Friday, October 25, 2013

To the AFP in Nevada

The following is a letter to Americans for Prosperity of Nevada.

I believe that the way to beat PPACA (ObamaCare) is to create and discuss free market alternatives.

My goal for the last five years has been to either attend or host a meeting in which people were interested in free market health care reform.

If I attended a meeting, I would suggest that a group create a legal entity to explore free market health care reform. I registered the name "Health Care Advocates Association" as a DBA. The goal is to create a named entity that explores alternatives to PPACA.

I admit. My idea is a bit grandiose. I want a group to create a cleanly defined business model to stand as an alternative to PPACA. I believe that such an effort could help the freedom movement.

For example, because the GOP did not have compelling alternatives to ObamaCare on the table, they were forced into a humiliating capitulation after the government shutdown.

I do not pretend that I have all the answers. But I am certain that the path to finding the best answer starts with people meeting together to discuss about alternatives.

My audacious goal is to get a group of people together and to put a cleanly defined comprehensive alternative on the table.

I am not a pushy person. I've invested a great deal of time into developing arguments against socialized health care.

I put together a presentation that argues that the problem in health care is the result of group funding of individual consumption and that the solution is to restore the concept of self funded care.

The presentation looks at the mathematics of financing health care and is a bit involved. In the presentation I create a mathematical model of self funded health care. I then create a model of group funded care. I create a mechanism for measuring the effect of both systems and then put forward the argument that group funded care underserves the middle class and working poor.

I've timed this information packed presentation. It takes about an hour and it has to be this long. The presentation creates a model of self-funded care. It then creates a model of group funded care. It then compares the two.

Because the presentation has so much information, it is likely to be followed by an open discussion that takes several hours.

The presentation will include the action item which is simply for a group to create a well defined alternative to PPACA. The alternative to PPACA could be used by GOP to find alternatives to the current health care reform.

Personally, I fear that PPACA was designed to fail. It will either fail into full blown socialism or it will fail into a free market structure.

The direction of the failure will be determined by the side that has the best ideas on the table.

So, my goal is simply to get ideas on the table.

I believe that my presentation would fit the message of Americans for Prosperity. The presentation looks at the mathematics of health care and argues that a system base on individual ownership out performs a system based on group think.

I live in Utah. Nevada is a day's drive from Utah. My modest goal is simply to present an idea to a group of people for review. My original thought was a group of a dozen people.

At this point, I would be delighted to find a group of two to three people willing to spend an afternoon discussing ways to role back PPACA. The presentation requires either a whiteboard or a chalkboard. It could be held in an office conference room or living room.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Blinders on the State Policy Institute

The State Policy Network is a collection of state level think tanks promoting Conservative ideas at the state level. The network includes many of the best free market think tanks in the nation including the Acton Institute and Goldwater Institute.

For the most part, SPN is a valuable resource for the free market community.

The one catch with The State Policy Network is that the organizations in the network exist to influence state policy; as such the entities end up arguing policy from the state perspective instead of the free market perspective.

For example, during the health care debate a group proposed using a "State Compact" to battle PPACA. The State Compact would regulate health care instead of the Federal Government.

This creates a false dichotomy: Should the health exchanges be run by a State Compact or by the Federal Government?

A State Policy Think Tank that answers that the exchanges should be regulated by a State Compact has just given tacit approval to the health exchanges.

What really needs to happen is for think tanks to challenge the health exchanges (which they failed to do.)

Common Core is another great example of state network policy failure.

Common Core is like No Child Left Behind. This is a Federal program that regulates schools through standardized testing. NCLB transferred a great deal of local control to the Federal Government.

Many people who were upset with NCLB ended up supporting Common Core which is similar in design, but is run by an Association of Governors. The question is: Should education centralization be controlled by the Federal Government or by the State Governments. A state's rights advocate would support a Governor's Association when the real question is: should we need centralized control of the curriculum?

Getting back to health care, State Policy Institutes approach health care from the perspective of state policy.

I contend that this very perspective is backwards.

I contend that health care is a business problem and that we need to find business solutions.

(NOTE: The etymology of "business" is "busyness." It means that that which keeps one busy. By business, I am referring to individual occupation and not corporate activity).

So, what I've been trying to do with the Medical Savings and Loan is to create a new business model for funding health care. (Again, by business, I mean individual business and not just another huge corporation).

This program starts with the mantra: "Those who can self fund their care should."

To help people self fund care, I create a structured savings program supplemented with a loan reserve. The savings accounts plus loan reserve will help those people who can self fund their care achieve this objective.

The program effectively identifies the people who cannot.

I create a generously funded grant program for people who cannot self fund their care.

