programs are adopted institutionalizing payment structures and distribution techniques available at the time of adoption,   This means a fee for service structure will be perpetualized in any health insurance solution.  Innovative cost and life saving measures will not be pursued, as long as a government subsidized consumer base is guaranteed to insurers and health care providers.

Insurance principles are supposedly built into the healthcare system except in instances, where the outcome is disliked by the citizenry or seen as “unfair”  e.g. Insurance is about many paying a small amount (premium) for protection against unlikely risk.  If the cost (risk)is guaranteed, it is no longer insurance.  It is redistribution.

Life is not fair and we can not wish and make it so, nor can we design a human insurance system to handle all circumstances without creating staggering insurance premium increases.  We refuse to allow those with chronic preexisting conditions to pay more in premium as required in the private insurance market,(even if the chronically ill potential insured’s have the ability to pay more) so we mandate acceptance at prescribed rate despite the built in additional cost of insuring these individuals.  This guarantee increases premium for all and prices many out of the market or provides coverage with obscene deductibles.

We demonstrate our distaste for the economic facts by characterizing any, who oppose this type of (health insurance) socialism as discriminators or haters, who wish others to go away and die.  Be honest!  This is a small group of individuals.  Most will be absorbed into a group plan through employment.  Some have the ability to pay increased premium or will be self paying.   Some will be treated in poverty programs and some may need charitable assistance.  Finally as a last resort, some may need assistance from a non insurance health assistance fund.  Why demand change to the entire health insurance industry to cover these relative few.  Please be honest and admit some of these individuals simply are not insurable for the same rate as the general population.  We may not like it, but it is not discrimination and it is an economic fact

We ignore the insurance principle of adverse selection, which states those most in need of benefits will flock to secure them especially, when available at an artificially low cost, while the young and healthy will simply assume the risk and move forward without coverage.   We attempt to overcome this hurdle by an employer mandate and an individual non insurance penalty.  The mandate so repulsive to many, so we push back compliance dates and minimize repugnant penalties in a dishonest effort to avoid electoral consequences. The penalty is so minor that many simply opt to pay it.  Meanwhile many potential insureds wait and upon receiving a diagnosis of cancer, diabetes (insert your chronic ailment here), then secure coverage post diagnosis and guaranteed future costs are spread over a small individual state market unfit to absorb the these extensive costs.  There is no urgency to sign up prior to need, when acceptance post diagnosis is guaranteed at the same cost.  Cost is distributed to the individual state market place raising the cost for everyone in that subgroup of insureds.

Remember politics is who gets what, when and how.  The market is the result of billions maybe trillions of choices made by individual consumers and families.  Each consumer or group of consumers acting in what they believe to be their best interest.  If a need arises, it is in the interest of someone or group to fill the need or the need maybe altruistically filled by voluntary giving.  (that’s right voluntary as opposed to entitled receipt.  Witness such charitable organizations as St. Jude’s Hospital, American Cancer Society and numerous other charitable non profit and individual healthcare benefactors.)  The private company or group in the private market is  rewarded for their risk taking by reaping a profit.  (not evil in fact frequently is distributed to shareholders including workers, who invest their savings in companies and insurance products.) Government planning and action can not better decide allocation of resources.  I would argue it never will be able to accumulate and weigh the number of variables necessary to replace the market.

Government muddles through! Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines muddling through as to achieve a degree of success without much planning or effort.  (Doubt me?  Consider many in government service positions are career employees (carryover employees, not true believers), which means during any administration they may not agree with the agency activities or even the  stated goals of any department or agency.  How much effort and planning should you expect from this group.  Then consider Congress, which seldom agrees on the means to accomplish any single objective and may not even agree as to the goal itself)  The result of all this cognitive dissidence is government muddles through its tasks and inefficiently utilizes resources and seldom, if ever accomplishes its stated purpose.  This is hardly an acceptable replacement model for any market, let alone something as important as the health insurance market.

So what is the answer?

1) Accept that life is not fair and government can not make it fair.

2) Accept that markets are efficient allocators of resources, which will reallocate human and capital resources to meet needs and allows for individual freedom and is not dependent on political power to meet those needs.

3) Accept that human systems are not perfect. There is a place for charity. Charity fills in the gaps or fills in during intervals between resource reallocations.  Charity maybe individual,familial,or institutional. It is different from governmental programs because it is based upon a voluntary exercise of personal choice and not an exercise of majority power,

4) Accept that insurance companies are not the sole driver of cost. Health insurance is not and should not be equated to healthcare.  Access to insurance does not equal good healthcare.  Insurance companies are not inherently good nor are they inherently bad. Health insurance itself is not the sole answer to provision of adequate healthcare and it should not be treated as such.

5) Big government solutions are exercises of power and societal promises that even when outdated they are not rolled back and seldom evaluated in light of a changing environment.

Conclusion

Repeal of Obamacare is a necessary first step. We can always tinker at the edges of the system and provide means for those, who fall through the cracks in the system. (While writing this blog entry, I was watching a news reporter state that preexisting conditions handled in high risk pools totaled 115,000 policies. This is not an unmanageable number and gives credance to the idea that many with chronic health conditions are covered under the existing group plans or covered under existing poverty programs or medicare for seniors. If there is a requirement to immediately address an unfulfilled need i.e. preexisting conditions. There is more likely to be a better solution, if it is addressed as an individual issue. You can more easily identify the scope of the problem and limit the solution. The issue is not better addressed in all encompassing comprehensive legislation. (What about a deal?) Some Democrats maybe moved to lend support to gain this coverage, since the signature Obamacare legislation would be lost to them.

If there is no essential benefits package, perhaps there will be no need to keep children on their parents plan well into adulthood and if there is such a need perhaps a small adjustment in premium could produce the same result without a permanent unpaid governmental mandate. Some individuals could secure catastrophic coverage and choose to self insure by savings for some smaller medical expenses rather then pay into a massive one size fits all government mandate.

 
Educate the public that the majority of Obamacare’s insurance increase stems from the welfare healthcare expansion. That is medicaid. Is this how we want to cover these folks long term?  Remember this expansion was accomplished by a massive federal assumption of the expansion cost. This can not be permanent. Medicaid expansion merely kicks the can down the road with no road map to permanently assist this group to get permanent healthcare. The need for help for this group should be realistically assessed. Perhaps funding could be sunsetted as innovative healthcare delivery models are advanced to provide more affordable care.

Demand your state governments remove impediments to healthcare delivery. Examine professional licensing requirements. Examine state medical curriculum. Make certain they address healthcare needs and are not merely justification for professional fee increases!  Modify your tort laws to decrease malpractice insurance expenses.