It is possible for a manufacturer to achieve economies of scale by building a huge factory that buys everything in bulk and processes the material through an assembly line.
This idea applies to the supply side of manufacturing. It does not apply to the demand side.
Buying in bulk is not the ideal approach for the demand side.
For example, lets say you are thirsty for a soda: Are you doing yourself a favor by ordering a Big Gulp?
Attempts to apply supply side thought on the demand side actually leads to waste.
We see this clearly in diet.
A healthy diet should include a steady stream of fresh fruits and vegetables. The best way to eat a healthy diet is to establish a steady stream of seasonal fresh vegetables.
On the consumption side of the equation, people maximize their resources through moderation.
It is possible for the food industry to supply a steady stream of such vegetables by growing a huge winter crop in Arizona and then shipping it around the county. But, there is an asymmetry in this equation.
One can achieve economies of scale on the demand side, but the consumption side should be ruled by moderation.
It is possible for a physician to set up an assembly line for select procedures. This happened in laser eye surgery. A doctor might streamline the procedure for cataract surgery by carefully analyzing and optimizing each step of the process. The doctor can then efficiently treat this problem by having a steady stream of eyeballs rolled through the operating room.
This procedure is great when there is a large population needing the surgery, but doing cataract surgery on a population that does not need it is harmful.
There appears to be a correlation between cloudiness of vision and diet. AllAboutVision cites studies claiming that people eating a diet high in anti-oxidants and certain vitamins have a reduced need for such surgery and people with a diet high in carbohydrates seem to have an increased need for surgery.
While I applaud ophthalmologists for developing industrial treatment for laser eye surgery. I believe that individuals are best served by learning about the effects of diet and health on the eyes to postpone cataract surgery for as long as possible.
The secret to developing a good diet is information.
The world is in the process of transitioning from the industrial age to the information age.
Seeking "Economies of Scale" was a mantra of the industrial age.
The direction of the information age should be learning how to employ all the wonderful information we receive from scientific discoveries to improve the quality of life.
In the industrial age, people were seeking the benefits of economies of scale.
The goal of the information age is to use information to maximize the benefit of our consumption of resources.
In some circumstances, manufacturers can reduce waste by manufacturing on a large scale, but the real benefits of the information in the information age arise by applying information in ways that properly size our consumption to our needs.
In many cases, economies of scale actually harm us by creating wasteful imbalances.
The insurance industry preaches that they can reduce health care costs by pooling local resources and buying health care on a massive scale.
The insurance industry has made this promise for over a century. The system has systematically failed to reduce the cost of care.
Pooling our resources seems to have the effect of concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a insiders in the insurance industry while creating wasteful imbalances in the application of care.
My presentation on health care shows why this happens. When one realizes that health care is a matter of many things taken in moderation, it is easy to prove that pooled health insurace (including socialism) is incapable of achieving the economies of scale that it promises.
I have to repeat. If there is a large market for a given product such as cataract surgery, doctors can achieve efficiencies by creating a streamlined surgical procedure that passes patients through assembly line medicine.
These efficiencies are achieved on the supply side. Physicians will create streamlined procedures with or without group health insurance.
Insurance salesmen lie to us with the claim that we can achieve economies of scale by putting our health care resources in a pool. They are taking a legitimate idea from the supply side of the equation and applying it to the demand side.
Proper health care is a matter of balance and moderate consumption of many different things. Yes, individuals can benefit by streamlined health processes. Our individual consumption of these resources still must be ruled by moderation.
The best way to achieve the right balance in health care in the information age is with the concept of mass customization.
Attempts to apply economies of scale from the consumption side, as is done with insurance and socialism, leads to a wasteful imbalance in the consumption of resources and eliminates the customization of care that would happen if health care were left to a free market.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
The People v the Kleptocrats
The GOP won an election, but they seem to lack vision or direction. A political movement that lacks direction can be dangerous.
The vision from the political parties should come from the people. If the people fail to provide a vision, the lobbyist will step and sell their vision. The vision of lobbyists is best called "kleptocracy." (kleptocracy: rule by compulsive theives).
Than antidote for this lack of vision is simple: People need to start talking about solutions and a positive direction for the country.
I am interested in free market health care reform. My goal for the last six years has been to attend or host a meeting in which people spoke about free market reform. I admit what I am saying is radical. I believe that if people actually got together and spoke about the issue of health care reform they could help clarify and provide vision to health care reform.
I realize that my vision of people meeting and actually talking about free market health care reform is a radical step which conservatives are unwilling to even contemplate. But this is what has to be done to save our nation.
A little shameful self-promotion is in order here: To make a meeting productive, I put together a presentation.
I believe that funding health care is a business problem and not a political problem. We need business solutions and not political solutions.
This sentence alone puts us on a path to fighting the kleptocracy of Washington because is says we are not looking for the lobbyists to provide a solution, we want the lobbyists and government to get out of the way.
The statement: "leave us alone" is not enough to insure a good tomorrow. The next step is to talk about what we will do when left alone.
My presentation starts by creating a mathematical model of health care expenses. I then create a new business model to help people cover these expenses. I then discuss how an improved business model for funding health care would overcome the inequities of the insurance industry.
I have searched high and low to find meetings to attend and groups to support. If we want to repeal ObamaCare and restore free market principles in health care, people have to talk. This continued dead silence and intransigent unwillingness to discuss health care reform means that the GOP will surrender our health care to kleptocrats.
The presentation I put together is a nice starting point for a discussion of health care. The presentation has a role for individuals. It has a role for health care providers. It has a role for private charities and a greatly reduced role for government.
I keep trying to have meetings, but no-one has ever attended (PS: I live in Utah. I am not LDS). I am happy to attend meetings by others, but no-one is holding such meetings.
Anyway, I've been stuck in a rut for the last six years on the idea that the first step to restoring free market principles health care is for people to talk about the issue. But Conservatives are scared of mathematics; so no discussion will ever occur, and we are left to surrender our society to the kleptocrats in DC.
The vision from the political parties should come from the people. If the people fail to provide a vision, the lobbyist will step and sell their vision. The vision of lobbyists is best called "kleptocracy." (kleptocracy: rule by compulsive theives).
Than antidote for this lack of vision is simple: People need to start talking about solutions and a positive direction for the country.
I am interested in free market health care reform. My goal for the last six years has been to attend or host a meeting in which people spoke about free market reform. I admit what I am saying is radical. I believe that if people actually got together and spoke about the issue of health care reform they could help clarify and provide vision to health care reform.
I realize that my vision of people meeting and actually talking about free market health care reform is a radical step which conservatives are unwilling to even contemplate. But this is what has to be done to save our nation.
A little shameful self-promotion is in order here: To make a meeting productive, I put together a presentation.
I believe that funding health care is a business problem and not a political problem. We need business solutions and not political solutions.
This sentence alone puts us on a path to fighting the kleptocracy of Washington because is says we are not looking for the lobbyists to provide a solution, we want the lobbyists and government to get out of the way.
The statement: "leave us alone" is not enough to insure a good tomorrow. The next step is to talk about what we will do when left alone.
My presentation starts by creating a mathematical model of health care expenses. I then create a new business model to help people cover these expenses. I then discuss how an improved business model for funding health care would overcome the inequities of the insurance industry.
I have searched high and low to find meetings to attend and groups to support. If we want to repeal ObamaCare and restore free market principles in health care, people have to talk. This continued dead silence and intransigent unwillingness to discuss health care reform means that the GOP will surrender our health care to kleptocrats.
The presentation I put together is a nice starting point for a discussion of health care. The presentation has a role for individuals. It has a role for health care providers. It has a role for private charities and a greatly reduced role for government.
