How Progressive Programs Have Create the Problems of Today — Intro

I have been thinking about how so many of the problem we have today have been created by government, especially the Federal Government, involvement in our lives. Wherever I look what I see is that the problems we have today, when I investigate and look at the history of the problems, what I find is that government in trying to solve a minor problem, has created a larger problem and then tries to fix the new problem with more government involvement. This process is like treating anemia with bloodletting and when it does not work, instead of stepping back and trying to figuring out what truly is going on, just letting out more blood. It will not work and eventually will kill the patient, which is what I believe is happening now in the US.

So what is a progressive policy and how do they come about. A progressive policy is one that is supposedly designed to move society forward and in a direction that makes it better for all. That would seem to mean that it would create a society that is richer, healthier, and in every way better then what we have today. The problem is that while the ideal is achievable, the time frame that the progressive have in mind is not. They want what they want now, and allowing society to evolve naturally to the ideal condition is not an option. Also those that promote these policies tend to get frustrated with having to take the time and energy to convince those that disagree with them.

They also tend to have a view that society is a machine like system, which can be controlled by just setting the right switches in the right places, and given enough time and money they will get it right. The problem with this is that society is not like a machine, it is not only a dynamic system that is in constitute change, it is a chaotic one that is unpredictable. Throwing a switch or changing a setting can have unforeseen results, that can and will cause more problems in the future.

So when you have people that believe they know the solution and we all will agree with them if we listen and were as smart as them, with the belief that society can be controlled like a machine, you end up with people who write and implement progressive policies. Now since these policies are designed to make people do things which they might not agree are good for them, but are good for society as a whole, the policies must by design limit freedom. People who believe in these policies are not concerned with that, because they know that the choices they are limiting are the wrong choices.  So the issue is to identify the progressives in society and their policies, so that we can fix the problems they have caused.

Before we start, I want to propose that there are three types of people in society.  There are those that have a desire to lead, and there are those that have a desire to follow.  It is these two types of people that the progressive policies appeal to.  The ones that want to lead, like the progressive policies because it make the people dependent on them, thus easier to lead.  The ones that have a desire to follow, like the progressive policies because it means they do not have to take responsibility for themselves, those that lead have already taken on that responsibility.  It is the third group that has no use for progressive policies, because they are a group of people that want to take responsibility for their lives, and also have no desire to take on the responsibility for the lives of others.  So even if they exhibit the traits listed below, they will not act on them, except in their personal lives, which will not cause anyone else any problems.

The first thing to look for in a progressive is the belief that they are superior to everyone else around them, especially those that disagree with them.  They also believe that this superiority is what gives them the right to lead society out the darkness to greatness, and justifies their desire for power.  So you can see this can be a person like Al Gore, who believes that he and those that agree with him are right.  Or it can be a radical religious leader, like those in the Taliban, that believes that our problems are caused by sinners in society.  Or it can a politicians that calls those that disagree with them stupid, dangerous or worst.  See they can not have dissent about what they want to do, because of the fallacy in their second identifying trait.

The second identifying trait is that they believe they have the only correct solution to the problem to be solved.  In some cases they believe they and those that follow them are the only ones that see the problem.  Everybody else is too stupid or do not wish to solve the problem, because not doing so benefits them.  Since they have the solution to the problem, there is really no need to discuss the issue or listen to other views.  Doing so will only cloud the issues further and make implementing the solution harder. They also do not have the patience or believe the problem is so dire, that taking the time to convince us idiots that they are right, will take too long. This is why they believe that systems of government that place the power in the hands of the elites like them are so great.  It eliminates public debate and makes things run smoother.  This leads into the third attribute of a progressive, which is they ignore evidence that does not support their position.

See if they acknowledge that their solution have failed in the past when they have been tried, that admission will then destroy the preceding beliefs that they hold true.  So they tend to not acknowledge the problems that history has shown their same policies have caused in the past.  They will say that what is being said is a lie, or some sort of distortion of the truth.  If they are forced to acknowledge it they will then start making excuses, such as those previous policies did not have enough support, and if they did have the support required, those bad results would not of happened.  They will blame others for the falling of the policies, for example they will claim the policies were sabotaged.  In all cases their response will basically fall back around to that the problems with their solution being reported were not caused by the solution, it was instead that the solution was not able to be implemented correctly.  They will then argue that the only way to implement the solution correctly, is with more money, and more rules that keep the wrong choices from being made. This leads us to the way to identify a progressive solution to a problem.

A progressive policies can be identified by several traits.  They all center around the certainty that the policies are never the problem, instead the problem is that the policy has not been implemented correctly because of several reasons.  First there was not enough money put towards solving the problem, thus more money is always going to be needed.  This leads to the lost to more and more property rights, as that property is seized to support the policies.  Second, there are those that are purposely working around the limits the policy has put in place, and thus more rules and regulation are need.  This leads to lost of more and more freedoms, as these rules limit what can and can not be done.  Thirdly the policy is being, sabotaged by those that spread falsehoods about those policies, this leads to more censoring of speech, to correct those errors.  So right there we have three true litmus test to identify a progressive policy, by the rights being violated by the implementation of the policies.  Government will take more and more property from the citizens, so as to provide more resources to those policies, violating the right to property.  Second, the government will introduce new laws limiting the actions that people can take, this will limit the liberty of the people.  Thirdly the government, will try to silence those that speak against these policies.  Most of this will be done by ridicule and personal attacks, but can quickly move into actual government actions taken against those that do not support the policies.

