All during the 2010 campaign we have heard candidates promising the electorate that they will vote to repeal Obamacare. For those of us familiar with the teachings of Sun Tzu, the failure of this strategy is as predictable as the sunrise.

Sun Tzu says:

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

http://suntzusaid.com/book/3

Obamacare, as it currently stands, is a walled city. Assaulting it with only a repeal allows Progressives to take shelter behind the ramparts of messages such as “Republicans want to make insurance companies richer.” and “We cannot return to the failed policies of the past.”

Overcoming these defenses is certainly possible, but will require much time and energy, and will certainly result in many casualties. This is what Progressives are counting on. The longer that Obamacare is the law of the land, the more comfortable people will become with it, making repeal efforts less popular and viable.

We know that the Progressives ultimate goal, as articulated by Russ Feingold, is for Obamacare to pave the way for a single payer Canada style system. As insurance companies go broke, as vacuum will be left that only the government can fill.

Achieving victory in this fight will require that we follow Sun Tzu’s advice. We know the enemy’s plans, and must anticipate and counter them.

We must also prevent the junction of their forces. In this case we must prevent the public from becoming so comfortable with Obamacare that they can no longer envision another policy.

Politically, this means that a repeal of Obamacare cannot be the entire strategy. Republicans must be more forward thinking and strategic by providing an acceptable alternative that makes the Progressive goals of a single payer system all but impossible.

Republicans should have, from the minute the bill was signed, advocated a truly consumer centric alternative that the public would find attractive. To date, there is no sign of any real replacement to Obamacare, giving Progressives the shelter they counted on from the outset.

Progressives have for decades been more strategic that their opponents, and in this case rightly anticipated that Republicans would have no real alternative to their legislation.

The only strategy that can lead to victory is for the GOP to take effective control of both houses of Congress, and immediately propose a bill that not only repeals Obamacare, but replaces it at the same time with a consumer centric health care plan that the public will be excited to have enacted into law. This places the Democrats in the position of defending an unpopular law by refusing to adopt the public’s preferred solution.

Imagine an embittered President Obama vetoing a replacement bill with large public support to defend the unpopular status quo of Obamacare. Progressives will be fully exposed as only interested in government power and not at all interested in real health care reform. Their fraud will be fully on display to anyone who even casually observes political news.

This sets up the final battle in 2012 when we can engage the Progressive’s forces in the field with our ranks swelled by the energized public. Obama will be seen as the personification of the obstruction of the will of the people and will be unable to withstand conservative advances. No words, no matter how expertly delivered, will be able to overcome his actions.

Politics has always been the battlefield of ideas, and as such we cannot continue to ignore the tenants of Sun Tzu regarding strategic thinking.

This battle truly is ultimately over socialized medicine and may be the single most important in 100 years, and conservatives cannot continue to be tactical while our adversary is being strategic.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's PolitiFact  made this bold claim in a check on a Ron Johnson ad regarding Health Care Reform on 10/5/2010:

“In truth, the health care law creates a market-based system that relies on private health insurance companies.”

Let’s check the validity of this statement, and hold PolitiFact to the same standards they apply to political ads. (Yes, we need to check the very same group that arrogantly makes the claim to be the arbiter of fact and fiction in politics.)

Is the Democrat passed Health Care reform plan a “market based system”, or isn’t it?

PolitiFact goes in to detail and makes the statement:

“By any reasonable definition, there's no way that the Democratic plan could be considered a government takeover. Indeed, its primary approach is to set up new systems to encourage private health insurance companies to provide more coverage and better services.”

So we have a claim that the Health Care Reform plan is a market based solution that “encourages” private companies to “provide more coverage and better services”.

Encourages - well, that’s an interesting choice of words, isn’t it? By their “reasonable definition” of encourage, I suppose it is safe to say that by extension the government encourages people to drive a certain speed and not kill another person in cold blood, too.

The truth is that there is no “encouraging” being done. There are only mandates to individuals and insurance companies. 

Encouragement implies that the insurance companies retain the choice to follow or not to follow the wishes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama where their product offerings are concerned. This is only true if you allow that the choice is to remain in business or not. Beyond that, there is NO choice.

PolitiFact’s idiotic claim that Obamacare is a “market based solution” that “encourages” is willfully blind to the simple truth that the insurance companies, and individual Americans are required, by law, do to what the government demands as it relates to design and purchase of health insurance plans.

A government demand (aka mandate) is not encouragement. A mugger does not “encourage” his victim to turn over his wallet at the point of a gun.