This program helps the people who can self fund their care do so. It creates a huge pile of money for people who cannot self fund their care.

By starting with a business solution, I end up minimizing the state's role in health care.

This leads to a general rule of health care. If the health care debate starts with the role of the state in health care, the debate will result in a huge state.

If the debate starts with business at an individual level, the debate will end up with a system that minimizes the role of the government in health care.

The trap of the State Policy Network is that the entities in the network approach discussions from the state policy view.

Even when entities favor free market solutions, state policiy institutes can end up supporting less than optimal solutions for health care. Some institutes, like Utah's Sutherland Institute, get so caught up in the state policy perspective that they become openly hostile to real free market reform.

This creates a problem for me. To have a truly authentic debate about free market health care reform, one needs to create a new entity to explore health care reform from the individual business level.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Why Not Just Blog? tweeted the following question: "Not a meeting, but how about a blog?"

Sadly, I fear a blog is insufficient for a quality discussion on health care. 

A blog, by nature, is a monologue. Health care requires dialogue.  The best way to create a dialog is with face to face meetings.

For that matter, the reason Obama rose to power is because his group held an extremely large number of face to face meetings in which enemies of freedom discussed health care. Community organizers in the Alinsky School of politics actively engage in the community.

I have never personally never met a Conservative who was willing to discuss free market health care. I've attended scores of meetings about different ways to destroy free market health care.

Yes, there are conservative pundits who want to promote themselves. Pundits who are promoting themselves are not engaged in discourse. They are involved in publicity campaigns and their own private monolog.

Punditry often undermines the cause of freedom. For example, I believe that the "defund-ObamaCare" group was so caught up in their own private monologues that they failed to appreciate just how a government shutdown would play out in the nation.

The shutdown diverted all of the conversations about the poor implementation of ObamaCare to the shutdown. Getting caught up in a monologue often does more harm than good.

In my opinion, attempts to save our freedom must be based on a dialogue that interfaces with the public in an intelligent fashion.

So, my goal isn't to dictate policy, but to start conversations. So, I put together a presentation that could start a conversation.

In the presentation I create a model of self-funded health care, then create a model of pooled insurance. I then show why the pool model under-serves the working poor and middle class. The presentation takes about an hour. It would be followed by a conversation that could rage for weeks.
I live in Utah, which is run by the LDS Church. The Mormon establishment is 100% committed to socializing health care through exchanges. They disagree on who should regulate the exchanges.

Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Governor Mike Leavitt, Governor Jon Huntsman, Karl Rove, The Sutherland Institute, etc., are all for variations of the Health Exchanges. The Book of Commandments by Joseph Smith declares the following:
26 If thou lovest me, thou shalt serve me and keep all of my commandments; and behold, thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast unto me, wih a covenant and deed which cannot be broken; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church, and two of the elders, such as he shall appoint and set apart for that purpose.

27 And it shall come to pass, that the bishop of my church, after that he has received the properties of my church, that it can not be taken from the church, he shall appoint every man a steward over his own property, or that which he has received, in as much as is sufficient for himself and family:

28 And the residue shall be kept to administer to him who has not, that every man may receive according as he stands in need:

The Book of Commandments is supposedly a direct revelation from The Heavenly Father and is to be viewed as the new Ten Commandments for the Latter Days. See The United Order of Enoch.

That quote above is the starting point of the Conservative argument in Utah. The sentence before this says:

25 Thow knowest my laws, they are given in my scriptures, he that sinneth and repenth not, shall be cast out.

In Mormon Theology, The Heavenly Father tells the righteous that they are to "cast out" people who disagree with the central authority of the church.

I disagree with the people like Harry Reid who are trying to socialize health care. But I live in a region where people are taught to cast out those who disagree with their central authority.

Anyway, back to the question of blogging. I live in an area where politics is controlled by a rogue group that dictates policy and does not tolerate open discourse. The most prominent politician in this group is none other than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) ... the primary author of PPACA.

I am not only against PPACA, the Health Exchanges and socialized care. I am against this method in which a roguish group monologues, issues dictates and casts people out. (The picture shows the Tower of Power from which dictates issue.)

Because I live in Utah. the only hope I have to engage in actual discourse about health care is to travel. The only way that this could possibly happen is if I found a group of a half dozen or so people near Utah that is willing to spend an afternoon debating health care.

The primary direction of my blog is to find people within 700 miles of the Beehive State willing to hold an meeting on health care. It's pathetic, but it is the only hope I see.

BTW: I could produce blog post after blog posts on the merits of self-funded care and fee for service medicine. But if I am never in a situation where I get to talk face to face with people, I feel that all such effort is meaningless.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Open Letter to the Gem State Tea Party

The Utah Tea Party has faded into nothing. I discovered that there is still an active Tea Party in Idaho called The Gem State Tea Party.