In the post, of this series, to follow I am going to look at policies in various areas of society that the Progressive have identified as not working correctly. We try to identify some of the policies that they put in place that caused these problems and will also look at how and why these policies meet the above criteria.  And then, finally we will look at what we can do to repair the damage they have done.  The first area I want to tackle is the education system in this country.

Michael Moore and I Agree … There is No Free Market in the United States

I was working on another post, but this video came to my attention and I had to discuss it right now, it was just too good to miss. If you have read some of my previous post, especially on health care, one of my themes is that we really do not have a true free market in this country. We do have a market that is freer then most in the world, but it can not be classified as a true free market because of the involvement of government in business.

Well imagine my surprise when I found out that Micheal Moore actually agrees with me.

Now I will say that me and the Chad Swarthout agree to the solution, which is less government. Mr. Moore in his own words remains optimistic that a government of the people by the people can fix the problem. I think he is going to have to wait for a long time for that to occur, because when you use government to control business. Business will use their money and influence to control government, that is just the way it is. And in that process we the people are the losers.

If instead we keep government from being able to control business, then business will have no reason to influence government. That will remove them from the picture and give us more power over government, by default. And if you allow business to function without government involvement, then business will have to deal with us fairly in order to get our business. They will not be able to use government to eliminate competition anymore, which is what they do now. This will give us more power over how businesses do business, via the democratic rules of the free market.

One other thing that Moore does not understand is that a true free market is very democratic. If a business does not treat me well or makes a crummy product I can vote against that businesses continuing to exist by going elsewhere. Is that not a democratic process? But when one business gets advantages over another from government, my vote is diluted. Progressives believe in government involving themselves in business, which leads to them picking winners and losers. Usually the winners are those that provide the most money to the campaigns of the politicians.

He also mentioned the high pay of executives. This problem has two roots. First it is the very large business that got that way because of government interference. But the other problem is the changes that the progressives made in this country. Before the 1950 to become an executive in a business you normally started in the mail room and worked your way up. That did two things, first it taught you the business and second it gave you feeling of owner ship in the business. I realized the truth about the ownership part because of my work history. As is not very typical in the computer business I have worked at the same company for 18 years. Most people in the computer field change jobs about every 2 years or so. One day it hit me that I felt ownership of our product and business because of the years I had put in there. That is missing in today’s society when people switch jobs every few years.

Now what you have is people go to college for degrees that were not needed before the 1950 and businesses were convinced by executives with degrees that only people with degrees would make good executives. This led to a mindset that each company had to get the best executive out there by paying them more and more, instead of promoting the mail room clerk up the corporate ladder. Now executives demand higher pay and more staff which feeds into the whole cycle, as condition for them taking a job. Why do we have this, because the idea that a college degree was necessary was created by the progressives. They then got the government to step in and provide a means to get that degree. This then leads into the other problem Moore mentioned, student loans and debt when leaving college.

See Moore is correct, colleges used to work their butts off to get students to apply. They were all in competition for a small body of students that had the necessary resources and learning to attend college. When the progressives promoted the idea that college was necessary and give people the means to pay for it, more students were available for the colleges to admit. As any economics professor will tell you if the demand goes up and the supply stays the same the price will go up. To make matters worst, since most students were not paying for college, instead the government was through student loan programs, there was no desire from the students to drive the price down. This pushed the prices up even faster the normal.

So every problem Moore mentions in this clip, I believe can be traced back to one thing. The very progressive polices that he so lovingly believes in.

The problem I see with overly complex laws

One of the things we as a people are realizing is that our government likes overly complex laws. There are maybe many reasons for this, but one that I have been thinking about recently is the one I want to talk about. I am getting a strong impression as I am becoming more aware and waking from from my slumber, that laws are not really written protect the rights of others from being violated. Instead I am starting to believe that they are written to give cover to those that break the laws and have the right connections. In this group I put politicians, business leaders, bureaucrats and even celebrities (which could explain their leaning left, beside they being airheads). Basically anyone that has the connections and money to get a lawyer that knows the law is protected by these complex laws. The sad thing is that the people who need their rights protected the most, are the ones that do not fit in those groups. Instead they are the very people the powerful in this country take advantage of, hiding behind and using those very complex laws.

A good example of this is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 that was signed by President Bush. If you are not aware of the effect of this law, it requires that all batches of any product produced and designed to be sold for children under 12, be tested for certain chemicals. It does not matter if the item is made by a big toy company like Mattel or a small independent producer of items, like the folks at craft shows. They all must test the items at great expense by a third party, or so it would seem. According to this news release, Mattel has gotten approved by the CSP on a 3-0 vote to used their own “fire walled” testing labs, which is allowed by the laws. Supposedly these testing labs are protected from corporate influence, and thus will not perform the testing accordingly. It would seem that now Mattel has plausible deniable if a contaminated item gets through. All they would have to do is claim a problem was at the lab and pay a fine. How much you want to bet that the fine will be less then the true cost of testing they would of otherwise had to pay?

