Category: Politics

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!”

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

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!

Nurturing doesn’t mean “Supporting for life”

Republicans are portrayed as uncaring because they fail to nurture the citizenry from cradle to grave. Nurturing is not the same as supporting for life. Government cannot afford to support the able for life!

Republicans seem to lose the battle with the bicoastal masses because they are seen as “uncaring”. Uncaring has become code for unwilling to provide additional benefits or rights to the latest group identified as “oppressed” The oppression can be by individuals, corporations, government, politicians or all of the above. Republicans are perceived as heartless, if they don’t use government to nurture the less fortunate. Nurturing as defined by the bicoastal masses means support of individuals or groups for the duration of their perceived oppression. Many times this means support for ad infinitum.

Democratic politicians and academicians capitalize on these perceptions and label those with “non- traditional or non- nurturing policy” solutions as heartless or simply interested in promoting the rich. These groups create code words to emphasize the enormity of the uphill fight necessary to overcome their economic plight. Words and phrases like barriers, economic disabilities are used to emphasize the task faced by these groups are nearly insurmountable.

The fact is the downtrodden in our society may require financial assistance for a time in order to become contributing members of our society. I mention this group to emphasize that this is an extremely small group and there programs are already in place to assist these individuals. If these programs are failing, perhaps they should be evaluated and changed to better serve this group. It is a social safety net for those who can’t. The vast majority of individuals do not fall within the category of those incapable of taking care of themselves. It is the larger group of individuals capable of self support with the need for a boost that is the subject of this writing.

Indeed every parent with children approaching adulthood understands the dilemma faced by Republican lawmakers. The dilemma every parent faces as their child nears adulthood is the extent of the assistance provided to them. Parents are inclined to nurture even their adult children. When children receive too much assistance, they never learn to take risk and are frequently resigned to limited careers and perceive limited opportunity to advance. Parents worry about their children’s mistakes and after providing counsel must at times avert their gaze in order to allow their adult children to make their own decisions. Some of these decisions will be wrong and will have consequences. This is because we live in a free society. Individuals have free will.

Democrats are like modern day helicopter parents, who never want to allow their adult children to make their own decisions. They hover and provide constant support both emotional and financial. They never allow the bad decisions to be made or the consequences to follow, when bad decisions are made. They constantly emphasize the shortcomings of the system and its economy and how an individual can be oppressed and fail. Republicans are a divided party with some members hailing from bicoastal liberal states. Republicans are constantly battling both the Democrats and their vocal left wing, which wants government to support all individual decisions throughout their life with no consequences for bad decisions.

Democrats point to statistics that emphasize the small group (less than 20% that can’t afford or don’t wish to purchase healthcare) and see that as an example of the “heartless society” thrust upon us by the “mean spirited Republican majority”. Democrats see no place for individual responsibility. All are just feathers in the wind cast about forces beyond their control. They champion the causes of groups like those young adults under 26 still dependant on their parents and individuals, who choose to wait to purchase health insurance until after they are ill and make rules promoting these individuals at the expense of the all. Yes, Democrats, rules, quotas and your agenda are costly and hurt economic growth and thereby increase bad decisions and increase need.

Fortunately Democrats, Americans are a tolerant people, but this does not mean we need to celebrate everyone’s lifestyle choices or subsidize their financial poor choices. If you choose not to work or work in a field, which has low demand, then your economic prospects will reflect your choice.

It is not hateful to point out those life choices have consequences and should. Rather than champion extreme lifestyles and poor economic choices, perhaps both Republicans and Democrats should allow charities, families and charitable groups to help this small group of individuals over the short term consequences of their decisions. Individuals have the absolute right to choose how they live, but government does not have the responsibility to shield the individual from the consequences of their decisions or enable their continued bad choices utilizing subsidies from others.

Republicans need to cease to be apologists for all failure. Government does not replace family, friends or charity. Failure has a purpose. Failure is frequently a precursor of success. Ask any accomplished individual and they can provide a litany of mistakes from which they learned valuable lessons. These learning experiences frequently lead to later success.