I keep trying to have meetings, but no-one has ever attended (PS: I live in Utah. I am not LDS). I am happy to attend meetings by others, but no-one is holding such meetings.
Anyway, I've been stuck in a rut for the last six years on the idea that the first step to restoring free market principles health care is for people to talk about the issue. But Conservatives are scared of mathematics; so no discussion will ever occur, and we are left to surrender our society to the kleptocrats in DC.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Finally Some Feedback
I finally received some feedback on why conservatives refuse to discuss free market health care reform.
As you may have guessed, I advocate creating a system where the majority of health care is delivered on a pay as you go basis. Grant organizations and the state intervene only when people cannot afford their care.
Conservatives reject the concept of self funded health care because self funded health care provides no mechanisms for preventing abortions.
Abortion, as you see, is a litmus test.
In conservative political think, discourse starts by laying out the litmus tests. People who fail the litmus test must be driven out of society and suppressed.
This is called "closed-mindedness." The very dictionary definition of "conservative" is closed-minded, intransigent and opposed to reason.
I am personally opposed to abortion, but I do not start the conversation of health care reform with the need to stop abortion; therefore, any idea I say must be soundly rejected.
The Medical Savings and Loan trusts people with the bulk of their own health dollars. Rather than giving clerks an insurance policy, Hobby Lobby would give their clerks money set aside for medical purposes.
So, Imagine for a moment that a clerk at Hobby Lobby had $50,000 in a health savings account and the clerk at Hobby Lobby decided to spend the money on an abortion.
They money in the clerk's account is the clerk's. Because the money is the clerk's money, Hobby Lobby does not have contractual control over the money. Since self-funded care gives people greater control over their personal resources, these hate mongering, closed-minded things called conservatives say that the very concept of personal liberty that the US Founders fought for must be squashed.
Abortion is the litmus test to be given to all arguments.
Because self funded health care allows people greater autonomy and does not create the social controls needed to stamp out abortion, discussions about free market health care reform must be stamped out and squashed. Anyone arguing for free market reforms must be driven from society and treated as a pariah and shunned.
Since preventing abortion is the first concern, the health care debate must start and end with developing health care as a mechanism for legislating morality.
Since health care starts with the ideal legislate morality and keeping the lower classes in check, we must develop a health care system that is a leviathan.
In the hate-mongering closed-minded view of conservatism, Health Care starts with the premise that we must take the health care dollars from the people and place it in pools controlled by a ruling elite.
We will call this system insurance. Insurance undermines the very liberties that our founders (the classical liberals) sought to secure.
Insurance has one big flaw. As businesses trade about employees as pawns on a chessboard the insurance system creates great gaps in coverage. If you lose your job and are sick you will now find it difficult to gain new coverage or employment because of insurance.
This wonderful system called insurance that conservatives adore because it creates a class society and keeps the lower classes in check has the perverse effect of magnifying the suffering of people with illnesses.
The arch conservative organization called the Heritage Foundation came up with the solution. The Heritage Foundation would toss out the US Constitution and create a fascist health care system in which the people were forced to buy into insurance through state run health exchanges. In exchange for this give-me to the insurance industry, insurance companies will be forced to take in people with pre-existing conditions.
Conservatives spin around in glee. With a fascist state forcing people to buy insurance through health exchanges, conservatives would be able to impose their ideals of a class society with a ruling elite that could control the behavior of the people.
One problem: The political enemies of the conservatives got in power and co-opted the plan.
Progressives are using the very system that the Heritage Foundation developed to impose a conservative class society to impose the progressive concept of radical social change.
The Obama administration passed the very law designed by conservatives. So, conservatives blow smoke, and react all while suppressing debate about alternatives.
Anyway, I now know why conservatives refuse to discuss the merits of self-funded health care. Self-funded health care would give people greater autonomy and reduce the ability of conservatives to legislate morality.
This is why the Heritage Foundation proposed a system with a fascist state using using state run health exchanges to force people into insurance. The Heritage Foundation follows Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke and Machiavelli in the believe that the fascist state must be a leviathan.
The great flaw, of course, in the Conservative plan is that their precious leviathan can be captured and turned against them by the progressives seeking their own version of a state run utopia.
Because self-funded health care entrusts people with their personal health care resources, self-funded health care makes it easier for a person who made the personal decision to abort a child to do so.
Centralized health care run through insurance companies and health exchanges, as was proposed by the Heritage Foundation and still supported by most conservative groups, gives social engineers in the state the ability to impose abortions on society at large.
But the same apparatus can be used by progressives to impose their ideals of population control.
IMHO The conservative notion that they must shut down discussions of free market health care reform because of their political litmus tests is mute because the leviathan the conservatives wish to impose can easily be captured by the advocates of population control.
For that matter, the very leviathan the Heritage Foundation sought to impose on the people was just created by the Obama Administration. It is called PPACA (or ObamaCare).
Now, I am not a fan of abortion. Killing a baby denies the baby life and freedom. I think in the long run a free society that gives people control over their bodies will see fewer abortions than a fascist society set on population control.
But since my health care reform does not start with a plan to prevent abortion, it fails the litmus test and must be reject.
May all conservatives rot.
As you may have guessed, I advocate creating a system where the majority of health care is delivered on a pay as you go basis. Grant organizations and the state intervene only when people cannot afford their care.
Conservatives reject the concept of self funded health care because self funded health care provides no mechanisms for preventing abortions.
Abortion, as you see, is a litmus test.
In conservative political think, discourse starts by laying out the litmus tests. People who fail the litmus test must be driven out of society and suppressed.
This is called "closed-mindedness." The very dictionary definition of "conservative" is closed-minded, intransigent and opposed to reason.
I am personally opposed to abortion, but I do not start the conversation of health care reform with the need to stop abortion; therefore, any idea I say must be soundly rejected.
The Medical Savings and Loan trusts people with the bulk of their own health dollars. Rather than giving clerks an insurance policy, Hobby Lobby would give their clerks money set aside for medical purposes.
So, Imagine for a moment that a clerk at Hobby Lobby had $50,000 in a health savings account and the clerk at Hobby Lobby decided to spend the money on an abortion.
They money in the clerk's account is the clerk's. Because the money is the clerk's money, Hobby Lobby does not have contractual control over the money. Since self-funded care gives people greater control over their personal resources, these hate mongering, closed-minded things called conservatives say that the very concept of personal liberty that the US Founders fought for must be squashed.
Abortion is the litmus test to be given to all arguments.
Because self funded health care allows people greater autonomy and does not create the social controls needed to stamp out abortion, discussions about free market health care reform must be stamped out and squashed. Anyone arguing for free market reforms must be driven from society and treated as a pariah and shunned.
Since preventing abortion is the first concern, the health care debate must start and end with developing health care as a mechanism for legislating morality.
Since health care starts with the ideal legislate morality and keeping the lower classes in check, we must develop a health care system that is a leviathan.
In the hate-mongering closed-minded view of conservatism, Health Care starts with the premise that we must take the health care dollars from the people and place it in pools controlled by a ruling elite.
We will call this system insurance. Insurance undermines the very liberties that our founders (the classical liberals) sought to secure.
Insurance has one big flaw. As businesses trade about employees as pawns on a chessboard the insurance system creates great gaps in coverage. If you lose your job and are sick you will now find it difficult to gain new coverage or employment because of insurance.
This wonderful system called insurance that conservatives adore because it creates a class society and keeps the lower classes in check has the perverse effect of magnifying the suffering of people with illnesses.
The arch conservative organization called the Heritage Foundation came up with the solution. The Heritage Foundation would toss out the US Constitution and create a fascist health care system in which the people were forced to buy into insurance through state run health exchanges. In exchange for this give-me to the insurance industry, insurance companies will be forced to take in people with pre-existing conditions.