Now the question is why can we not say that if a manufacture, produces a product that is used properly and cause harms is responsible. Not only should the company be responsible, but also the executive in charge that should be responsibility for the actions of the company. There is two reasons why we have moved away from this simple concept. First we have stupid consumers that sue when they misuse the product. The sad thing is that not only do they have their cases heard, but they sometimes win. But the other reason is that we have companies and executives that do not take responsibility for their actions or inaction. Both of these come together to make laws that try to cover all conditions and in trying to do that create even bigger holes for others to use to keep out themselves of trouble.  You throw in special interest that use their contacts to have exceptions thrown in that they can take advantage of and end up where laws protect those that violate our rights, instead of protecting our rights.

The only way we are only going to fix this problem, is by changing society. We as a society need to wake up and start taking responsibility for our actions and also holding others accountable for their actions. Part of this is for us to start electing people who will stand up for the rule of law and the rights of people, above using the law to build up their power, and protect their supporters and friends. At that point laws need to be passed that are simple, clear and concise in nature.

Am I really Selfish?

This question comes about after my visit to Senator Warner’s office and talking to one of his legislative aides. The aides total attitude towards me oozed the sentiment that I was selfish, because I did not want to pay more taxes and be forced to accept healthcare plans approved by the government.

I am supposedly selfish because I want the government to leave me alone and let me live my life. I am selfish because I want to make the decision of who to help and why. I am selfish because I want to take care of myself. There has to be something wrong with that picture.

So let us start with the definition of selfish. I know we all think we know what it means, but so we are clear here is the two definition that apply:

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one’s own welfare or advantage in disregard of others.

When I look at those definition I see one that common theme that jumps out at me. In both they talk about a “disregard of others”, meaning that I do not care about the plight of others. I do care about the plight of others, and try to help out as much as I can, but I can not help out as much as I would like because most of my money is going to pay taxes.

I also decide to look at the various religions and what their commandments had to say. This was very interesting because what I found is that while most promoted charity, they also said had a lot to say about stealing, or taking what is not yours by force. For example the religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all follow the 10 commandments or some form of it. No where in the 10 commandments will you find selfishness mention, but you will find both stealing and coveting mentioned. I found the main commandment of Buddhism, on the web and the list I looked at, had the admonishment against stealing at number two. Now some could make a point that the commandments of Buddhism eight; “Wear no garlands, perfumes or any adornments.”, nine; “Sleep not in luxurious beds.”, and ten; “Accept no gold or silver.”, could be admonishments against selfishness. I do not see it that way, I see it as an admonishment against living a life of excess, which is completely different then having no regard for others, as you get as much as you can . The ten disciplines list of Hinduism list stealing at number four along with a desire to possess. From what I can find the desire to posses is more along the lines of coveting and not living to excess and above your means. The point is that most of the major religions of the world and even those who not religious in nature will agree that stealing or coveting what is not yours is a greater wrong, then that of wanting to keep what is yours.

So what does it means to covet that which is not yours or to steal. From the same on-line dictionary above I get the following definition for covet.

to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably

For the word steal I get this meaning.

to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

I do not think that it is much a jump in logic to realize that if you covet something, you are more likely to steal it if you can get away with it.

Why do those that are calling me selfish want to take what I have? It is because they believe they can do more good in the community with it, then I will, and thus they are more deserving of it then me. I think this fits the definition of coveting mentioned above. Now if you covet what I want, and then can get that taking from me by force either directly or through a third party, that is stealing.

Wait you say stealing is only illegal if it is done against the law. That is true, you are using the laws to take what I have. But that raises the following question, are those laws just? There are and have been laws on the books that are unjust, for example just look at the Jim-Crow laws of the south before the civil rights movement. Those laws were unjust because they treated people differently. So are the laws that take my property away, without cause, to give to those that the government has determine need it more then me, really be called just? I do not believe so, because the government is taking my property to provide something that is not to my benefit. This means that I have less to money to pursue my happiness with, as guaranteed by the Constitution in the preamble. The government is only really allowed to tax me and spend my money when doing so allows them to protect my right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. It does not matter if the money goes to the poor or goes to the wealthy, taking what is mine and not providing a benefit to me is wrong. That makes the laws that take what is mine and gives it others unjust in nature, and using them to take what is mine is thus stealing.

So what we have is that if I want to keep what I have worked hard for and earned, I am selfish. So what are those that want to have the government take what I worked hard for and give it to them. I would say they are thieves. And I will have to say I much rather be called selfish, then to be called a thief. So if you are going to continue to call me a selfish for wanting to keep what is mine, maybe I should start calling you a thief for wanting to take that which is not yours. I pretty sure when it comes down to who is more right, I will end up on top.

Now we are at that final question that you need to answer. I am proud to be selfish in your eyes, are you proud to be a thief in mine?