A “government takeover” is not solely limited to an agency of the federal government assuming all insurance companies’ operations in its name, either.   Making these private companies the tool used to carry out the dictates of the government does not make it “market based”, since the market has no real power any longer. That’s like saying the guy who orders a hit is not actually responsible for the murder he ordered.

I rate Politifact’s claim that Obamacare is not a government takeover and market based to be “LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!!! NOSE AS LONG AS A TELEPHONE WIRE.”. 

Actually it’s worse than that, but I must refrain from using terms that refer to bovine excrement, even though that would be far more fitting.

“The Great Recession” as it has come to be called, has some real reasons for its existence. Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t believe that it was initiated by the collapse of the housing market. That event was just the final domino is a long chain that stretches back decades. The foundation of this economic failure goes back to 1977, not 2007.

The Housing market collapse was a the ultimate result of "Community Lending" regulations that were intended to make regulatory "adjustments" to the previously less regulated home lending market. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed in 1977 (Carter/Dem Congress) in order to require lending to low and moderate income borrowers and to eliminate disparities in the amount of lending in certain urban areas. The original act still, however, required that the lending be in accordance with “safe and sound lending practices”, meaning no excessive risk taking by lenders.

In 1992 (Clinton/Dem Congress), the CRA was amended to require HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and affiliated private lenders to make a specific percentage of lending to support “affordable housing” and required Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to securitize these loans. The goals of the Clinton administration were altruistic, to be sure. This was the genesis of the Fannie/Freddie securitized sub-prime loans. (Meaning loans to underqulaified applicants, not at rates below the Prime rate.)

The Clinton administration believed that the lending practices in place prior to its amendment did not allow too many of the poor to access the American dream of home ownership.  So they enacted a legislative change to the credit market that required lending institutions to make sub-prime loans, with the promise that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would back those riskier loans with the full faith and credit of the US Government.

Lenders were told that they would face penalties if they did not participate in this new program, which was done at the behest of groups like ACORN. (You can Google the "Community Reinvestment Act" and see who supported it, what it required and when it was passed. This is not my opinion.)

When these loans began to be made, the lending institutions took full advantage of what was thought to be an opportunity to make large profits with almost no risk to themselves. The growth in ARM loans for those with sub-prime credit were seen as very lucrative, and the lender assumed almost no risk of default due to the default protections of Fannie/Freddy/US Taxpayers.

Further amendments in 1999 (Clinton/Rep Congress) repealed parts of Glass-Steagall that prevented banks from offering some products, and prevented non-banks from conducting banking activities. This broadened the reach of Community lending exponentially as literally thousands of new financial companies (GMAC, E-Trade, QuikenLoans, etc.) were permitted into the Mortgage market, and became subject to the minimum lending requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act as amended in 1992.

This means that more and more lenders were required by law to increase their activities in sub-prime lending market.  Due to the false sense of security provided by Fannie/Freddie backing, soon they all but dropped the simple checks on income level etc. to approve loans and because not lending subjected them to stiff consequences.

When the Federal Reserve reduced rates to near 0%, there was an obvious impact in the housing market.

The result was a huge increase in housing sales, and therefore construction of new homes to meet demand. These loans, many of them Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) were used for increasingly larger and larger dollar loans, even including new construction, many backed by Fannie/Freddie.

The situation began to reach its peak shortly after the first round of ARMS adjusted, and rates rose dramatically after the Fed had begun to raise short term rates following the recovery from the 2001 recession. As more and more loans were adjusted up from the previously exceedingly low rates, people became unable to make their payments.

The sub-prime loans that were made in part to qualify under Community Reinvestment Act had encouraged lenders, via Fannie/Freddie guarantees, not to use sound lending practices to make lending decisions were the first to see massive default rates.

As these loans defaulted, Fannie/Freddie began to have to make the loans whole, and the value of the Mortgage Backed Securities they had been marketing fell through the floor.

When this occurred, the second element of the perfect storm kicked in. As part of the fallout of the Enron scandal, Mark to Market (MTM) rules were put into effect by the SEC as part of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). Mark to Market requires the holder of assets to reset the value of assets held to be adjusted daily to the fair market value of that asset.

MTM forced lending institutions to devalue literally millions of Mortgage Backed Securities that in many cases did not even contain many, or any, sub-prime loans. Mortgage that were current and stable in actuality and held as assets lost value on paper because a small subset of the market had realized a loss.