Conservatives spin around in glee. With a fascist state forcing people to buy insurance through health exchanges, conservatives would be able to impose their ideals of a class society with a ruling elite that could control the behavior of the people.
One problem: The political enemies of the conservatives got in power and co-opted the plan.
Progressives are using the very system that the Heritage Foundation developed to impose a conservative class society to impose the progressive concept of radical social change.
The Obama administration passed the very law designed by conservatives. So, conservatives blow smoke, and react all while suppressing debate about alternatives.
Anyway, I now know why conservatives refuse to discuss the merits of self-funded health care. Self-funded health care would give people greater autonomy and reduce the ability of conservatives to legislate morality.
This is why the Heritage Foundation proposed a system with a fascist state using using state run health exchanges to force people into insurance. The Heritage Foundation follows Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke and Machiavelli in the believe that the fascist state must be a leviathan.
The great flaw, of course, in the Conservative plan is that their precious leviathan can be captured and turned against them by the progressives seeking their own version of a state run utopia.
Because self-funded health care entrusts people with their personal health care resources, self-funded health care makes it easier for a person who made the personal decision to abort a child to do so.
Centralized health care run through insurance companies and health exchanges, as was proposed by the Heritage Foundation and still supported by most conservative groups, gives social engineers in the state the ability to impose abortions on society at large.
But the same apparatus can be used by progressives to impose their ideals of population control.
IMHO The conservative notion that they must shut down discussions of free market health care reform because of their political litmus tests is mute because the leviathan the conservatives wish to impose can easily be captured by the advocates of population control.
For that matter, the very leviathan the Heritage Foundation sought to impose on the people was just created by the Obama Administration. It is called PPACA (or ObamaCare).
Now, I am not a fan of abortion. Killing a baby denies the baby life and freedom. I think in the long run a free society that gives people control over their bodies will see fewer abortions than a fascist society set on population control.
But since my health care reform does not start with a plan to prevent abortion, it fails the litmus test and must be reject.
May all conservatives rot.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
The Missing Link
I just watched a delightful presentation by Dr. Ben Carson on PBS titled The Missing Link about the science of brain health.The presentation lights into a discussion about the development of the human brain and touches on issues such as the importance of nutrition, sleep, stress reduction and a healthy lifestyle in brain health.
What I love about Dr. Carson is that he sees the development of our minds to be more important than simple physical wealth.
Now, this is an admittedly political blog. I've watched Dr. Ben Carson on Fox News. The Fox News Interviews were happy to use Dr. Carson as a bludgeon to beat down on Obama. This PBS show is the first time that I've seen Dr. Carson used to present important ideas in depth.
After watching this great show on Public TV, I am left wondering why we never see Conservatives outlets developing ideas in depth?
If there were more people in the freedom movement brave enough to discuss health, the American people would see through the absurdity of progressivism.
Imagine all the things that could be done if there were only people willing to discuss issues.
If no-one ever does anything then we are simply sunk.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
The VA Health Care Scandals
Apparently there are some health care scandals in the VA that have people upset. Some American Veterans died because the bureaucrats at the VA where more concerned about the appearance of paperwork than the health of the veterans.
I used to work in a state run insurance company.
I am neither surprised nor shocked by this revelation.
This is just the way insurance works.
The thing that I find surprising is that we are a good six years into a debate about health care and that this is the first time that Conservatives have dared discuss the large numbers of people who die because of the massive insurance bureaucracy that stands between the people and their health care.
It is terrible that our veterans are dying because they are not receiving the care they were due.
But this is not an aberration. This is just the way insurance works. If you look in detail at any insurance scheme, you will find large numbers of people being disserviced by the scheme.
This is due to the nature of insurance.
If there was a group that was interested in improving care, that group could make a huge difference in health care simply by discussing the mathematics of health care and alternatives to insurance. Note: SOCIALISM IS INSURANCE RUN BY THE STATE. Socialism is not an alternative to Insurance. Socialism gives total power to a state run insurance company.
Insurance is not really a solution to socialism. Insurance is privately run socialism.
If there was a group of people interested in improving health care. That group could have a huge impact on the debate simply by holding a meeting that discussed alternatives to insurance.
Personally, I have never met a person in the political machine who had any interest in improving the quality of health care. The sole concern in the political machine is power. Insurance concentrates power and the political machine loves concentrated power.
For six years I've had a very simple dream. The dream is simply to attend a meeting about free market health care.
Sadly, since the GOP is as corrupt as the Democratic Party, there will never be any effort in this effort to improve care.
It is really sad. The American Experiment in Self Rule is destined to fail simply because there is no-one in this nation even willing to discuss free market alternatives to insurance.
I used to work in a state run insurance company.
I am neither surprised nor shocked by this revelation.
This is just the way insurance works.
The thing that I find surprising is that we are a good six years into a debate about health care and that this is the first time that Conservatives have dared discuss the large numbers of people who die because of the massive insurance bureaucracy that stands between the people and their health care.
It is terrible that our veterans are dying because they are not receiving the care they were due.
But this is not an aberration. This is just the way insurance works. If you look in detail at any insurance scheme, you will find large numbers of people being disserviced by the scheme.
This is due to the nature of insurance.
If there was a group that was interested in improving care, that group could make a huge difference in health care simply by discussing the mathematics of health care and alternatives to insurance. Note: SOCIALISM IS INSURANCE RUN BY THE STATE. Socialism is not an alternative to Insurance. Socialism gives total power to a state run insurance company.
Insurance is not really a solution to socialism. Insurance is privately run socialism.
If there was a group of people interested in improving health care. That group could have a huge impact on the debate simply by holding a meeting that discussed alternatives to insurance.
Personally, I have never met a person in the political machine who had any interest in improving the quality of health care. The sole concern in the political machine is power. Insurance concentrates power and the political machine loves concentrated power.
For six years I've had a very simple dream. The dream is simply to attend a meeting about free market health care.
Sadly, since the GOP is as corrupt as the Democratic Party, there will never be any effort in this effort to improve care.
It is really sad. The American Experiment in Self Rule is destined to fail simply because there is no-one in this nation even willing to discuss free market alternatives to insurance.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Driving People Out Means Abject Failure
The Tea Party was an authentic freedom movement. A group of people called "conservatives" pushed everyone out of the Tea Party and it diminished.
The 2012 presidential election was a shoe in for the GOP. There was a shrill primary about which candidate was the most conservative. The GOP nominated the most severely conservative candidate from the line up of conservative candidates and managed to grab defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Here in 2014, the GOP should be able to easily capture the Senate and pick up additional seats, but this shrill nonsense about conservatism continues unabated.
The latest Fox Poll shows that Democrats are coming out ahead in the 2014 election.
It looks like those mean spirited people called "conservatives" are successfully driving everyone out of the GOP, just as they drove everyone out of the Tea Party.
I am not in the GOP.
Conservatives have made it clear that me-and-my-kind (people who love the US Founders and support the American experiment in self-rule) are not welcome in the party.
I would be content saying "that's fine with me." After all, the GOP is their party. It is not my party.
Unfortunately, we have a two-party system and the loss of the GOP means that there is no place for the voice of liberty in our society.
There is a faint hope that the shrill people who call themselves "conservatives" might realize that "Modern Conservatism" is a reactionary ideology that is as messed up as modern liberalism. Conservatism does not trace to the US Founders. Conservatism traces to Machiavelli, Hobbes and the Right Wing of the French Revolution.
The Left/Right split which dominates discourse came after the US Revolution. The US Founders despised the Machiavellian thought and partisan discord.
