Friday, March 24, 2017

Told You So

Not that it's worth anything, but I was completely right in my predictions about the Trump Administration.

During the campaign, I kept saying that Trump did not have a plan to restore free market health care.

Sure enough. Donald Trump came out with a health care reform package that, at best, can be called "Obamacare Lite."

While Trump's plan reduces some of the benefits, some of the costs and some of the regulations of PPACA, the basic framework of TrumpCare is the same as ObamaCare (which is the same as RomneyCare).

To make matters even more depressing. The so called "Freedom Caucus" does not seem to have any substantive ideas on how to restore free market health care either.

The conservative movement has just proven itself to be as big a joke as the progressive movement.

I would be laughing, but the pathetic and disingenuous nature of the Conservative Movement is destroying our country.

Members of GOP are trying to cover the corrupt nature the conservative movement with claims that health care reform is hard.

They are wrong. If implemented correctly, free market health care reform could be delivered with minimal disruption in individual lives.

Free market reform might lead to the break up and dissolution of Fortune 500 insurance companies and it might reduce several billionaires to millionaire status, but it would not disrupt the lives of the people at large. It would actually improve the finances of most Americans.

The reason that Conservatives do not have a free market insurance plan in hand is because conservatives systematically refuse to discuss free market reform.

If there was a true discussion of free market health care; people would realized that employer based health care is an anti-market approach to health care. Employer based insurance is a revival of the feudal order. Your employer is the new feudal lord that controls your health and the person who controls your health controls your body.

A true and honest debate about free market health care would question the formulas used by the insurance industry. Such a debate would discover that these formulas do an inadequate job of providing care and have the negative side effect of concentrating wealth in a ruling elite.

True free market reform would not start with a discussion of regulations, but would start by creating new mechanisms for funding health care.

This silly thing I created called "The Medical Savings and Loan" was based on such a debate.

What I do in this program is break apart an insurance pool into individual accounts. The system funds care through a combination of savings, a loan reserve and generous grants. The system is administered by a new position called "The Health Care Advocate."

The system can be created organically from scratch, or it could be created by taking an existing pool.

If we created the MS&L from existing pool, we would see that the M&SL would have the same amount of resources as a health insurance pool. I can prove that the actual allocation of funds would be more equitable than an insurance company. Since people would start negotiating prices with health care providers, it is likely to dramatically drop the cost of care.

If I could find people willing to sit down for an evening and talk health care, I can prove that not only is free market health care reform possible. I can prove that the distribution of care would be more equitable.

Donald Trump is correct about one thing. All plans have winners and losers.

There is one group that would lose a substantial amount of money and influence.

The group that would be harmed by the Medical Savings and Loan is called "The Ruling Elite."

Progressives like to call this group "The One Percenters."

The insurance industry transfers trillions of dollars from the working and middle class to the ruling elite.

Creating an alternative to insurance would stopped this artificial transfer of wealth.

The wealthy and powerful people who control our nation would lose wealth. They would lose power. The leeches in our society who feed off the transfer of wealth from the people to the elite would lose as well.

It would be chaos in the Congressional Lobby as people who make their money by leeching off a corrupt health care system see their once lucrative pools of capital dry up.

Everyone else, of course, would benefit.

Personally, I don't care if billionaires see their position diminish. I care about the people, not the elite.

I have no problem supporting ideas that stop the artificial transfer of wealth from the people at large to the elite.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Conservative movement care more about the elite than about the people. The very nature of the Conservative Movement is to favor the elite over the people.

The non-debate surrounding TrumpCare simply proves, once again, that the conservative movement is inherently corrupt. While conservatives are known to posture about free market reforms. They are unwilling to debate or even consider reforms that stop the transfer of wealth from the people to the elite.

So, while I deserve bragging rights and say "I Told You So." I actually feel extremely depressed because our nation is still on the Road to Serfdom. The election of the GOP simply changes the names of our feudal lords. It does not free the people.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

On Insurance Workers

This is an interesting Tweet from Dr Shane:

"for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total" David Goldhill #DPCrising

Dr. Shane and David Goldhill blog about the rising costs of health care regulations.

I want to approach the number of insurance positions from a different perspective.

I once worked in insurance. My experience was that insurance employees are wonderful people who really want to help people with health care.

I see 470,000 wonderful people, most of whom are trying to make a positive difference.

The reason I left the insurance world was because I realized that the nature of insurance prevented me from making the positive difference that I imagined insurance offered.