Readers of this blog know that, for the last five years, I've been trying to find a group brave enough to discuss free market health care reform. Here in Utah, the battle for defending freedom was lost before it started. Perhaps the brave folks in Boise are willing to stand for freedom.

So, I am issuing an open letter to the Gem State Tea Party:

Hello. My name is Kevin Delaney. I live down here in the Beehive State where I trying to make the stand against PPACA (ObamaCare).

For the public at large, the most unpopular aspect of PPACA is the insurance mandate.

The mandate is based upon the assumption that insurance is the only way to fund health care.

I believe that the best way to defeat PPACA is to challenge this false assumption.

The best way to challenge this assumption is to create a viable alternative to insurance. (By viable I mean a program that covers the same care for the same cost or less than insurance).

My assertion is that, if a Tea Party group discussed alternatives to insurance, that group would challenge PPACA at its core foundations. This discussion might help turn the tide against PPACA.

I am a computer programmer. I used to work for a state run insurance trust. I wrote programs that tracked claims and calculated insurance premiums.

I had access to a substantial amount of health data.

To my horror, I discovered that the state run insurance trust systematically underserved the middle and working class in favor of the ruling class. Even a state owned and run insurance company had the effect of transferring wealth and power from the people to the ruling elite.

I began running simulations and discovered that if we returned to a system based on self-financed care supplemented with charity, we would not only end the artificial transfer of wealth, we would end up with better health care.

Five years ago, I put together a presentation that I called the "Medical Savings and Loan." In this presentation I create a model for funding care that uses savings accounts, a loan reserve and grants.

I then demonstrate that this program would cover as much care as insurance. Best of all, it would restore the pricing mechanism in health care.

I then compare this model with the insurance model.

I am able to show that insurance transfers vast amounts of wealth from the middle and working class to the ruling elite while creating undesirable systemic faults in health care.

The presentation takes about an hour and a half to be followed by a lively discussion about funding health care.

Health care is the most important issue of our day. I believe that people would appreciate an intense discussion about the mathematics of funding health care.

Personally, I think the arguments I make in this presentation could turn the health care debate around.

Of course, I accept that I could be wrong. I am not like Obama. I do not assume that because I came to a conclusion that the conclusion must be right.

I believe strongly in the scientific method and peer review. Before I publish my ideas, I want to present the ideas to a small group to discuss the idea.

Sadly, I've been unable to find a group in Utah willing to review the idea.

My direct experience in Utah is that I get thrown out of the room the moment people realize that I am challenging the insurance industry.

I understand the challenges faced by organizations. Most conservative groups get funding from the insurance industry. So, holding a meeting that questions insurance might jeopardize funding.

Again, I understand the importance of funding. If a group loses funding because it questioned insurance, then the group is effectively silenced.

Unfortunately, since "conservative" groups systematically hold funding over principles, the policy of putting funding first opens our nation for the encroachment of tyranny.

The insurance industry wants people to think insurance is the only possible way to fund health care.

By accepting this assumption without debate, Conservatives have opened the door for politicos to make arguments for mandated insurance. The arguments for mandated insurance are usually followed by calls for Single Payer care or nationalized health care.

The only way to preserve liberty is for a group to brave the wrath of the insurance industry and to discuss alternatives.

I understand how frightening it is to stand against the powerful health care establishment.

Anyway, for the last five years, I've had the hope of holding a meeting that discussed alternatives to insurance.

Simply discussing alternatives to insurance strikes directly at the insurance mandates in PPACA. These mandates are the weakest links for this proposal.

I believe so strongly in this approach to fighting PPACA, that I've spent five years seeking out free market oriented groups brave enough to discuss the mathematics of funding health care.

I've had no success in the Beehive State. Living on the edge of last great wilderness in the lower 48 states, perhaps there is enough pioneer spirit left in Idaho to brave a discussion of self-financed health care.

The presentation takes an hour to an hour and a half and would be followed by a lively discussion that is likely to take two to three hours. Let's face it. Once people start talking about the actual mathematics of health care, they are likely to go on for weeks.

A discussion about the the mathematics of financing health care might even draw people out onto the streets to march against PPACA and the ruling elite in the state house.

I have not put the presentation online. I believe strongly in the scientific method in which one seeks peer review before publishing bold statements.

My goal is to present a model for self-funded health care, then to compare this model to insurance. I believe that such a discussion would lead people to demand for alternatives to insurance and not mandated insurance.

If the Gem State Tea Party, or any free market oriented group in the Mountain West, is interested in this presentation, they can contact me here.