Modern Conservatism is as fundamentally at odds with the ideals of the founders as Modern Progressivism.
The Left/Right split is a reactionary dialectics that came from Europe. The ultimate expression of the Left is Communism. The ultimate expression of the Right is Fascism. The Left reached its apex with Stalin and Mao. The right reached its ultimate expression with Hitler.
There is a small chance that these people who call themselves "conservatives" who destroyed the Tea Party from within and who are now set on driving everyone out of the GOP might tire of defeat and might reconsider conservatism.
For over a half century, Conservatism has been nothing both systematic failure. Modern Conservatism has done as much to undermine our personal liberties as Modern Progressivism.
Unfortunately, this legacy of failure is bound to continue until people calling themselves conservative wake up and realize that "conservatism" is as messed up as the "progressivism" that conservatives loath. Conservatives and Progressives are simply mirror images of each other. They have both accepted the same Hegelian system of discourse.
Americans must reject both "conservatism" and "progressivism" if we wish to survive as a free nation.
There is always a chance that people in the "freedom movement" might start questioning the ideology behind "conservatism" and realize that "conservative" is not a synonym for freedom. They might realize that modern conservatism is a reactionary thought process that is as messed up as modern progressivism.
If we want to restore the promise of American we need to reject both sides of the Left/Right split and pursue a broader discussion of liberty.
Personally, I am convinced that if there was a open discussion of free market health care reform, the group holding the discussion would win.
Both Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism have accepted Hegelian dialectics as the foundational of discourse.
It is impossible to engage in fruitful discourse with this methodology as the foundation of the
The 2012 presidential election was a shoe in for the GOP. There was a shrill primary about which candidate was the most conservative. The GOP nominated the most severely conservative candidate from the line up of conservative candidates and managed to grab defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Here in 2014, the GOP should be able to easily capture the Senate and pick up additional seats, but this shrill nonsense about conservatism continues unabated.
The latest Fox Poll shows that Democrats are coming out ahead in the 2014 election.
It looks like those mean spirited people called "conservatives" are successfully driving everyone out of the GOP, just as they drove everyone out of the Tea Party.
I am not in the GOP.
Conservatives have made it clear that me-and-my-kind (people who love the US Founders and support the American experiment in self-rule) are not welcome in the party.
I would be content saying "that's fine with me." After all, the GOP is their party. It is not my party.
Unfortunately, we have a two-party system and the loss of the GOP means that there is no place for the voice of liberty in our society.
There is a faint hope that the shrill people who call themselves "conservatives" might realize that "Modern Conservatism" is a reactionary ideology that is as messed up as modern liberalism. Conservatism does not trace to the US Founders. Conservatism traces to Machiavelli, Hobbes and the Right Wing of the French Revolution.
The Left/Right split which dominates discourse came after the US Revolution. The US Founders despised the Machiavellian thought and partisan discord.
Modern Conservatism is as fundamentally at odds with the ideals of the founders as Modern Progressivism.
The Left/Right split is a reactionary dialectics that came from Europe. The ultimate expression of the Left is Communism. The ultimate expression of the Right is Fascism. The Left reached its apex with Stalin and Mao. The right reached its ultimate expression with Hitler.
There is a small chance that these people who call themselves "conservatives" who destroyed the Tea Party from within and who are now set on driving everyone out of the GOP might tire of defeat and might reconsider conservatism.
For over a half century, Conservatism has been nothing both systematic failure. Modern Conservatism has done as much to undermine our personal liberties as Modern Progressivism.
Unfortunately, this legacy of failure is bound to continue until people calling themselves conservative wake up and realize that "conservatism" is as messed up as the "progressivism" that conservatives loath. Conservatives and Progressives are simply mirror images of each other. They have both accepted the same Hegelian system of discourse.
Americans must reject both "conservatism" and "progressivism" if we wish to survive as a free nation.
There is always a chance that people in the "freedom movement" might start questioning the ideology behind "conservatism" and realize that "conservative" is not a synonym for freedom. They might realize that modern conservatism is a reactionary thought process that is as messed up as modern progressivism.
If we want to restore the promise of American we need to reject both sides of the Left/Right split and pursue a broader discussion of liberty.
Personally, I am convinced that if there was a open discussion of free market health care reform, the group holding the discussion would win.
Both Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism have accepted Hegelian dialectics as the foundational of discourse.
It is impossible to engage in fruitful discourse with this methodology as the foundation of the
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Short Attention Spans
I have a presentation on free market health care. It takes about an hour followed by a discussion.
I've tried putting my presentation online.
What I've discovered is that online attention span is too short for the presentation to work.
This is what I do in the presentation:
I start by defining a few basic terms. I create a mathematical model of free market care. I create a business model built on the the mathematics model.
I create a model of group health care. Group health care includes both insurance and socialism.
I discuss some of the inequities caused by the group care model such as restricted access to care, the problem of portability, the problem of pre-existing conditions and the breaking of the pricing model.
With two models on the table it is now possible to compare and contrast group care to individual care.
To lay the ground works for a substantive discussion takes effort.
People browsing on the internet rarely look at anything for more than a few seconds. Every time I tried hosting the discussion online, it was diverted and hijacked by completely inane comments.
For example, the presentation is extremely critical of the insurance industry. Progressives read the criticisms of insurance and immediately begin sloganeering for the current version of socialized care not understanding that single payer is simply insurance pushed to an absolute.
I've found that conservatives will start listening to the discussion, but the moment I criticize the insurance industry, they become hostile. After all, insurance is the magical device that puts millionaires in mansions and puts billions of dollars in the GOP's coffers. Conservatives will never do anything that disrupts the feeding trough of the ruling elite..
The models I create confront both sides of the debate with issues that they do not want to face.
This will sound strange to some, but the final reason that I want a meeting is that I operate on the assumption that I may be wrong.
I worked for low wages for a state run insurance company thinking that I was doing something that was benefiting the world. After come face to face with the system and studying the numbers, I concluded that I was doing more harm than good. The state should not be taking money from people if it is doing more harm than good.
I developed this presentation to explain why I lost faith in state run health care and what I would do to fix the problem.
I do not believe that I have magical powers that make me right and my political opponents wrong. I believe that the best approach to health care reform is to create different models and to discuss the differences between the models.
The process of creating models takes time. People browsing web sites simply will not take the time to delve into a substantive conversation. The feedback simply lacks the quality necessary for substantive discourse.
One final reason why I want to give a presentation face to face. As you see, mathematics is largely an oral tradition. For anyone one reading this post. When is the last time that you read a web page that was about mathematics? While it is easy to talk about mathematics. It is extremely difficult to write about it.
I've tried putting my presentation online.
What I've discovered is that online attention span is too short for the presentation to work.
This is what I do in the presentation:
I start by defining a few basic terms. I create a mathematical model of free market care. I create a business model built on the the mathematics model.
I create a model of group health care. Group health care includes both insurance and socialism.
I discuss some of the inequities caused by the group care model such as restricted access to care, the problem of portability, the problem of pre-existing conditions and the breaking of the pricing model.
With two models on the table it is now possible to compare and contrast group care to individual care.
To lay the ground works for a substantive discussion takes effort.
People browsing on the internet rarely look at anything for more than a few seconds. Every time I tried hosting the discussion online, it was diverted and hijacked by completely inane comments.
For example, the presentation is extremely critical of the insurance industry. Progressives read the criticisms of insurance and immediately begin sloganeering for the current version of socialized care not understanding that single payer is simply insurance pushed to an absolute.
I've found that conservatives will start listening to the discussion, but the moment I criticize the insurance industry, they become hostile. After all, insurance is the magical device that puts millionaires in mansions and puts billions of dollars in the GOP's coffers. Conservatives will never do anything that disrupts the feeding trough of the ruling elite..