This had the impact of making some lending institutions poorly capitalized literally overnight. When a lender is poorly capitalized, they must raise capital, reduce lending, and recover ASAP or risk insolvency and FDIC action. The rapid pace of this led to an almost instantaneous shutdown of the lending market for areas not even related to the Mortgage market. Small business lines of credit were revoked, for example, in large numbers.

When the TARP bailouts were initiated, the most poorly capitalized lenders took the TARP funds and held them as cash reserves. While the intent of TARP was to increase lending, it did no such thing because MTM made anything other than cash equivalents so volatile that banks preferred cash holdings to loans outstanding. Banks were willing to make the small amount of interest on deposits or treasuries rather than risk more MTM driven insolvency.

No amount of pressure by the US Government could make them move from this position, and many institutions repaid the TARP loans with newer cash reserves, but did not increase lending after the fact.

Further, TARP required that institutions that were not risking insolvency “accept” TARP funds over their objections so as to prevent there being a market stigma on those that did need those funds to survive. This caused even more negative repercussions on those lenders and a further unwillingness to lend.

This, of course, led to many businesses losing the ability to use lines of credit to expand, make capital improvements, and in some cases survive small temporary losses. It is the last of these examples cause layoffs, and in some cases closures of otherwise long term viable businesses.

Now begins the death spiral.

Layoffs lead to more foreclosures, which leads to devaluation of homes and leads to further reductions in MTM values of mortgage assets, which leads to less lending and reduced equity and fewer purchases of homes, which leads to more layoffs in increasing sectors of the economy which leads to even more devaluation and MTM impacts ad infinitum.

This was a totally foreseeable result of 2 independent pieces of legislation that, on their own, had arguably moral justification. One was meant to increase the opportunity of home ownership to levels beyond what an unregulated market allowed, and the second was in response to criminal activity that resulted in losses by some investors and employees of the firms engaged in fraudulent behavior.

The sad part is that the MTM changes were totally unnecessary, as the actions of Enron management was already illegal and there needed to be no further regulation to sanction this behavior.

So, in the end, the housing bubble itself was a result not in normal market forces at work, but the direct result of the modification of the market by government to obtain a "more equitable" condition.

The housing sector will not recover until a bottom is allowed to be reached through normal market forces, but again we have an administration actively attempting to prevent this from occurring as it is considered "inequitable" and is using government actions to try to alter the market. Loan principle reductions, debt forgiveness, purchase incentives and the like do not alter the actual conditions of the market; they only serve to create another housing price bubble that must be allowed to burst to get to a bottom, prolonging the pain for all of us.

The solution is to allow the housing market to reach a bottom point at which those with capital are willing to risk it on investments in housing assets. Artificial props on the price of those assets discourage these actions from taking place.

Foreclosures are not a good thing for those going through them, but must be allowed to run their course to reset the market for housing assets to the prices that are consistent with what the market would have dictated before Community Lending produced and artificial surge in buyers, an artificial increase in the asset value, and an eventual crash as those loans predictably defaulted.

The long story short here is that progressive policies are by their very nature policies that seek to "rectify" conditions in the free market that are considered "undesirable". The market does not stand powerless to these efforts, however, and will always seek to compensate for those corrective actions.

The fastest way out of this situation is not more government intrusion into the market itself, but to allow the markets to adjust themselves. If the US government announced that the MTM rules were going to be revisited, and possibly rescinded, and that the Community Reinvestment Act changes of 1995 were to be repealed, you would see lenders be able to correctly value their assets and avoid insolvency. These lenders would also be free to make loans to credit worthy applicants free from any punitive actions based on low income lending requirements.

Just as water seeks its own level, no matter how hard you try to push the water in a puddle to be deeper in one end than another, it will always thwart your efforts and evade your actions in ways that can be foreseen. All you accomplish is a lot of splashing around and a lot of pain for anyone who lives in the puddle.

Quick quiz: Name the last 4 winners of American Idol.

Time’s up. They are Lee DeWyze (2010), Kris Allen (2009), David Cook (2008), and Jordin Sparks (2007). I only know that because I had to look it up on Google.

Each of those artists were for a brief period at the height of popularity and fame, and yet a scant few months later they are all but forgotten by most Americans. Sure, there are fans of the show who remember them, but the majority of the world doesn’t.

The Beatles they ain’t, that’s for sure.

Barack Obama’s latest appearances in very blue places have been, generously speaking, sparsely attended for a sitting President only 20 months into his first term. At an event in the bluest city around, New York, he could not even sell out a fundraiser with ticket prices at a paltry $50.

Just like an American Idol champion, Obama’s star has faded fast. I, for one, am not surprised at all.