The Path to Success for Our Kids is Through Failure

My mom sent me this video in an e-mail, it is of a man name Nick Vujicic. I do not know much about this exceptionable man. Here is a man that has not allowed his disabilities to stop him. Most of us in his position would of given up and be living in a bed, having people take care of us. But he has not taken that path, instead he has not given up

This is what we need to teach our kids today, but it is not what teach them anymore. We protect them from failure. No one loses at sports anymore, everybody get a trophy. We do everything in our power to not fail our students. We dumb down the classes and material, so that they do not have to think. We do not allow our children to take risk, we place them in a bubble and try to keep them from harm. One reason I believe we do this is because we have fewer children today and thus we have more time and resource to put towards them. But the main reason is that we have been told that we need to protect our children’s self esteem.

This is a fallacy that you will find in the logic of most of the programs today. They focus too much on the results and not on the best way to achieve the results. In this case the real best way for kids to build their self esteem is to learn that they will fail, but if they really want to achieve they will have to work through that failure. It is this process of failure and eventual success that builds real self esteem. When we take away the failure aspect, we do not allow them the real chance to succeed. The other thing about is that we are just fooling ourselves, we do not fool them, they know better. They do keep score, even if we do not. They know that they did not truly win that trophy, which is why it is in the back of the closet or under the bed. Failure is the only way to success, when we remove this we remove the real chance for success.

I want to finish this by mentioning a person that I found out about, that I really admire. This is a man that started off with very little, he had just a sixth grade education and became a multi-millionaire. That in is a great story, but there is even more. He was educated in a poor area of Monroe, Louisiana, in the late 1910’s. Two years after his family moved to Memphis, Tennessee, his mother passed away leaving him at the age of 15 and his six siblings to fend for themselves. In 1928 he moved to Chicago and worked at various jobs, but even though he had a job during the depression, he struck out on his own. It seems he preferred his “freedom” to “security”, and for that very reason he did the following.

He took 25 dollars, using his car as collateral to purchase soap, which he sold door to door. He was able to build this company up to 18 million dollars of sales and a sales force of 5000. It was also at this time that he started having problems, first the White Citizen’s Council organized a boycott of his products when they learned his company was owned by an African-American. This was then made worst when he spoke and unspeakable truth in an interview with the US News and World Report “Negroes are not discriminated against because of the color of their skin. They are discriminated against because they have not anything to offer that people want to buy.”. This did not go over well with the African-American leaders of the time, and they arranged a boycott of his products also. So now he was getting from both sides. This plus a some federal legal troubles he went into bankruptcy in 1971 and was order to repay 1.6 millions. Even with all this in 1972 the company made $300 thousands, and he did not give up.

That is the message you need to spread to your children. No matter where you look, those that actually achieve something in this country, have gotten there through failure. Not because someone protected them from that failure.

How to Destroy Big Businesses for Lefties.

I know that a lot of you think that big corporations are bad and that they need to be reigned in and even destroy. The problem is, from what I can see, that you have not had much success in this endeavor, and I thought I would point you to a different tactic that you can use to actually bring big business to their knees. There are also some additional benefits to this plan as it will place more power in the hands of the people and help the minority communities in this country. It will do this by increasing the power of community based businesses, which is something your current techniques are not doing.  Actually your current techniques are having the opposite effect.

This plan will not be popular with a lot of people. One of these groups that will not like this is the politicians in Washington. See they like having big business around, because a few big companies are easier to regulate and control, then many smaller community based businesses. They like their power over the businesses and the people, and are not willing to give it up. This will also limit the power of politicians at the state and local level, for the same reasons.  Of course if you have fewer people telling you what you can not do, you will have more choices and options available to you to make a difference in you community.  This is also something they do not want, they want you to look to them for the solutions.

This plan is not favored by big business either. It will truly make them work harder to stay in business. They will have to lower their prices, provide good customer service and treat their employees fairly. They will have to make all the types of changes that you want them to make. They will have to respect the environment, if that is what you want. They will have to provide the products and services you demand. Everything that you desire can be made to happen by the correct implementation of this plan. They do try to make you  believe that they want this system put in place, but they are just pulling a Brer Rabbit on you and have been successful at it. They scream for this change all the time, but in fact they do that because they know you will do your best to deny them whatever the ask for.  All I am asking is to sit down and think about things, do you really think the big lazy businesses want to work for your business.  Of course not, they want to do as little work as possible for your business and in this they are succeeding.  This plan will change that dynamic, they will have to work for you business.

Now you are familiar with this plan, but those that want the power and do not want you to achieve you objectives have been lying to you about this for years. They say they want to help you achieve the things you want, but in fact what they want is more power and control over you life. The thing is, that they will even work with big businesses in the back rooms and dark alleys to achieve this goal. The business in the light of day scream about how unfair all the regulations are and how they will hurt their business, but the truth is that those laws and regulations are designed to help them get a bigger shared of the market for their products and put their competitors out of business. They will say that we have tried it in the past and it has failed. That is not true, we have never allowed it to function without interference, and even then when the interference was not too great, the things done under this model have brought you all the goodies you enjoy today. Every major advance in that has been made in the last 200 years, has come about because of this system, even when it was hobbled by the government. When this is not allow to function, the advances of this country and others have stagnated.