The problem is not with the people, but with the configuration of insurance.

In the current system, our health care dollars sit in enormous pools. The money in this system flows from powerful insurance pools to industrial style hospitals.

A bureaucracy configures itself to the flow of money.

The careers of these 470,000 people end up aligning with the needs of the the insurance pool and not the the needs of the people.

The reform I propose is called: "The Medical Savings and Loan."

This reform starts by giving policyholders a medical savings account. All medical transactions flow through the account.

We replace the insurance pool with a thing called a loan reserve. Policyholders buy a share in a loan reserve. This reserve has about the same amount of money in it as the insurance pool.

When a person needs care, the money comes from their savings account. If there is not enough money, they can get an interest free loan from the pool. People who make enough to repay their loans are expected to repay the loans. Those who cannot receive grants.

The Medical Savings and Loan changes the flow of the money.

As bureaucracies shape to the flow of the money, the flavor of these 470,000 positions will change. The worker's efforts will start aligning to the needs of the people.

To emphasize this re-alignment, I created a new title: "The Health Care Advocate."

The driving mantra of the Medical Savings and Loan is: Those who can self fund their care should. The system redistributes money for those who cannot.

The Health Care Advocates help policyholders set up their savings plan. When people need care, the advocates help people find doctors and help in the negotiation of prices. When needed the advocates will apply for loans and grants.

Because the money flows from personal accounts to health providers, the work of these professional changes.

If we simply changed the structure of our health care system from pools to personal accounts, we could force a complete re-alignment of the insurance industry and all the positions in it.

Our problem isn't that people in insurance are bad and evil. The problem is the flow of the money.

Follow the money. The way the money flows creates an inefficient system.

If the money flowed from personal accounts to providers; then we would see these jobs align with the needs of the people.

Insurance companies have the job of protecting the pool. Health Care Advocates have the job of helping people maximize the return from their health care dollars. These advocates would be like personal financial assistants. Changing the flow of mone changes all the positions in health care and this improves care.

I think it is wonderful that 470,000 have jobs in insurance. I have no desire to make these wonderful jobs go away. I want to see their jobs aligned to the needs of the people and not the needs of an insurance company.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

A Doctor on America's News Room

I walked by a TV set and saw some talking heads on Fox actually talking about health care reform. The people may have been Bret Baier and Dr. Marc Seigel.

I am ecstatic. Most conservatives I know are intent on preserving Obamacare (under a different name) and refuse absolutely to discuss free market health care reform.

Sadly, what the doctor said was idiotic.

The doctor said the two keys for health care reform were tax deductions and the ability to buy insurance across states lines.

I wanted to scream. Tax deductions only help those who have active income streams. The people who are most in need of help have no income.

Buying insurance across states lines is going to make health care a nightmare.

The biggest problem is that interstate insurance companies do not have contracts with local health care providers.

If your employer decides to save money by buying insurance across state lines; you are likely to find that few local health care providers are willing to take you case because they do not have a contract with your insurance company.

This next paragraph might sound strange to readers, but it is the basis of insurance.

Group insurance works as follows. A group of people place their health care resources into a pool. When individuals need care, they and their doctor file an insurance claim against the pool.

The insurance claim is a lawsuit which is overseen by the court system. Currently the jurisdiction takes place at a state level.

I need to repeat this: An insurance claim is a lawsuit. You put your money in a pool and you must sue the pool to get the money back out to pay for care.

The reason that medical billing is so bizarre is because it is designed for processing through the legal system.

The current system is nuts.

Insurance companies and doctors try to streamline the claims by creating local buyers network. In these networks, insurance companies negotiate the prices of goods and services with local doctors.

These insurance networks are, theoretically, the cost saving mechanisms of insurance.

Insurance companies often have large directories showing which doctors are "in network." These doctors have negotiated with the insurer to provide care at a set price.

When your employer decides to save some money by buying insurance across state lines, you will find that there are few "in network" doctors.

Having few in network doctors means you will not receive the care you desire.

If your employer buys insurance across state lines, you might find that many doctors refuse to accept your insurance because they do not want to take on the hassle of filing an insurance claim in a different state.

Anyway, I was ecstatic to see people on TV discussing health care reform.

Yes, I was disastisfied with the discussion, but people have to go through multiple discussions to find a good solution.

A discussion about free market health care reform must go deeper than talk about tax deductions and state lines. We need to discuss the foundations of health care. If anyone wants to engage in a substantive discussion about health care reform, they could contact me. I have research on hand that would serve as a basis for an illuminating discussion.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Nationalized Health Care Regulation

Prior to ObamaCare, Insurance was regulated at the state level.