Obama was swept into power by the same mechanisms that lifted David Cook to the pinnacle of fame. Relentless hype based on a cult of personality that built into a frenzy, but lacked any real substance.

Sadly for the POTUS, such things are always doomed to one of two outcomes.

One is one that has tragic outcomes for millions of people. The same cult of personality lifted leaders to the heights throughout human history. The names are a literal murderer’s row of evil: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Peron, Castro, and Chavez among hundreds of others less well known.

Each of these men was swept to power in the same basic swirl of almost mindless excitement and substance-less hype that propelled Obama to power. However, unlike Obama, when they achieved their power they immediately worked to consolidate it and perpetuate it through fear, intimidation and outright murder of opponents.

Crowds continued to throng to them, not out of adoration, but out of fear for their lives. Privately many of their subjects despised them, but would never dare to speak out, even to their friends and family.

The other outcome is what we see in the US today, and frankly it is not new to Presidential politics. For example, in 1975 Carter was swept to power in largely the same way. His star faded faster than most in modern politics, and he was drubbed in his reelection bid.

In the US, it is virtually impossible to accomplish what the previous list’s members did. Obama is unable, thanks in no small part to the vision of the founders, to rule through fear and intimidation.

People, then are free to leave him in their droves, once the swirl of the cult of personality dissipates, and they are left with only his actions and policies to base their support on.

In 2008, there were t-shirts galore with his face on them. There were posters with his image and simplistic non-statements like “HOPE” emblazoned below his face everywhere you looked.

But "hope" means almost nothing concrete, and when the concrete policy is revealed, the warm fuzzy feeling is replaced with something of far more substance.  People have something firm to base their opinions on, and stop thinking in vague generalities.

A cult of personality is always doomed, and will always claim its victims. Either the people pay with their lives or the leader pays with their political lives.

In the US, baring some serious negative developments, the Constitution guarantees that the latter will always hold. Those founding fathers were so much more visionary than we could ever comprehend.

Obama and the Democrats are only now discovering that he is the political equivalent of David Cook. Hot for a second, until people hear him outside the hype machine, and then he just becomes a marginal singer people are not at all in love with.

This is why issues matter, and we need to make sure we always require ourselves to support candidates on the issues, not because they are “cool” and “in”.

For years, many of my fellow Americans have been taught that Conservatives are racists and only care about the rich.

I would like to take this opportunity to reach out directly to you and tell you that you are being lied to.

The people who have taught you this are the ones who claim to be your defenders. Progressives have promised you for almost 100 years that they will make your lives better if you give them the power to do so.

And yet, nothing has ever improved. And if you think about it for a minute, the reason why is obvious.

Why would someone fix the very problem that they use to get power? Progressives claim to want to improve your lives, but they know that if that happens you will no longer need them and they become powerless.

You are being conned. The Progressives think you are suckers and they are using you. They promise you that as long as you vote for them, they will fix your problems but they never do, and never will. They tell you that Conservatives want to hold you down, and to be scared of them. They call us racists and say we only care about the rich.

Liars.

Conservatives don’t hate you, and don’t want you to stay poor, either. What we want is for you to be free. We want you to have freedom to achieve your dreams, as long as you are willing to work towards them.

Conservatives believe that every person can succeed. Skin color or how much or how little money your parents have cannot prevent you from success.

Conservatives want public schools to succeed, but we know that the only way education improves is if STUDENTS work hard and want to learn. No person in some government office can make it better. More money doesn’t mean more learning. Paying teachers more than LeBron James will not make students learn a thing.

If you are willing to work, to strive, to educate yourself, we know you will be a success in whatever you set out to do. If there are people that try to stop you because of your skin color, your gender or for any other bigoted reason, we will join you in fighting their stupidity.

But your success cannot be achieved without you working for it.

In the last election you heard again and again “Yes We Can”. Conservatives believe in something different, and far better.

Yes YOU Can.

Yes you can learn. Yes you can go to college. Yes you can get that job. Yes you can overcome stupid bigotry. Yes you can be anything you want to be. Yes you can make it on your own. Yes you can lift yourself up from wherever you are and get to the mountain top.

Yes you can live the American Dream.

You can, because God made you for a reason, grants you freedom, and because you are an American. That means that nothing can stop you.

All you need is to believe in you. All you need is to want it, and work for it, even when it is hard.

This is what Conservatives know to be true. We have always believed in you. We don’t need to lie to you about it, either.   If someone stands in your way, we will be there to fight them with you, but you can beat them without anyone’s help.