Now you maybe wondering why someone like me that does not believe in those things you do is going to tell you how to bring down the big corporations in this country. The main reason is that I want my freedoms. I want to be able to live my life the way I think is best and this secret pact between politicians and big corporations is making that harder and harder. I also like community businesses and I think that everyone that wants to open one should have that chance. See I need you to work with me to make this change, without you things will just get worst and the changes you and I both want to see will never be achieved.

This system is the Free Market, allowing business and consumers to get the best deal they can and to look out for their own interest. Where this system has not been allowed to function, the environment has been destroyed to a greater extent then it every has in this country. The income difference between the poor and the rich is wider then it is here, and us moving away from that system has made the problem worst in this country. The middle class was destroyed, when this system was eliminated. Not having a free market system allows the government and big business to enslave the population, and in the process make those who are in control to get richer and more powerful. While the rest of us get weaker and poorer.

Now I do not ask you take my word for all the above. I actually suggest that you go forth, read and learn more about this system. I want you to fully understand how this system works, and I know that you are smart enough to make a decision based on the facts you will find. That is something that those who will tell you that this system will not work, do not want you to do. They will tell you not to waste your time, that you will not learn anything new. That all you will find is lies told to you by big business. But I just want you to keep one thing in mind, I want you to learn the truth for yourself. They want you to listen only to them, because they know best. I want you to listen to yourself, because I know that you know best, not them.

Here is a good site to go to get started, they have podcast that you can download and listen to on your iPod. Please do so, because even if you end of disagreeing with me, I want you to know the truth.

Foundation for Economic Education

Dr. Ezeklel Emmanuel’s Speech at City Club of Cleveland 06/13/08 Video 3 Part 1

Video 2 Part 2

Okay the final video, and then I can get on other issues. In this video we will hear the last two planks of the Doctor’s plan. We will also hear his thoughts on how to deal with the tort reform problem, and then an recap of his plan and how it solves the problems with the health care system that need to be solved, at least according to him.

Of course his solutions to these problems, for the most part, will do more harm then good.

The video starts right off with plank 8 of his plan. When talking about his plan he says the following. Again when I have take each plank and broken it down into bullet points.

The plan would be overseen by a National health board and 12 regional health boards, modeled on the Federal Reserve.

• That is the officials would be appointed for long standard terms, could not be removed, are not political appointees.
• So that they are insulated from political pressure, they have finances through the guaranteed dedicated Value Added Tax so there is not any fiscal pressure on them by Congress.
• They set the standard benefit package, they oversee these insurance exchanges, they get information from health plans on their performance and they report to the American people and Congress about the performance of the health care system regularly.

Okay so we are going to model this on one of the most out of control systems the Congress has ever created, the Federal Reserve. A body that we have come to learn, can not be controlled by Congress or the President. This is made worst because the people in control of my health care will be appointed for a long time, and no matter what they do they can not be removed from office. Also my health care is a lot more personal then Federal Reserve policies. In addition they will have control of a large sum of other peoples money, which they will be able to spend based on the rules that they will set. Congress will have no real oversight of them, and I will be subject to the laws they dream up. Can someone say unconstitutional?

We now get into plank number 9 at 0:38 into the video. This plank deals with another group that looks at the effectiveness of new technology and treatments.

There is an Institute for Technology and Outcome Assessment.

• One of the problem with our current system is that we don’t actually monitor the value of new interventions. We don’t monitor how patients are doing overall. We conduct these sort of random big studies about how people are doing, but we do regularly get data.
• And as most business men recognize, without data you can’t manage. You need to know the performance to know whether things are getting better or worst.
• This institute is all about collecting data.
• We propose to fund it with about 0.5% of the Value Added Tax.
• And to collect data, evaluate new interventions, see if they are actually worth it. Evaluate how persons are doing in the various health plans and insurance plans.

As you will see below in further statements, this institute is the one that is going to recommend that if you are 50 years old and need an expensive procedure, you will not get it. He maybe right that we need more and better information on how well procedures and technology are working. But the decisions based on that information needs to be made by the patient and their families, not some faceless bureaucrat in the regional office. In addition that information should not be collected by the Government, but a group that will get value for their honesty and truthfulness.

At 1:20 he addresses the malpractice issue, by creating a system that even a two year old will know is not fair. Here is him describing how he would handle it.

Finally to solve the medical malpractice problem, we propose a each regional health care board have a center for patient safety and dispute resolution. So patients that feel like they have been harmed by medical malpractice will report to these centers. They would investigate and adjudicate and they would also have authority and responsibility for instituting patient safety measures, so fewer people get harmed by the medical care system.

So let me get this straight, the same group that is telling the doctors what they can and can not do, that is controlling my health care and has a financial stake in the outcome of my treatment, is going be investigator, judge, and jury on any malpractice case I might bring forth. Who thinks they will get a fair trial in this system. I do not think that will be the case, I think that any decision is going to be based on the bottom line for the region, not my health.