The models I create confront both sides of the debate with issues that they do not want to face.
This will sound strange to some, but the final reason that I want a meeting is that I operate on the assumption that I may be wrong.
I worked for low wages for a state run insurance company thinking that I was doing something that was benefiting the world. After come face to face with the system and studying the numbers, I concluded that I was doing more harm than good. The state should not be taking money from people if it is doing more harm than good.
I developed this presentation to explain why I lost faith in state run health care and what I would do to fix the problem.
I do not believe that I have magical powers that make me right and my political opponents wrong. I believe that the best approach to health care reform is to create different models and to discuss the differences between the models.
The process of creating models takes time. People browsing web sites simply will not take the time to delve into a substantive conversation. The feedback simply lacks the quality necessary for substantive discourse.
One final reason why I want to give a presentation face to face. As you see, mathematics is largely an oral tradition. For anyone one reading this post. When is the last time that you read a web page that was about mathematics? While it is easy to talk about mathematics. It is extremely difficult to write about it.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
General Proposal for a Presentation
My goal for the last six years has been to hold a meeting about free market health care reform. This meeting presents a strategy for turning back PPACA (aka, ObamaCare). I am willing to drive anywhere within a days drive of Salt Lake for free (That's about seven hundred miles). If I travel further I would have to find a way to fund the trip.
PPACA was premised on the assumption that insurance is the only possible way to fund health care. Because insurance is the only way to fund health care, we must force people into insurance plans and doctors into HMOs.
This assumption leads to the false dichotomy that Health Care must either be funded by big insurance or by big government.
The way to stand against a false dichotomy is to strike at the false premise behind the dichotomy.
My meeting begins with a presentation about the mathematics of funding health care. (FWIW: I used to work as a computer programmer for a state owned insurance company writing programs to track claims and calculate premiums. The presentation is based on experience). I then create a mathematical model for self-funded health care that I call "The Medical Savings and Loan.
With two models on the table I then show how and why group funding of individual consumption leads to inequities. The presentation ends with an actionable model and action items that can be used to defeat the socialization of health care.
Admirers of Dr. Ben Carson would love this presentation. The presentation goes miles beyond Dr. Carson by showing how we can achieve this vision in a relatively short time span.
I need to emphasize. The Medical Savings and Loan is a business model. It is not a government program.
A group of people who wanted to make a big impact on the health care debate could invite me to a meeting. If they like what they hear, I would discuss the action item. The action items is not a government program.
Did I mention? I am not talking about a government program. I believe that funding health care is a business problem and that we need business solutions. The action item is not the creation of a new government agency. The goal is the creation of a better model for funding health care. The model would be implemented as a business, not a government program.
Although there is a raging culture war, the program is not a conflict driven or culture war approach to health care.
It is a data-driven, science based mechanism for funding health care.
As mentioned. I live in Utah. I am not LDS. The meeting is neither pro-LDS or anti-LDS. Truthfully, I don't find LDS and interesting topic.
I notice that the most prominent LDS leaders are all lined up for socializing health care through health exchanges. I am critical of Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Mike Leavitt, Jon Huntsman, the Utah Health Exchange, and the Sutherland Institute which have all played negative roles in the health care debate.
Since I live in Utah, I may find it necessary to address the negative role that Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Huntsman and Leavitt have played in the health care debate, but I really am not interested in such political discussions.
IMHO, politics is something that gets in the way of good decisions. We need an approach to health care reform dedicated to making better decisions.
If you are interested in this presentation, please use my Contact Form. I would be happy to give the presentation anywhere within a day's drive of Salt Lake, but I would have to come up with a funding mechanism if I had to go further than that.
PPACA was premised on the assumption that insurance is the only possible way to fund health care. Because insurance is the only way to fund health care, we must force people into insurance plans and doctors into HMOs.
This assumption leads to the false dichotomy that Health Care must either be funded by big insurance or by big government.
The way to stand against a false dichotomy is to strike at the false premise behind the dichotomy.
My meeting begins with a presentation about the mathematics of funding health care. (FWIW: I used to work as a computer programmer for a state owned insurance company writing programs to track claims and calculate premiums. The presentation is based on experience). I then create a mathematical model for self-funded health care that I call "The Medical Savings and Loan.
With two models on the table I then show how and why group funding of individual consumption leads to inequities. The presentation ends with an actionable model and action items that can be used to defeat the socialization of health care.
Admirers of Dr. Ben Carson would love this presentation. The presentation goes miles beyond Dr. Carson by showing how we can achieve this vision in a relatively short time span.
I need to emphasize. The Medical Savings and Loan is a business model. It is not a government program.
A group of people who wanted to make a big impact on the health care debate could invite me to a meeting. If they like what they hear, I would discuss the action item. The action items is not a government program.
Did I mention? I am not talking about a government program. I believe that funding health care is a business problem and that we need business solutions. The action item is not the creation of a new government agency. The goal is the creation of a better model for funding health care. The model would be implemented as a business, not a government program.
Although there is a raging culture war, the program is not a conflict driven or culture war approach to health care.
It is a data-driven, science based mechanism for funding health care.
As mentioned. I live in Utah. I am not LDS. The meeting is neither pro-LDS or anti-LDS. Truthfully, I don't find LDS and interesting topic.
I notice that the most prominent LDS leaders are all lined up for socializing health care through health exchanges. I am critical of Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Mike Leavitt, Jon Huntsman, the Utah Health Exchange, and the Sutherland Institute which have all played negative roles in the health care debate.
Since I live in Utah, I may find it necessary to address the negative role that Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Huntsman and Leavitt have played in the health care debate, but I really am not interested in such political discussions.
IMHO, politics is something that gets in the way of good decisions. We need an approach to health care reform dedicated to making better decisions.
If you are interested in this presentation, please use my Contact Form. I would be happy to give the presentation anywhere within a day's drive of Salt Lake, but I would have to come up with a funding mechanism if I had to go further than that.
Friday, January 10, 2014
On Starting From a Blank Slate
Yes, there are trillions of dollars invested in the current health care establishment. That aside, I believe that there is merit to engaging in conversations in which one discusses the funding of health care as if it were a blank slate.
While a blanket replacing of the health care apparatus is foolhardy, the discussion can provide insight into health care that can be used to modify the system.
The actual way I approached health care reform is quite interesting.
I was a mathematician who studied the foundations of mathematics and logic. I worked as a programmer for a state owned insurance company. I wrote programs to track claims and perform the actuarial analysis used to calculate premiums. I worked closely with auditors and professional certified actuaries.
I was paid $5.00/hour. The actuaries were charging in excess of $180 per hour. The company was eager to have me do as much of the leg work as possible and gave me unprecedented access to the data, the beautiful data.
I became deeply disturbed by the underlying structure of health insurance. As I analyzed the data I realized that the group funding of individual consumption was creating inequities and systemic risk in health care.
I can easily demonstrate these inequities and system risk if ever anyone came to the presentation that I've been advertising for the last six years!
I was working for a state agency. I saw that the inequities created by insurance (the group funding of individual consumption) existed in both state run insurance pools and private insurance pools.
The problem is not with the entity that runs the pool but with the mathematical model at the foundation of group funding of individual consumption.
Give me a whiteboard and an hour and I can demonstrate this.
Discovering problems is easy. Solving the problem is difficult.
In my quest for a solution, I engaged in two thought experiments. The first thought experiment I asked myself the question: "How would I use object technology to re-engineer an insurance company to the inequities that I found in health care?"
Yes, that is the type of question that curses around inside this muddled brain of mine. Come on, I am a mathematician who read every single computer book that I could lay my greasy little fingers on.