You are your own hope. You are your own change.

It’s up to you.

How, I wonder, is does the state of Wisconsin’s election law go about validating U.S. Citizenship of voters, as per the plain and clear intent and reading of Article III Section 1?

Well, it doesn’t, not even a little. In fact, it doesn’t even try to.

According to Section 6 Subchapter 1 Section 2 (only lawyers would organize things like this) of the Wisconsin Code:

Ok, so far the state code requires U.S. citizenship, but the only provision later in the code to validate this clear requirement is found in 6.15(2):

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0006.pdf

Ok, all that legal mumbo jumbo means this:

All you need to do is say you are a U.S. citizen, and poof, you’re in. No validation, no corroboration, no birth certificate, no naturalization papers. Just your promise, cross your heart and hope to die, that you are a U.S. citizen.

Since the Wisconsin Constitution clearly requires that anyone voting be a U.S. citizen, and there are any number ways of proving you are an actual U.S. citizen, you would think that a pinkie swear would be considered kinda weak as far as proof goes.

You don’t even need to use your real name. How would they ever know? All you need is some mail with that name or a friend to vouch for you. Maybe I missed it, but the US Postal Service doesn’t restrict mail delivery to U.S. citizens only.

Read the State of Wisconsin Election Day Manual. Here’s what is says about identification for potential voters on p. 25 (emphasis theirs):

In plain English: “Wisconsin Law is in direct violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, but don’t worry about it. They pinkie swore, remember?  So don't you dare ask too many questions!”

So what I wonder is this:

And that makes me wonder, too.

It seems that Gwen Moore has been paying her sister Brenda L Moore, a resident of Lithonia, GA, a salary from her campaign fund since 2005.  Brenda has been given the title of Political Director, according to GwenMooreforCongress.com.

Since Jan 21, 2005, she has paid her sister $212,649.00 in salary and assorted reimbursements.  For just 2010 alone, through June 29th (last date available in the data), Brenda Moore received $20,282 from Gwen Moore's campaign fund.

Even if she does work for the Moore campaign office, why is she paid in non election years at the nearly the same rate as in election years?  What is she Politically Directing when there is no race, and in some years, no opponent.

More likely, it appears that Gwen Moore is taking donated funds for her re-election and using them to support her sister.  I wonder if the members of all the unions that have donated to her so heavily are aware of this arrangement.

Furthermore, Gwen and Brenda are quite the traveling duo.  Some quick look ups on Legistorm.com found the following nuggets.

In April 2006 Gwen and Brenda traveled to NYC on a trip that was paid for by National Action Network.  The Al Sharpton led group, which is currently facing serious financial audit issues, paid a total tab of over $1,500.  Gwen's flight to NYC alone was over $700.  (First Class?)

Later in September 2006 they went back to NYC on the dime of The Council for Opportunity in Education.  On this trip from 9/6/2006 to 9/7/2006 Gwen and Brenda racked up quite the bill.  In a single night in NYC they compiled a $1,416.12 tab.  Meals for Gwen were a total of $142.35, with Brenda racking up the exact same tab of $142.35.  They also shared a $60 car service for their short stay.

In March of 2005 the NY Stock Exchange paid for Gwen and an unnamed companion to visit NYC from 3/7/2005 to 3/8/2005.  Over one night, the two travelers had a total tab of over $1,500.  Meal costs for each traveler are listed at a whopping $237.47 each.  While the companion is not named, I suspect Brenda was on this trip, based on the pattern of trips.

In total, if you assume the 2005 NYC trip included Brenda Moore, the pair racked up a total of over $4,500 in travel expenses for just 3 nights in NYC.  Meals alone for the 3 single day trips total over $750 for just 2 people.

The interesting questions that come to my mind is these: 

What exactly is Brenda Moore able to do for the Gwen Moore campaign in WI while she is residing in Lithonia, GA? 

What comprises the duties of a Political Director for a member of Congress not known for any meaningful accomplishment?  Note that she is not on her Congressional staff, but the campaign staff, which is under the law a private organization and therefore not subject to the same types of ethics oversight.

The voters of the 4th District need to start asking Ms. Moore some tough questions.  While they struggle to feed their families, she is using donated Union dues to feed her's.

From the LA Times on 8/31/10:

This could be restated as:

“Home prices rose in June, according to a closely watched national index released Tuesday, but many experts predict a drop in values this year with the increase in taxes for buyers.”

An expiring credit is no different than a tax increase. If you no longer get the credit, it necessarily means your taxes are rising.