Monday, October 7, 2013

The Timing of It All

Readers of this blog (all three of you) know that I have an obsession with meetings. For the last five years, my goal has been to attend (or host) a meeting in which people spoke about free market health care.

I am actually surprised that no-one is interested in this topic. But I accept that people are too busy to care about liberty.

PPACA is a bad law that forces people to buy insurance. The law officially kicked in on October 1st.

For the first time in five years, people were actually talking about the law.

I was delighted to see online chatter about issue at hand.

Just as discussion about the law was starting to have an impact, DC launched into this absurd government shutdown process.

All discussion about PPACA and the health exchanges stopped.

The health exchanges are being imposed at the state level. Shutting down the Federal Government neither slows nor stops the implementation of PPACA or the Health Exchanges.

Shutting down the government simply diverts attention from the exchanges and allows the administration to impose the exchanges without any scrutiny or discussion of alternatives.

I've followed the current health care debate from the start. My goal has been to find a small group willing to discuss the issue of health care. I've been turned back at every turn.

The first time in five years that I've seen people at large talking about the actual issue came to an inglorious end because of the government shutdown.

Because of the shutdown, it is unlikely that there will be an opening for a discussion about free market financing of health care for another two to four years.

Doesn't anyone else find the timing of this government shutdown suspect?

The government shutdown allows the government to impose the health exchanges with no public scrutiny or debate.

By shutting down discourse at this critical moment, the government shutdown accomplishes the exact opposite of what Republicans claimed to have supported.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Constructive Liberty

I hate spending my days ragging on the "conservative movement."

Like many Americans, I am at wits end.

I am delighted that the GOP has finally grown a back bone and is willing to stand up for liberty the day after the imposition of PPACA.

But, running an obstructionist campaign this late in the game is dubious strategy.

An obstructionist campaign may have worked earlier on in the health care debate.

At this hour, the freedom movement needs a completely different strategy.

We need a strategy to dig our nation out of the hole that Obama and Harry Reid dug for our liberties.

Obstructionism only widens the hole. It doesn't provide a path out.

Obstructionism is a strategy. To every strategy there is a counter strategy.

Obama uses the Alinsky Method.

The Alinsky Method can beat obstructionism. Obstruction campaigns allow community organizers to frame the obstructionist opposition as the source of the problem. In the current debate, the obstructionist campaign allows Obama to project the failures of PPACA onto the GOP.

The GOP has little to gain with the government shutdown, but the shutdown allows Obama to project the failures of PPACA onto the Republicans.

The Alinsky Method is a strategy that is premised on Conservatives acting a particular way.

The way to defeat the Alinsky Method is to act differently.

The way to defeat Alinsky and his student Obama is to create health care reform proposals that reconstruct liberty.

This strategy is easy to put together and accomplish.

Such a program could start by a small group of people meeting to discuss free market health care reform. (Something that I have not seen in this five years of health care debate).

The topic for the meeting is very simple. The meeting starts by asking the question: What would a true market health care system look like? This is followed by the question: How do we get there from here?

If a small group of freedom lovers were brave enough to attend to meeting on this subject, that group might be able to change the tone of the debate.

Simply discussing free market health care and how one implements free market health care changes the tone of the discussion from obstruction to construction.

If conservatives were engaged in a constructive discussion, it would break the Alinsky Method.

Remember. To every strategy, there is a counter strategy.

The Alinsky Method can break the obstructions strategy employed by the GOP.

The group that braved to talk about free market health care would be engaging in the one counter strategy that breaks the Alinsky Method. 

BTW, I am not talking about a government program. True free market health care reform is not dependent on the government.

Marx taught his followers to use the tools of the free market to destroy the market. The meeting would involve discussion on how to use the tools of PPACA to restore the free market. This discussion is how to work the government apparatus to ween our dependency on government. The discussion is about reducing dependency on the state.

I can see clearly how one could run a successful strategy to restore health freedom.

I've started ragging on conservatives because I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why conservatives so adamantly refuse to talk about health care.

The only explanation I've been able to come up with is that the GOP actually likes PPACA ... they simply want to be the one's holding the ring of power.

The Conservative Strategy is clearly failing.

So, what does one need to do to create a winnable strategy?

I think one might be able to create a winning strategy if a small group of people were to meet together to discuss these two questions:

What would a true market health care system look like?

and How do we get there from here?

Are these two questions too incredibly difficult? If you know any freedom loving group within a day's drive of Salt Lake (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, Cheyenne, Boise) who are have enough interest in preserving freedom to discuss these issues, I would be happy to put together a meeting. The discussion might last a whole afternoon! (Contact Form)