Video 3 Part 2

Dr. Ezeklel Emmanuel’s Speech at City Club of Cleveland 06/13/08 Video 3 Part 2

Video 3 Part 1

At this point he starts his recap on his plan with the following statement 1:51 minutes into the video.

I wanted to leave you with two points. First how does this “Guaranteed Health Care Access Plan deal or how dose it fulfill the four big issues, coverage, cost, quality, and helping the economy.

So let us see what he has to say. The first statement is at 2:07, and talks about the fact his plan has guaranteed access.

First on the access issue, it guarantees all American, all 100% of Americans health care insurance.

This is because I will have no choice. I must have insurance from his exchange, following his rules and limits.

What about controlling cost. Well first of all through the insurance exchanges you reduce insurance underwriting, sales and marketing cost. There is no cost by evaluating whether a poor person is eligible so we get rid of a lot of excess cost in medicaid. There is no business cost associated with managing insurance. But more importantly looking into the future, by having a dedicated Value Added Tax we force ourselves to live with in our means. If we want to increase the package, we want more benefits added to the standard package we have to be willing to pay the taxes. Given how much the American population loves paying taxes, I think that it will inspire some fiscal discipline in this area.

Just two points about this. First look at all the jobs that will be lost under this plan. Second, if you can not raise taxes, you will have to control cost. If all of the standard cost control methods fail such as innovation, which they will because of the lack of market forces, the only option left will be to ration care.

He then tries to use competition to justify his plan at 3:30.

Second, given competition between health insurance plans, about, trying to get people, I think they will be able to be more cost effective and more efficient, and keep cost under control.

This actually makes sense in a weird way. He is right that competition would normally lower cost, but since every plan is the same, cost the same, and looks the same, there will not be any competition. Of course the true solution to our health care problem, is true competition which would lower prices and increase benefits.

Then he throws in supplemental insurance at 3:42.

Third, Given that Americans will be able to buy supplemental insurance, that if they have to buy with money from their own pocket they are going to be pretty scrupulous about whether they are getting value for dollar. They will try to keep cost down.

This will only keep the cost of the supplemental insurance down, at least until those plans dry up. As more features are added to the basic plan, they will be needed less. And these features will be added, because the supplemental insurance will be bought mainly by those who can afford them. Those that can not afford these plans, will scream that it is unfair. There is only two ways to deal with this “unequal access” to this insurance, add those benefits to the standard plan or outlaw the supplemental insurance.

Video 3 Part 3

Dr. Ezeklel Emmanuel’s Speech at City Club of Cleveland 06/13/08 Video 3 Part 3

Video 3 part 2

We are now at the main issue. How the Institution of Technology and Outcome Assessment is going to control cost, which he addresses here at 3:59.

Most importantly going into the future, I think that the Institution for Technology and Outcome Assessment is going to provide us very valuable information about what medical procedure work so that we are not spending so much money on wasteful services that really don’t improve health. But also it sends a message backwards, a message to drug companies, device manufactures and other people that are developing medical technology. You have got to develop technologies that really add bang for the buck. That don’t add six weeks of life for 55,000 dollars, but add real cures to people. We are willing to pay for that, but we are not willing to pay for marginal things. That will change dramatically the incentive structure for drug companies, device manufactures and others in terms of what they actually generate.

If you look at this you will see two problems. First thing is the message he will send back to the drug companies, device manufactures and other people, is to not take risks, because they will not be awarded for taking those risk. This will shutdown one of the last remaining conclaves of talent, that is pushing advances in medicine. He is right it will change what they generate, they will be generating less of those new advances that we need The other issues is why can not I pay for a 55,000 dollars to add six weeks to my life, if it would let me see my child graduate, get married or just because I want to take one last vacation with my spouse, and let us not forget miracles do happen, I could be cured. That choice should be mine and my family, not the government’s.

At 4:48, he tries to argue that quality is going to go up. He truly is off base here, because the opposite is actually going to happen.

Quality, given a fix budget, can provide for people, but also with risk adjustment. Insurance companies are going to have a very strong incentive to develop the infrastructure, information systems to get high quality care to people. If they are monitored for patient outcome, they are going to have to develop information systems and they are going to improve outcomes.

What is actually going to happen is that the insurance companies are going to keep these people around while they make money. After they get too sick they are going to start pushing the regional directors into letting them cut the patients off and then to die. They know that as a group, we have to sign up with them, they will get paid, and if they can convince the regional boards that it does not pay to keep you alive, they can get rid of you. This is not a free market, because it is missing one important part. The is the ability of me to not participate, only with that will any positive effect happen.

He tries to strengthen his non-existent claim that the free market will be involved at 5:10.

Furthermore because individual Americans hold the certificate and decide which plan they go with, there is going to be a very strong incentive on those plans to actually satisfy individual American’s needs and demands that they provide high quality care.

Again this is not free market, their will be no competition because all the plans will be the same and cost me the same.

The next point, which occurs at 5:25, is the only point that he gets partial right. But again he has to ruin it because he does not want to give up the control.