But there are more examples.

From the University of Wisconsin Medical School – Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, related to a Democrat proposed and supported increase in the tax on tobacco in WI:

Clearly, the increase in the taxes on tobacco are credited, solely, for a massive decrease in the purchase (and therefore use) of tobacco.

Or, put another way, increasing taxes reduced economic activity wherever those taxes were applied, in this case tobacco.

‘Reaganomics’, in part, is the economic school of thought that states that taxation has adverse impact to economic activity, regardless of the item being taxed. Therefore taxes should be kept to the lowest level possible in all cases, maximizing the economic activity of the items being taxed, and thus maximizing tax receipts without adverse economic impacts overall.

It further states that increases in taxation will always reduce or redirect economic activity to avoid such tax increase.

Still, progressives carry on about the need to increase taxes on income, especially on those earning more than [insert arbitrary amount here].

Applying what we have learned, either progressives

1)       know the truth that their policies will result in an overall decrease in economic activity (impacting all in that economy) and advocate them anyway, or

2)       are unable to make the simple connection between tax cuts they advocate and their natural results, and tax cuts in general and their associated effects.

I believe the truth is more likely to be #1 above. Their advocating of tax increases, no matter how they are presented, is always centered on the ‘redistribution of wealth’ via the Federal government, so as to empower them as the overseers of such a transfer.

Further, it allows these progressives in power to direct economic and social activities according to what they feel is appropriate, even over the objections of individuals.

Their own policies betray them. When an activity is something they approve of, such as home purchases during recession or the purchase of ‘green’ items, they reduce taxes on them to encourage that activity.

When an activity is something they disapprove of, such as tobacco use, accumulation of personal wealth or the purchase of large vehicles, they increase taxes to discourage it.

Make no mistake; progressives advocate large taxes on the ‘rich’ because they seek to discourage people from becoming rich. It is the only rational explanation for their policies. They actually are using the tax code to limit access to the dreams of millions of people to achieve wealth in their life times.

Oh, and if you do get rich anyway, progressives will still get the last laugh when you die. They advocate a high inheritance tax that will prevent you from leaving wealth to your kids. Sneaky buggers.

The left advocates "universal coverage" underwritten by the tax payer, while the right advocates for largely more of the same present system with limitations on elements of costs (i.e. lawsuits).  With all due respect, both positions are wrong and do not address the core cause of the problem of rising health care prices.

The solution is to eliminate 3rd party payer insurance, whether it is provided by private firms or the Government.

Consider this.  When a consumer goes to his provider and is covered by insurance, he has little reason to consider the costs of his "purchase", save perhaps his co-pay.   The provider likewise has very little incentive to keep his prices low, as it has little impact on his "sales".   Both parties are acting as they should, and it's all because they are insulated from each other by the 3rd party payer (insurance companies, Medicare, etc.).

Try as they might, insurance companies can only put minimal pressure on providers to reduce their prices.  In the end, they understand whatever reductions they cannot achieve through provider negotiations, they will simply pass along to the insured in the manner of higher premiums.  Only then does the consumer see the impact of his or her purchasing decisions.

Today every major insurance company could be converted to a more market driven and economical Medical Finance Company without forcing them out of business.

Here's the plan:

1.      Medical Insurance companies will convert to Medical Financing companies.

2.      These companies will offer a low cost annual membership (perhaps as low as $100 - $200 per year) that includes preventative care.

3.      Legislation will require that employers will increase cash compensation to employees the equivalent to at least 75% of the total cost of health insurance premiums for that employee.  Employers will be allowed to retain remaining share of health insurance premiums up to 25% of total premium costs of health insurance.

4.      Potential members are not subject to credit checks to qualify.

5.      Each member is provided a "credit card" tied to their Health Care Financing organization.  They will use this card to pay for services at the time they are rendered, regardless of provider or type of service, subject to the cardholder agreements.

6.      The Finance Company charges a minimal interest on the balance (i.e. Prime plus 1) and the debt is legally non-dischargeable in the same manner student loans are today.

7.      A limited once per lifetime means tested repayment by the Federal/State Government of total incurred debt will be made available. This would be the only forgiveness of such debt allowed by law. Repayment would be made directly to the Medial Finance Company.

8.      Consumers pay their balance down as they would any other debt, with monthly means tested mandatory minimum payments.  Incentives for faster repayment can be offered at the Medical Finance Company's discretion.  Members can also deposit cash funds into their account for use as prepayment.  These funds would be able to be withdrawn as cash at any time by the member.