I did a great deal of computer modeling. I made use case studies of all of the positions in health care. I read all the literature I could find on computer models in health care.
After this first thought experiment, I engaged in a second thought experiment. In this second thought experiment I asked the simple question: What if I had a blank slate. How would I go about funding health care if I came across a culture that did not have health insurance that was desirous of finding ways to fund advanced health care?
I created a second absolutely pure free market model for funding health care that starts with people getting in a room and discussing the challenge of funding health care from scratch.
I merged the two ideas together. I gave the project the campy name "The Medical Savings and Loan."
There is one more very interesting thing that happened to me. I attended a lecture by a Marxian professor. This Marxian professor explained how the left could use the insurance industry to transform a free nation into a socialized nation.
Having worked in insurance and having witnessed the inequities caused by insurance, I believe that my Marxian professor was right. The left can use insurance to transform a free people into a socialized people.
Being the impertinent little snit that I am. I took the ideas of my Marxian professor and asked the question: How could one go about using the funding of health care to transform a socialized nation into a free nation?
By free, I mean the classical liberal ideals of freedom. I define "classical liberal" as "the application of classical logic to the question of liberty."
The US Founders had a classical liberal arts education. The foundation of this education was the Trivium. The three legs of the Trivium are Grammar, Classical Logic and Rhetoric. I consider the US Founders, Adam Smith and numerous other thinkers to be Classical Liberal.
I should mention, Hayek, Von Mises and several other authors of the Libertarian bent considered themselves classical liberal.
I suspect that people who consider themselves Libertarian, Classical Liberal or simply Anti-Statist would love my presentation on health care.
It turns out that I just happen to live in the most conservative area on this planet West of Iran. I live in Utah. (Here are some pretty pictures of Utah).
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I tried to generate some interest in free market health care reform. I was active against Hillary Clinton's attempt to socialize health care in the 1990s, but I was completely dismayed to discover that "Conservatives" had no interest in advancing free market health care. Conservatives love employer based health care because insurance concentrates wealth in the pockets of their friends and helps keep workers in check.
For the last six years, I made a completely futile effort to find Conservative interested in overturning PPACA (aka ObamaCare). To my dismay, I could not find a single group within 700 miles of Salt Lake City willing to spend an afternoon discussing health care.
Anyway, I created a presentation. The presentation starts with the idea of building a health care system from a blank slate. I end up building a model for health care that I had actually created by an effort to re-engineer an insurance company along free market principles.
I believe that this multifaceted approach to funding health care makes for a much more interesting discussion of health care.
Of course, I don't know that for sure. Every time I've brought my presentation to a "conservative" group, I was shown the door the moment the people in the group realized that I am directly challenging the big money in health insurance.
After six years of having every door slammed in my face, I believe it a proven fact that Conservatives are disingenuous in their claims of being defers of freedom.
So, as it stands, I am simply left here staring at the scenery. Speaking of scenery, if you aren't interested in the pretty pictures of Utah, I have a pile of pretty pictures from Arizona. Quite frankly, I am content just to be. and I enjoy staring at scenery.
While a blanket replacing of the health care apparatus is foolhardy, the discussion can provide insight into health care that can be used to modify the system.
The actual way I approached health care reform is quite interesting.
I was a mathematician who studied the foundations of mathematics and logic. I worked as a programmer for a state owned insurance company. I wrote programs to track claims and perform the actuarial analysis used to calculate premiums. I worked closely with auditors and professional certified actuaries.
I was paid $5.00/hour. The actuaries were charging in excess of $180 per hour. The company was eager to have me do as much of the leg work as possible and gave me unprecedented access to the data, the beautiful data.
I became deeply disturbed by the underlying structure of health insurance. As I analyzed the data I realized that the group funding of individual consumption was creating inequities and systemic risk in health care.
I can easily demonstrate these inequities and system risk if ever anyone came to the presentation that I've been advertising for the last six years!
I was working for a state agency. I saw that the inequities created by insurance (the group funding of individual consumption) existed in both state run insurance pools and private insurance pools.
The problem is not with the entity that runs the pool but with the mathematical model at the foundation of group funding of individual consumption.
Give me a whiteboard and an hour and I can demonstrate this.
Discovering problems is easy. Solving the problem is difficult.
In my quest for a solution, I engaged in two thought experiments. The first thought experiment I asked myself the question: "How would I use object technology to re-engineer an insurance company to the inequities that I found in health care?"
Yes, that is the type of question that curses around inside this muddled brain of mine. Come on, I am a mathematician who read every single computer book that I could lay my greasy little fingers on.
I did a great deal of computer modeling. I made use case studies of all of the positions in health care. I read all the literature I could find on computer models in health care.
After this first thought experiment, I engaged in a second thought experiment. In this second thought experiment I asked the simple question: What if I had a blank slate. How would I go about funding health care if I came across a culture that did not have health insurance that was desirous of finding ways to fund advanced health care?
I created a second absolutely pure free market model for funding health care that starts with people getting in a room and discussing the challenge of funding health care from scratch.
I merged the two ideas together. I gave the project the campy name "The Medical Savings and Loan."
There is one more very interesting thing that happened to me. I attended a lecture by a Marxian professor. This Marxian professor explained how the left could use the insurance industry to transform a free nation into a socialized nation.
Having worked in insurance and having witnessed the inequities caused by insurance, I believe that my Marxian professor was right. The left can use insurance to transform a free people into a socialized people.
Being the impertinent little snit that I am. I took the ideas of my Marxian professor and asked the question: How could one go about using the funding of health care to transform a socialized nation into a free nation?
By free, I mean the classical liberal ideals of freedom. I define "classical liberal" as "the application of classical logic to the question of liberty."
The US Founders had a classical liberal arts education. The foundation of this education was the Trivium. The three legs of the Trivium are Grammar, Classical Logic and Rhetoric. I consider the US Founders, Adam Smith and numerous other thinkers to be Classical Liberal.
I should mention, Hayek, Von Mises and several other authors of the Libertarian bent considered themselves classical liberal.
I suspect that people who consider themselves Libertarian, Classical Liberal or simply Anti-Statist would love my presentation on health care.
It turns out that I just happen to live in the most conservative area on this planet West of Iran. I live in Utah. (Here are some pretty pictures of Utah).
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I tried to generate some interest in free market health care reform. I was active against Hillary Clinton's attempt to socialize health care in the 1990s, but I was completely dismayed to discover that "Conservatives" had no interest in advancing free market health care. Conservatives love employer based health care because insurance concentrates wealth in the pockets of their friends and helps keep workers in check.
For the last six years, I made a completely futile effort to find Conservative interested in overturning PPACA (aka ObamaCare). To my dismay, I could not find a single group within 700 miles of Salt Lake City willing to spend an afternoon discussing health care.
Anyway, I created a presentation. The presentation starts with the idea of building a health care system from a blank slate. I end up building a model for health care that I had actually created by an effort to re-engineer an insurance company along free market principles.
I believe that this multifaceted approach to funding health care makes for a much more interesting discussion of health care.
Of course, I don't know that for sure. Every time I've brought my presentation to a "conservative" group, I was shown the door the moment the people in the group realized that I am directly challenging the big money in health insurance.
After six years of having every door slammed in my face, I believe it a proven fact that Conservatives are disingenuous in their claims of being defers of freedom.
So, as it stands, I am simply left here staring at the scenery. Speaking of scenery, if you aren't interested in the pretty pictures of Utah, I have a pile of pretty pictures from Arizona. Quite frankly, I am content just to be. and I enjoy staring at scenery.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Why The HCAA?
IMHO, the freedom movement needs to create an organization that has a single focus on creating a savings based mechanism for funding health care.