Republicans stop parenting. Start governing. Governing does not mean standing place of parents. (Acting in loco parentis) Governing means that you allow individuals to make choices and understand some will choose badly. Freedom allows for exercise of free will and includes the right to make errors and learn from the errors and grow.

Federal Government: It’s certainly not family

It isn’t your mother or your father, a sibling or even a close relative.  Contrary to popular media descriptions, it isn’t your uncle either.  Government is not a replacement for your family.

It isn’t your mother or your father, a sibling or even a close relative. Contrary to popular media descriptions, it isn’t your uncle either. Government is not a replacement for your family. It doesn’t see you as an individual. It isn’t a replacement for organized religion and certainly should never be seen as a moral compass. It is the use of force by a legislative majority over the rest of us and should only be used for limited necessary purposes. It is a poor allocator of scarce resources. It is a very poor investor, yet the general public trusts it to make many life decisions, which affect the economy, the family and the individual.

Would you trust someone with your household finances, if they repeatedly borrowed in order to pay current living expenses? Would you trust a bookkeeper,who told you that you had money set aside for your old age, when all you had was a cabinet full of IOU’s? Would you trust a financial adviser, who proposed improvements to your property or additional property purchases, when basic maintenance on your existing assets was not occurring? If you answered no to any of these questions, then why do you trust government with your money?

Government continues to borrow for entitlements, which are really programs that provide basic living expenses for citizens. It is part of the never ending and always expanding “WAR ON POVERTY”. It is the longest running war in US history and there is no indication, we are winning. There is never an examination to determine if the programs provide increased opportunity and when evaluated; it is only with an eye toward increasing funding.

Are these programs efficient and effective? If they are effective, then why isn’t there significantly less program usage during periods of full or near full employment? Why were we advertising for additional food stamp recipients? Why is any cut in the rate of increase in these programs seen as an attack on the poor ratherthan a victory over poverty?

Would you continue to spend your personal money like this? If your answer is no, then isn’t it time to examine these programs and phase out these programs in favor of some which promote individual dignity and self sufficiency. and actually accomplish their purpose?

Should we continue to rely on ineffective government and continue to borrow and never have to do more than make token payments on the end bill? There is no pain. No day of reckoning. Why don’t we increase our use of charity to help the poor? Is it because charities know they have limited resources and allocate to the truly needy? Is it because promising programs insures representatives reelection and continued political power?(Remember politics is who gets what, when, where and how.)

What is the role of family both nuclear and extended, when a relative is faltering financially? How many times have you heard parents say: “I just don’t want to be a burden to my children?” Is that proper thinking? When is it not the duty of the family to care for its own, whenever possible? When does someone step up and say “The emperor is naked”? When do we acknowledge the lessons of history that communities, which fail to compete, go into decline?

Demand your representatives; both federal and state evaluate their spending. Spend your money like it is their own. The question a representative should ask is whether this spending is a necessary and efficient use of taxpayer funds for a purpose consistent with limited government. Why should government take on this responsibility?

Taxpayers please don’t fall for the advertising campaigns for increased spending, which tout that the spending is only so much per day or week to fund this program. This ploy has been used to fund never ending ineffective public policy, which starts at a certain amount then continues to grow and grow over time. Ask is this a valid use of the force of government? (Doubt this statement?
Ask yourself how many times you have felt your tax money was spent toward a purpose you would not support? Why do you pay? Legitimate use of force but forcenone the less,AKA taxes!) If this program is a good idea, can it be accomplished by voluntary contributions or by a charity? If no one would contribute to voluntarily fund it, why not? Is there an achievable goal with an end in sight? If permanent, will it afford individuals the opportunity to move onto a more productive life? Does the proposed program support increased life skills and self sufficiency?

Remember

Government is not a replacement for your family or your social support network.

Paying taxes doesn’t absolve you of your family responsibilities nor should the payment of taxes be used to assuage your conscience.

Families are responsible for each other. Where incapable for a time to provide, they should be required to “pay back” anyone, who provides necessaries for their members.
Existence of government programs doesn’t absolve individuals from helping their neighbors.
Federalism is the basis of our great republic and the any power not given to the federal government should not be exercised by it.

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.