Sadly, state regulators tended to become the lapdogs of local insurance companies. State level regulations tended to align with the desires of insurance executives and not with the needs of the people.

I want to point out that this problem arises from the nature of health insurance. Putting all of our health care dollars in huge insurance pools creates powerful entities that can bully the state.


The US founders did not want an overbearing Federal government. This is why they created a Constitutionally limited Federal Government.

The founders wanted a system where the individual states could experiment with different ideas about local governance.

ObamaCare wrested control from the states and gave it to the national government.

BTW, the process of wresting control of an industry and giving it to the national government is called: "nationalization."

ObamaCare nationalized insurance regulation.

Repealing ObamaCare means denationalizing insurance regulation and returning it to state control.

Donald Trump's going on air and saying that he seeks to keep provisions of ObamaCare means that we will keep regulation of insurance at the national level. It also means that we lose the ability for the states to become laboratories of local regulation.

I did not jump on the Trump bandwagon during the campaign because I did not hear the campaign give specifics on health care reform.

The only specific Donald Trump gave was the idea that companies should be able to sell insurance across state lines.

So, lets jump back to the question of state regulation. It turns out that regulations dramatically affect the performance of a pool.

Lets say Nevada regulations said the maximum deductible was $5,000 and California set it at $6,400. A pool in Nevada would behave differently from  one in California.

The goal of selling insurance across state lines requires that the Federal government becomes the primary regulator of insurance.

This is why I was complaining before the election. Trump's statement that he would repeal ObamaCare was different from his statement that he wanted companies to be able to buy insurance across state lines.

I am really sad that things are turning out the way that they are. But the only way we could free market heatlh care reform is if people spoke with one another. But there is no way that this could happen in the current political climate.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Trump plans to keep portions of Obamacare

My criticism of Donald Trump was that he did not present a coherent alternative to PPACA and I have yet to see anyone in the GOP talking about substantive health care reform.

In interviews with Wall Street Journal and others, Donald Trump said that he planned to keep key provisions of Obamacare.

This style of politics is precisely what happened in the Bush presidency. GW Bush made a few allusions to free market health care reform. There was never any serious discussion of alternatives. In the end, GW Bush dramatically expanded the role of the Federal Government in health care.

It is not too late. I still contend that, if a group of people met and discussed free market health care reform. That group could prevail.

But, as long as conservatives refuse to even discuss free market health care reform, we will have no option but to continue with PPACA and all of the inequities that PPACA creates.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

American Needs a New Health Care Plan. The first step is to talk.

Funding health care is a business problem. It is not a political problem.

I've complained that Trump does not have a clear plan for repealing Obamacare.

This really is not a problem. As I said in the opening sentence. The solution should come from the private sector and not the president.

The big problem we face is that there are no viable business solutions on the table.

This is an easy problem to solve: A half dozen people could sit at a table. Talk about free market health care reform. They would write up and publish a business plan.

At this stage in the game the six people don't even have to be serious about starting a business.

The way I see this going is that group meets. The group draws up a business plan for funding health care. The group then creates an advocacy group for this business model.

Back in the 1980s I worked designing program for an insurance firm. I concluded that insurance fails to give us the health care that we need. This is easy to prove.

So, I created an alternative to insurance which I called "The Medical Savings and Loan."

This MS&L funds health care with a combination of savings accounts, a loan reserve and grants. The center piece of the plan is a new position called "The Health Care Advocate." The advocate replaces insurance agents and claims adjusters.

I created the MS&L as a mechanism for breaking apart insurance pools into individual accounts. A defining characteristic of the program is that the money flows from individual accounts to the health care provider.

This simple change opens up a huge debate about the nature of insurance. Since the money for care is flowing through individual accounts, the MS&L creates a better picture the health care that we need in our society.

It turns out that, in free society, the vast majority of people (over 90%) could self fund their care. The mantra of the MS&L is simply: "those who can self fund their care should."

The program has a generous system of grants to help those who cannot self-fund their care. The mathematical model I created indicates that the MS&L is likely to get more money to the people in critical need than group health insurance.

Since the money is flowing through individual accounts, the MS&L will restore the pricing mechanism in health care which will lower health care costs.

Of course, delivering health care is about people and not mathematics. The central piece of the MS&L is a position called "The Health Care Advocate."