9.      Finance Companies can leverage their in force agreements with providers and offer their members the ability to use their "volume discount pricing" if they so choose.  These providers will not constitute a limited network and will only be presented to members for the purposes of offering additional discounts over "street" prices.

10.      Employers can provide the membership to their employees as an employer funded benefit and would be responsible only for the payment of annual membership fees.

11.      Employer funded memberships are the property of the Member, and can be taken with them should they change employers or become unemployed.  Members will be responsible for annual fees should they leave their employer in this case.

12.      The Federal and/or State Government(s) agree to assume the costs for child birth and for catastrophic/chronic care for specified conditions (i.e. Cancer, HIV/AIDS, etc.) using funds previously set aside for Medicaid and/or Medicare.  Medical Finance Companies would notify HHS/State of eligible charges and HHS/State will provide payment directly to Medical Finance Companies.

13.      Catastrophic/terminal conditions eligibility and definitions will be enumerated specifically through the controlling legislation.  The initial list of conditions and all subsequent member appeals for procedures not on this list will be reviewed by a panel consisting of appointees of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, AMA, and medical finance companies in equal proportions.  Review panel member's term durations to be set forth in the controlling legislation.

14.       Low income individuals will qualify for Federal/State subsidies on their annual membership costs in the form of income tax credits.

15.       Medical Finance Companies are permitted to market optional life insurance plans to their members that are tied to their balance and traditionally underwritten

16.       Annual paid interest will be considered a tax deduction for income tax purposes, graduated based on income level, further reducing the liability of the low income consumer.

17.       Medical Finance Companies are free to provide financing for any medical related procedure, including dental, vision, discretionary, cosmetic and/or non mandated procedures.  The costs are borne by the member in the same manner as any traditionally covered procedure.  States retain the right to regulate minimum procedure eligibility regulatory oversight.

18.       Members choose where they wish to have their prescriptions filled, and the costs may be charged to the Medical Finance account or paid out of pocket, at the discretion of the member.

19.       Medicaid (i.e. Badger Care, etc.) will be eliminated.  An appropriate portion of the funding will be redirected to cover items described in #7, 11, 12 and 13 above.

20.       Medicare will be phased out.  Any person who does not attain the age of 50 in the calendar year of passage will be ineligible for Medicare.  Anyone age 50 or older will remain eligible under current rules and procedures. 

21.       Medicare funding and payroll taxes will be directly tied to membership levels, eventually fully phasing out at the passing of the last eligible Medicare member.

This plan provides low cost of entry for the consumer, places the consumer in total control of their health care decisions and give them the added power of full knowledge of price as a component of their decision making.

The costs to the taxpayer for heath care will be reduced significantly over time, and coverage will be available for nearly 100% Americans, regardless of age, income level, or employment status.  Furthermore, disparity of quality of care between the lowest and highest incomes is reduced or eliminated.

Finally, no one is required to participate.  If any individual chooses, they may pay on their own, but with the benefit of the market driven downward price pressures reducing their costs to the same level as those participating in a plan.

This is a proven plan in ways we see daily, but perhaps fail to recognize.  Today Lasik Eye Surgery costs a national average of $1,800 per eye.  In 1997, costs per eye were far more expensive, sometimes up to $4,000 or more per eye. 

But since insurance does not cover Lasik, providers were forced to compete with each other on price, as well as other factors, and reduce costs.  In the end, consumers and providers both win with higher quality, lower costs and lower prices.

John's insurance costs $15,000 a year and John's employer pays 80% of the premium.  John pays the other 20%, or $3000.  They take $115 out of his check every 2 weeks. 

The plan also has a $2000 deductible that John has to pay before the insurance pays for anything.

Before John or his family even sees a doctor, he has paid, or is going to pay $5,000 out of his own pocket.  Also, we need to consider the $12,000 john's employer has paid.  If his employer didn't have to pay that $12,000, they may be able to pay John more that the $40,000 he makes now. 

So what would John's life be like under the Medical Financing plan?

First, his employer would be required to increase John's salary $9,000 because they aren't paying that $12,000 anymore and the law says that John should get that 75% of that money as part of his pay now.  Even with a raise, John's employer is spending $3,000 less to employ John than they were before and can use the money they save to improve their business, increase profits, or reduce prices. 

Also, John will not have to pay the $115 per pay check anymore, giving him another $3,000 per year he didn't take home before.

Now John is making $49,000 plus keeps $3,000 more of his pay than he did before. 

Until John or his family see a doctor, they don't pay anything to anyone, except the small annual membership fee to the finance company to cover preventative care.