Finally helping the American economy. Taking health care out of employers, I think is going to be a huge boom. For individuals, it does two things. It guarantees them portability, if they lose their job, if they change jobs, if they want to start their own company they still have health insurance. Second, it give them security that long into the future they will have health coverage. Even if their son or daughter develops cancer or someone gets sick. They are not going to go bankrupt, just because someone needed health care coverage.

Taking the health care out of the hands of the employers needs to be done. This is main plank of the free market solution. The free market goes further by allowing you to take your insurance policy across state line, and purchase out of state polices. I also believe that if the free market was allowed to play itself out, and the consumer demanded it you would get long term plans that do cover preexisting conditions. The market will rise up to serve the people. All government does is serve those with the biggest pocketbooks.

His weakest economic argument for his plan is at 6:00.

Furthermore, almost every strike in America over the last 10 years, except the Hollywood writers strike, has been about health care. … We get rid of that, it is no longer a labor/management issue, health care.

Give me a break, the unions will find other reasons to strike, that is what they do.

At this point he really turns the world upside down with his logic, it starts at 8:14.

Let me end with this, there are two enduring values in American society. Equality of opportunity, we want everyone to have an equal chance in the race. Our plan gives everyone an equal standard benefit package, which everyone is entitled to.

Yes this country was founded on equality of opportunity. But what he is talking about is equality of results. Every person has the opportunity to have the best insurance they are willing to pay for. The problem we have currently is that most people are more willing to spend money on their cars, electronics, and homes then their own health. That is what needs to change in this country. Keep in mind most families spend more on their house, cars, food, retirement, and utilities then on health care each year. And they spend just about as much on entertainment and clothes as health care. The numbers used are came from here and are based on a 2004 Department of Labor Study,

At 8:49, he talks about the individualism of this country. Again he distorts the truth.

Second, we are a country of individualist and we believe in individual liberty and our plan also incorporates that message. We have a private delivery system in the market. We allow people to choose which health plan they want, and more importantly we allow people to buy up and spend their money, if they want on health care.

I agree with him about us be individualist and that is what makes this country great, but I am sorry disagree with him about his plan and how it support individualism. His plan does none of these things, instead it steps all over our individual liberty, by limiting our choices to only those that he approves of. See not only do we each have the freedom to succeed, but more importantly we have the freedom to fail. Dr. Emmanuel and others like him, do not want us to fail, because they know that failing and learning from it, is the only way to succeed.

We are now at the end of the speech, and it is at this point that he says the following, the worst argument he could make for his plan. It occurs at the 9:06 mark in the video.

We think our plan marries the virtues of the market with the virtues of the government and coheres with the fundamental American values of equality of opportunity and liberty better then any other plan.

If you had read any of my other posts on the subject you will realize how I feel about the market, or business, and government getting in the marital bed together. Business gets richer, government gets more power, and we get … . This is the worst thing about all the plans that he recognizes, they increase the cooperation between business and government.

Start of discussion

Dr. Ezeklel Emmanuel’s Speech at City Club of Cleveland 06/13/08 Video 2 Part 1

Video 1 part 4

Sorry for the delay in getting this out, but I got side tracked with a post by “cornucrapia”.  I have finished discussing the free market with him, and now it is time to finish this project.

This is a look at the second video of Dr. Ezeklel Emmanuel’s speech at the City Club of Cleveland on 06/13/08. In this video Dr. Emmanuel explains the four types of plans that he recognizes. I would like at this point to make note that none of these solutions, returns us to a free market system. I will assume that he includes that in the first solution he talks about, “Incremental Reforms”. I disagree on that, as the current system is not a free market system, and is actually a system that has more government regulations then most areas of the economy.

The fourth plan is the one that he supports, and in this video he talks about the first seven planks of the plan he promotes. These first seven planks seem on to be fairly innocuous, but each is structured so that it increases the involvement of government in the choices you can make.  This is not good for you, but it does help the politicians and the larger insurance companies.

The video starts off with this quote from Dr. Emmanuel’s:

Recognizing the problem is only the first step. There is a big gulf to solving the problem, and the big gulf is there a solution we can all agree on. That is our big challenge yours and mine. And that is really where we are falling down in the country we don’t have a solution that has wide spread agreement.

This quote is one that I can basically agree with, except he again leaves out that very important step of identifying the root cause of the problem. This is either laziness on his part, or he know that if he does that it will point where he does not what us to look. It will point to the government at the cause of the problem, and not the free market system.

At 0:39 seconds into the video we get to the very core of his position. He believes that we can not resolve the health care problem without addressing the delivery system.  It is interesting to note that since this is a big concern of his, he does not go into much detail about how his plan accomplishes this.

There is one very important criteria that you should use to evaluated every proposal that you hear about. Real reform, sustainable reform, that will last. Has to reform not just how we pay for health care, but also how we delivery health care and health care services to people. It is just not good enough to change the amount of money, or getting everyone in to the system. We have to change how we deliver care. So you ask of every proposal how does it change financing and how dose it change delivery system, what are the incentives it is putting in place to change the delivery system.