The business model I want to create is for the advocate. The advocate replaces the health insurance agent.

The presentation I have starts with the MS&L as a mathematical model, but it ends up talking about the advocate and the human side of health.

Anyway, if there was someone interested in discussing health care reform, they could contact me. I have some wonderful ideas that could profoundly affect the health care debate.

The down side. I live in Utah, but I am willing to travel. If a person can guarantee a group of six people willing to discuss and work for free market health care reform, I would be willing to take out a loan to travel and meet the group.

The upside of living in Utah. We have great skiing. If people want to have a ski vacation and talk about free market health care reform when they are off the slopes. I could work that out. The only problem. The snow isn't here yet.

To recap:
  • Trump does not have a plan for repealing Obamacare.
  • Not a problem: Funding Health Care is a business challenge and not a political one.
  • What needs to happen is for a group meet to create an alternative model for funding health care.
  • The group would create a business model.
  • After creating the business model the group would create a non-profit advocacy group to promote the model.
  • The advocacy group would select a spokesperson. That spokesperson would go to TV stations and talk about the model.
  • The spokesperson would meet with leaders in their state and might even go to Washington to meet the president and people in Congress.
Funding health care is a business challenge. It is not a political challenge. The first step to facing this challenge is for a group of courageous people to sit down and discuss alternatives to group health insurance.

There may actually be wonderful rewards for anyone who is brave enough to think.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Trump Does Not Have a Health Care Reform Plan

I suspect that Hillary will win the election.

This might be good for the nation. Folks on the left are finally waking up to the realization that both their party and their ideology are corrupt.

The Affordable Care Act is failing. A Hillary presidency might lead to a substantive debate about health care reform.

As I write, there is a growing possiblity that Trump might win.

I find this problematic because Trump does not have a health care plan.

Vague statements about repealing and replacing Obamacare is not a plan!

Obamacare is a fiendish piece of legislation that is difficult to repeal and can only be replaced if the people repealing the legiistation had a framework in hand for free market health care reform.

I am one of those people who read the bill before it passed. PPACA is tricky.

PPACA is regulated at the Federal level and implemented at the state level.

States spent billions of dollars implementing PPACA. Were Trump to simply repeal Obamacare, America would still be saddled with the state level apparatus.

It is true that, after a repeal of PPACA, individual states will begin working on replacements for Obamacare. But, without a framework for restoring free market health care, the state level legislation is likely to produce even worse results than PPACA.

The right wing talking point is that PPACA is a government take over of health care.

The truth is that PPACA includes a grab bag of goodies for the insurance industry accompanied by federal regulations that limit profits and are believed by progressives to make insurance more equitable.

Insurance companies want to keep those part of Obamacare that line their pockets while shunting off those parts which limit profits.

Local insurance companies are very good at manipulating state regulations. The insurance companies know the financial impact of each line of the local insurance code and have the financial resources to control the local political process.

This means that blindly repealing PPACA is likely to create a regulatory environment that is, for most Americans, even worse than Obamacare.

Recapping: PPACA is Federal legislation implemented by the states. Repealing the Federal Legislation leaves the state regulations. PPACA is a grab bag of goodies for insurance companies. Local insurance companies will keep those aspects of the bill that line their bottom line while reducing those that do not.

To restore free market health care, one needs to create a framework for the repeal that will actually create free market institutions.

I created "The Medical Savings and Loan" to serve as such a framework.

In this work, I create an alternative to group health insurance called "The Medical Savings and Loan." It funds health care through a combination of Savings, a Loan Reserve and Grants. A key figure in this program is a new position called The Health Care Advocate who replaces the insurance agent and claims adjuster.

This structure is uniquely suited to discussing the difference between health care delivered through a collective mechanism such as insurance and socialism. It also provides people seeking free market health care reform a frame to discuss such reform.

NOTE: I developed this presentation a long time ago, but have yet to find an audience interested in the topic. I live in conversative Utah. Conservatives tend to suppress discussions of ideas.


I do not consider my presentation a panacea. But I have studied the issue in sufficient depth to know that we cannot restore free market health care just by waving the "repeal" wand.

To restore free market health care, we need leaders willing to discuss free market health care. I have yet to see anyone in the Trump camp discuss the issue.

I do not for certain that, without a framework for restoring free market health care. Simply repealing Obamacare will make things worse.

I figure that the best hope for repealing Obamacare is for Hillary to win and maybe liberals will finally realize that they've been duped and that the best way for providing care starts by talking about the issue.