When they do see the doctor, they give the doctor their finance card just like a Visa or Master Card.  John will be very careful picking his doctor now, and will make sure to know before he goes what the visit will cost.  If the price at one doctor is too high, he will find another one that is more reasonable and still meets John's quality expectations.

If John gets sick with a sinus infection, he can go to any doctor he likes, and anywhere he wants to fill his antibiotics prescription.  Again, he will shop around for the best price and use his finance card to pay for it.

Every month, the finance company will send John a bill for what he owes, and John can pay it off in chunks or all at once.  When the balance is paid off, he's done paying.

If John's daughter Jane is unfortunately diagnosed with Leukemia, John will not have to worry about his deductible, any lifetime maximums, or having someone ok a treatment he and the doctor think is best.

John takes Jane into the hospital, and they take care of Jane.  John gives the hospital his finance card and they charge the treatment to his account.

When the finance company sees the charges come through from the hospital, the treatment code from the hospital tells them that the charges are for cancer treatment, which is something the law says John doesn't have to pay for.  The finance company tells the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that John's account has a charge they need to pay for, and the HHS makes an electronic payment to the finance company right away.

When John gets his bill at the end of the month, it shows Jane's treatment and the payment from HHS.  John's balance is still 0, and Jane is getting better.

If John finds a doctor that is charging less, has a better success rate on treatment, or doing something he wants to try for Jane, he can switch anytime.  And since all of John and Jane's medical records are kept with his finance account electronically, the new doctor will not need to run the same tests again.  The new doctor will know everything necessary about everything that has been done to help Jane so far.

So in the end, John got a raise, only paid for the health care he used, didn't need to worry about bills when Jane got sick, and has more money in his pocket.

Even better, since all the doctors will want John's business, they will try to charge as little as they can to get his business.  Every year, the price of every day things like blood tests and antibiotics will actually start to come down, just like the other things we buy every day like TV's and MP3 players.

Because of that, John will actually pay less next year for the same health care things he bought this year, which puts even more money in his pocket to buy other things or save.

While I found that all of the information was important, there was one moment that was without doubt the most essential of the 3 hours of television. It wasn’t a factoid or a story from history, but a concept. He presented a philosophical truth on which the nation was built by the founders, and has since been lost.

He asked two related questions “To what extent are we going to live our faith?” and “Can we become a country again that will stand for our enemy if they happen to be right?”

The founders did both of those things as they built this nation from nothing. They succeeded not in spite of it, but because of it. While they disagreed on many fundamental principles, they did so with integrity and honesty. The politicians, and the people, of the generations that followed have lost that.  Each successive generation became viler and more willing to lie to win, bringing us to today where truth is almost totally lost.

I agree with Mr. Beck, and believe strongly that we must recognize where we have gone wrong. Winning is important, but it cannot be more important than truth. Truth is not the sole possession of one side of the aisle or the other.

In that spirit, I would like to do exactly what this philosophy demands.

Homosexual Americans have every right to be married in the eyes of civil authorities as any other American. Conservatives are denying that very plain truth because doing so is a “winner” at the ballot box. It is time to stop fighting the truth, and defend our opponents because they are right.

There should be little argument. The Constitution provides for equality under the law for all Americans. Enacting Constitutional Amendments to ban the civil marriage of homosexuals flies in the face of everything the nation was founded on.

These amendments are no more legitimate that one banning Black Americans from marrying. It is repugnant to me to see the basic principles of our republic so twisted and perverted, with faith used as the reason. The judge in California is right, and it is time for us all to accept that. Two people are two people under the law, regardless of race, creed, or gender.

All private and religious groups are still free also to believe as they wish, and refuse to conduct or recognize such marriages, but the law cannot discriminate.

As for living our faith, recognizing truth and defending it is exactly that. “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” - 1 Corinthians 13:6

My faith teaches love over all. It teaches that every person is loved by God, regardless of their sins. It teaches me patience, kindness, humility and selflessness. It teaches me to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. 

I admit that I have failed more than I have succeeded in my short life to live these principles, but I will commit myself every day to make every effort to live them from here forward.  I will fail, this is certain, but with God’s help, I will improve.

This is the foundational principle of the Constitution and the concept of liberty and justice for all. I will live my faith, and defend the truth no matter who says it. I hope others will join me. It is time.

   Government Motors

Introducing Chevrolet Obama

* Obama’s promises are vastly overinflated and the public can expect to get almost exactly the opposite of what Obama’s promises are.