You will see in the points that he makes about the three competing plans, that none address the delivery system. He will make the point over and over again that those plan will fail because they do not address the delivery system. In actuality when we look at the first seven planks of his plan you will see that they take parts from all the plans he mentions, but none address the delivery system.

At 1:32 he makes the point that all the plans that are addressed fall in to one of four categories. Again I believe there is actually five categories and thus one he does not discuss, the free market system.

All health care reform falls down to 1 of 4 possible options. Now there are, if you listen, hundreds or hundreds permutations, but each of them can be classified into 1 of 4 categories.

So now we get to the first of the four reforms that he recognizes. This is the one that he calls the “Incremental Reform”, and I am guessing that this is where he would put the free market solution to the problem, he begins speaking about it at 1:46.

There is incremental reform. We can’t do the whole thing, we have to do small changes. I don’t actually really consider that reform. We have been doing that since we instituted medicare and medicaid in 1965. That is business as usual. If you think the health care system is working well. Continue with business as usual, but it is not going to solve the problem with access, it is not going to solve the problem with cost, it is not going to solve the problem of equality. As I said I don’t consider it real reform, it is really just continuing on the same broken path.

Now, I do not think the current health care system is working well, but I believe that it is pretty good and should not be totally destroyed. The main problem with our current system is the government. The fact that you can not take your health care with you when you leave your job, or cross state lines, is because of government rules and regulations that give tax breaks to your employer for providing care and prevents insurance companies from selling multi-state plans. Tax laws make it hard for doctors to donate their time, and in addition a doctor can not practice, even in a volunteer mode, in a state they are not license in. There are other laws that govern what types of insurance that can be provide, what doctors can offer their patients, and what hospitals can and can not do. These laws were put in place supposedly to protect us from abuse, but if you look at the actual effect of the laws, they really restrict our choices and limit the free market. These ideas are not even acknowledge by the good doctor, because they would not allow him and others like him that believe they know more then we do to control our choices.

The next type of plan the doctor does not like, is mandates and he starts talking about them at 2:17.

The second option is mandates. A mandate for individual or a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to their workers. This is what they have done in Massachusetts that has gotten a lot of attention, it was what Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to do in California, although it wasn’t enacted. Basically it requires people to get health insurance. It sets up a market, an insurance exchange, where all the insurance companies have to offer the same coverage at the same price. And then because it is requiring people to get coverage, it provides subsidies to people to buy that insurance, usually up to $60,000 for a family of 4. … Unfortunately, mandates, the Mass mandate plan, does nothing about the delivery system. It really focus on getting as many people in the system as possible, with as few changes to the current system as possible and that is it’s Achilles heel. It is it’s virtue, if you make few changes you can get a lot of support. But it is also what makes it unsubstantial in the long run, because it does nothing about redoing the delivery system, it does not nothing about quality, and most importantly it does nothing about cost. And if you don’t do something about cost, you can not sustainable have universal coverage. You just can’t afford it, at the prices escalating today.

The doctor and I both do not like mandates for different reasons. He does not like it because it does nothing to the delivery system that he keeps harping on, it is not the fact that it requires everyone to get insurance, because that is on of the planks of his plan.

I do not like mandates because they limit the choices I can make. It is not just the insurance company that I want to choose, but the type of plan I want. If I want a plan that does not cover what the government has determined the basic plan should cover, I should be free to make that choice. If I do not want insurance, and decide to pay for my health care out of pocket that should also be my choice. None of these choices are allowed under the a mandate plan.

The third type of plan he acknowledges is Single Payer or medicaid for all. He talks about his reasons for not liking this plan starting at 3:58 in the video.

The third option is single payer, medicare for all, the Canadian style single payer plan. And single payer advocates look at insurance companies, look at drug companies as taking way too much money, not providing a lot of value to the system. And they argue first we should have a national plan that provides everyone needed care, we should get rid of the insurance companies. Second (stuttering) we should have fixed fees and the government control the fees so that they negotiate with the drug companies to lower the fees on drugs. They can negotiate with doctors and hospitals to adjust the fees and keep cost down that way. And third that we should have very low administrative cost and save a lot of money on the administration. If we don’t have insurance companies we will be able to have low administrative cost and therefore cover the uninsured. My own assessment of single payer that they have the most radical reform of the finance system and the most antiqued view towards the delivery system. They basically want to keep the 19th century, fragmented, horse and buggy system we have in place and they keep in place by having this fee for service payment system and not really changing it. And again over the long term it does nothing about cost control, and I think it is unsubstantial. I also personal think since enacting any plan is going to require bi-partisan support, it is not a viable political plan. You just not going to get people on the other side of the aisle or even conservative Democrats to endorse single payer plan.

In his assessment of single payer, he is totally right. There is no way the system will get passed, because it has been shown not to work in every country that has tried it. The only people this plan, helps is the healthy 20-30 year old that does not want to take responsibility for their own life. It is not viable financially or politically. I will again point out that his main concern about this plan is the delivery system. I think he would be very happy with the finance system, if he could get it pass congress.

Okay that is the problem he has with the three types of plans that he acknowledges.  We will know look at the first seven planks of his plan that he lays out in this video.

Video 2 part 2