My opinion is based on direct observation of the political debate.
In the 1980s and 1990s it was clear that insurance had destroyed the pricing mechanism in health care and had created systemic faults in the financial system.
There was a great deal of academic interest in creating a savings based health care program. There numerous academic treatises about the advantages of savings based health care, but there were none of the groups (besides myself) delved into the question of how to make savings based health care a reality.
Big insurance companies approached savings based health care as follows: They asked: How can we add a savings component to insurance in a way that would increase profits?
Big insurance created plans that added a Medical Savings Account to high deductible insurance.
The first plans were not popular as people realized that the high deductibles dramatically increased cost of people with chronic conditions and left people more exposed.
The Bush Administration wanted to pass a prescription drug bill and massive expansion of Medicare. To appease Libertarians, they tossed a tax exemption for "Health Savings Accounts."
A tax exemption only helps people who have a high tax bill.
The HSA/HDHC combination wreaks havoc on the health of the working poor. The working poor get no benefit from the tax exemption. They are unable to save money. The high deduction reduces access to care and reduces use of preventative care.
Back in the 1980s, I created a business model called "The Medical Savings and Loan."
The model starts by giving clients a "Medical Savings Account." I supplement the accounts with a loan reserve and grant program.
The program starts with the mantra: Those who can self-fund their care should. We give each client a Medical Savings Account, a share in a loan reserve and access to a Health Care Advocate. The advocates have a data driven program that simulates expected future health care expenses to help clients develop a savings plan. The advocates will help clients find the right doctor and help negotiate health expense.
The program sets aside a huge amount of money for people who cannot afford their care. The amount of money set aside is determined by an actuarial analysis of medical expenses.
Clients have an account containing their money. They have access to a huge loan reserve from which they can make interest free loans. Most importantly, they have access to a professional negotiator who is familiar with the local health care system.
This gives the people who can self fund their care the resources to self fund their care. This takes care of about 95% of the public.
The program has a huge grant pool to help people who can't afford their care. The program gives grants to these people.
This program is different from the HSA/HDHC program because it makes the savings account the focus of care and not the insurance policy.
I tried developing this program in the 1990s. I contacted all of the think tanks I could find and there was absolutely no interest.
I used to have access to some health care data. All of the simulations I ran on real world data indicated that the Medical Savings and Loan does a more equitable job of distributing health care than standard insurance, the HSA/HDHC or socialized medicine models.
For thirty years I've been sitting here with a program that would realize the dreams of Dr. Ben Carson and numerous other free market thinkers.
Bringing this program to fruition is just a simple matter of a small group of dedicated patriots getting together to form an organization called "The Health Care Advocates Association."
The HCAA would then stand up and say: "Hey world. We have a savings based alternative to insurance. We have a mathematical model that suggests this would do a better job than the Health Exchanges, Insurance or Socialism.
Here is the real kicker. The Medical Savings and Loan creates a data driven system that can compare the results of different approaches to financing health care.
It would be possible to create an experiment in which 10,000 or so people engage in the Medical Savings and Loan. We could then compare their health experience with ten thousand people stuck in traditional insurance or who are using the HSA/HDHC model.
My simulations indicate that this model provides better care for the working class and small business owners. The program gives people tools and incentives for negotiating the best price for care; which should improve the quality of care and reduce prices.
All that needs to happen is for a group of libertarian leaning thinkers who want to save the American Experiment in Self Rule to get together to talk about free market approaches to health care reform.
What's funny is that this dream can never happen because I live in the most conservative state in the nation. By living in the most conservative area West of Tehran, I've learned the dreaded truth about the conservative movement. Conservatives only use free market rhetoric. The aim of the Conservative Movement is to create massive social institutions to create a class society that Conservatives love.
Anyway, for the last six years I've been trying to find people with enough interest in defending freedom to attend a presentation. The presentation induces the mathematical model I used, then solicits people to join the HCAA.
I don't want to put the presentation online because I realized that, unless we get an organization that is dedicated to bringing free market health care to fruition, the presentation will be nothing more than base agitation and that big insurance will simply use the base agitation to advance bad implementations of the health savings concept.
My opinion is based on direct observation of the political debate.
In the 1980s and 1990s it was clear that insurance had destroyed the pricing mechanism in health care and had created systemic faults in the financial system.
There was a great deal of academic interest in creating a savings based health care program. There numerous academic treatises about the advantages of savings based health care, but there were none of the groups (besides myself) delved into the question of how to make savings based health care a reality.
Big insurance companies approached savings based health care as follows: They asked: How can we add a savings component to insurance in a way that would increase profits?
Big insurance created plans that added a Medical Savings Account to high deductible insurance.
The first plans were not popular as people realized that the high deductibles dramatically increased cost of people with chronic conditions and left people more exposed.
The Bush Administration wanted to pass a prescription drug bill and massive expansion of Medicare. To appease Libertarians, they tossed a tax exemption for "Health Savings Accounts."
A tax exemption only helps people who have a high tax bill.
The HSA/HDHC combination wreaks havoc on the health of the working poor. The working poor get no benefit from the tax exemption. They are unable to save money. The high deduction reduces access to care and reduces use of preventative care.
Back in the 1980s, I created a business model called "The Medical Savings and Loan."
The model starts by giving clients a "Medical Savings Account." I supplement the accounts with a loan reserve and grant program.
The program starts with the mantra: Those who can self-fund their care should. We give each client a Medical Savings Account, a share in a loan reserve and access to a Health Care Advocate. The advocates have a data driven program that simulates expected future health care expenses to help clients develop a savings plan. The advocates will help clients find the right doctor and help negotiate health expense.
The program sets aside a huge amount of money for people who cannot afford their care. The amount of money set aside is determined by an actuarial analysis of medical expenses.
Clients have an account containing their money. They have access to a huge loan reserve from which they can make interest free loans. Most importantly, they have access to a professional negotiator who is familiar with the local health care system.
This gives the people who can self fund their care the resources to self fund their care. This takes care of about 95% of the public.
The program has a huge grant pool to help people who can't afford their care. The program gives grants to these people.
This program is different from the HSA/HDHC program because it makes the savings account the focus of care and not the insurance policy.
I tried developing this program in the 1990s. I contacted all of the think tanks I could find and there was absolutely no interest.
I used to have access to some health care data. All of the simulations I ran on real world data indicated that the Medical Savings and Loan does a more equitable job of distributing health care than standard insurance, the HSA/HDHC or socialized medicine models.
For thirty years I've been sitting here with a program that would realize the dreams of Dr. Ben Carson and numerous other free market thinkers.
Bringing this program to fruition is just a simple matter of a small group of dedicated patriots getting together to form an organization called "The Health Care Advocates Association."
The HCAA would then stand up and say: "Hey world. We have a savings based alternative to insurance. We have a mathematical model that suggests this would do a better job than the Health Exchanges, Insurance or Socialism.
Here is the real kicker. The Medical Savings and Loan creates a data driven system that can compare the results of different approaches to financing health care.
It would be possible to create an experiment in which 10,000 or so people engage in the Medical Savings and Loan. We could then compare their health experience with ten thousand people stuck in traditional insurance or who are using the HSA/HDHC model.
My simulations indicate that this model provides better care for the working class and small business owners. The program gives people tools and incentives for negotiating the best price for care; which should improve the quality of care and reduce prices.
All that needs to happen is for a group of libertarian leaning thinkers who want to save the American Experiment in Self Rule to get together to talk about free market approaches to health care reform.
What's funny is that this dream can never happen because I live in the most conservative state in the nation. By living in the most conservative area West of Tehran, I've learned the dreaded truth about the conservative movement. Conservatives only use free market rhetoric. The aim of the Conservative Movement is to create massive social institutions to create a class society that Conservatives love.
Anyway, for the last six years I've been trying to find people with enough interest in defending freedom to attend a presentation. The presentation induces the mathematical model I used, then solicits people to join the HCAA.
I don't want to put the presentation online because I realized that, unless we get an organization that is dedicated to bringing free market health care to fruition, the presentation will be nothing more than base agitation and that big insurance will simply use the base agitation to advance bad implementations of the health savings concept.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
The Goal of the Health Care Workshop
For the six years I've been on a quest to have meetings with people who want free market health care reform.
The meeting would begin with a presentation. The presentation will say that funding health care is a business problem and that the inequities we see in the current health care system are the result of a flawed business model.
If the problem is the business model, then the solution is to create a new business model.
The presentation ends with an action item. The action item is to create a new business model.
A business model is an abstract concept. What we would be doing in this stage of the game is discussing different business models and how the different business models interface in the world at large.
In my humble opinion, this stage of the game is extremely important.
The US Founders realized that government places artificial limits on people. By creating a limited government, the Founders removed limits on the people.
The Constitution was a profound statement. The statement says: "Don't look to the government for answers. Look toward each other."
To execute on the Founder's vision, we need to meet together as free people and create businesses that solve the problems of our day.
If we wish to make the American Experiment in Self Rule work, Americans need to move beyond this constant chatter about the government and delve into discussions about how an unlimited people can solve the challenges of the day.
It is my belief that if people got together and started talking about solving the health care problem with different business models, they could have a huge impact on the debate.
The GOP has been trying to defend against PPACA through obstructionism. I reject the obstructionist path. I belief in a constructive path. This "classical liberal" approach I wish to follow solves a social problem by creating new businesses.
The reason I don't want to publish my presentation online is because the presentation is not the end goal. Creating a business model is the goal.
It is possible that I would have to give the presentation a dozen times before finding people willing to invest time in creating a new business model. I don't mind that at all. I have never shied away from hard work.
I would rather give the presentation a hundred times to find people willing to do the hard work of starting a new business than just willy-nilly selecting people at random. For creating a good model is hard work and will will be working on a business model in a challenging environment.
As you see, health care is a highly regulated industry. The regulatory system has been captured by the insurance industry. The primary concern of insurance regulators is to keep newcomers out and to keep the money flowing to the insider cronies.
However, there is a huge population which is deeply unsatisfied with the insurance industry. If a group created a new business model and there was public support for trying the new model, it would be possible to overcome the inertia of regulation.
We are a year or two away from being able to realize the creation of businesses that use the new business model.
If business model exists and there is a group to support the business model and there is a demand for businesses to execute the model; then the business will come into reality.
So, my goal for the last six years has been to get a group of people in a room. I would give a presentation on free market health care reform. If there was interest in creating a business model, the group would engage in the academic exercise of creating a business model. This would involve research, writing contracts, etc..
What is the cost of holding a meeting? The cost is essentially nothing. Attending a meeting takes one afternoon.
Even if you don't like me or my proposed business model, the act of talking about an alternative to insurance might have a positive effect.
PPACA is premised on the assumption that group health insurance is the only possible way to fund health care.
If a group meets and talks about free market alternatives to insurance, the group would poke a hole in this false assumption.
If the group created a peer reviewed business model that presents an alternative to insurance, the group would poke a larger hole in the false assumption.
Creating a business model that that segments of the market finds superior to employer based health insurance would rip a gushing tear in the false assumption. If people began executing on the model, the house of cards called PPACA just might come crashing down.
The process I propose is simple. I created a silly little presentation about free market health care. The goal of the meeting is to gather people who are interested in free market health care reform.
The meeting closes with a workshop. The workshop starts, at an academic level, the process of creating a business model.
I created a legal entity called "The Health Care Advocate Association." My idea is that the HCAA will be a membership organization that defines the new business model.
For the first year, the group would be a for-profit educational association engaged in an academic quest of discussing business models.
In this incubation phase, the group will seek to piece together enough resources so that if a business sought to implement the business model, the HCAA could provide support to the business.
I guess I should point out that the founding members of the HCAA would have the ground level position in the creation of a new business that might eventually handle several hundred billion dollars in revenue.
So, yes, you would come to a meeting to listen to an insufferable buffoon talk about the mathematics of funding health care. You will have to donate some time to create a business model.
After spending several tedious weekends talking about the mathematics of health care, you will meet a multi-million dollar business owner who is so upset at her insurance company that she is willing to pay you big bucks to implement the new business model … and guess what, you just set yourself up for life.
The potential is there, but to get the ball rolling I need to meet people who want to save the American system in self rule.
The presentation is not the end goal. It is a step to the second goal which is the creation of an entity that defines a new business model.
Creating the business model is a tedious chore. If you ask people like Warren Buffett, Bill Gate and Steve Jobs, they will tell you that the point of creating a business model is eventually to execute on a business.
I love the start up environment. Quite frankly, in my opinion, this whole thing is extremely fun.
Unfortunately, I live in Utah. Utah has a closed culture which is hostile to business innovation. I would be happy to travel if there was a group within a day's drive of Utah willing to to through this process.
Better yet, a person could travel to Utah to attend the workshop.
Utah just happens to have the best snow on earth. A person could come out to a ski vacation in Park City, Snowbird, Alta, Brighton or Solitude. After spending the day skiing, they would endure the presentation.
During the next day, people would go to a ski area where they would sit on a chair lift talking business and politics. They would ski down the slope then get on another ski lift and talk some more about business and politics. Again they would ski down the slope and get on another lift talking about business and politics.
You will probably break for an hour. Eat a gourmet hamburger, then get on another lift to talk about business and politics and ski down another slope. You will repeat this process until you either break a leg or it gets dark.
After spending a vacation at a world class ski resort, you will go back to wherever with new insights in funding health care and a cast. (Hopefully you won't go home in a cast, most people end their ski vacation with a funny raccoon shaped sunburn outlining the goggles they wore skiing.
GetSkiTickets.com and Liftopia offer online deals on ski tickets.
The meeting would begin with a presentation. The presentation will say that funding health care is a business problem and that the inequities we see in the current health care system are the result of a flawed business model.
If the problem is the business model, then the solution is to create a new business model.
The presentation ends with an action item. The action item is to create a new business model.
A business model is an abstract concept. What we would be doing in this stage of the game is discussing different business models and how the different business models interface in the world at large.
In my humble opinion, this stage of the game is extremely important.
The US Founders realized that government places artificial limits on people. By creating a limited government, the Founders removed limits on the people.
The Constitution was a profound statement. The statement says: "Don't look to the government for answers. Look toward each other."
To execute on the Founder's vision, we need to meet together as free people and create businesses that solve the problems of our day.
If we wish to make the American Experiment in Self Rule work, Americans need to move beyond this constant chatter about the government and delve into discussions about how an unlimited people can solve the challenges of the day.
It is my belief that if people got together and started talking about solving the health care problem with different business models, they could have a huge impact on the debate.
The GOP has been trying to defend against PPACA through obstructionism. I reject the obstructionist path. I belief in a constructive path. This "classical liberal" approach I wish to follow solves a social problem by creating new businesses.
The reason I don't want to publish my presentation online is because the presentation is not the end goal. Creating a business model is the goal.
It is possible that I would have to give the presentation a dozen times before finding people willing to invest time in creating a new business model. I don't mind that at all. I have never shied away from hard work.
I would rather give the presentation a hundred times to find people willing to do the hard work of starting a new business than just willy-nilly selecting people at random. For creating a good model is hard work and will will be working on a business model in a challenging environment.
As you see, health care is a highly regulated industry. The regulatory system has been captured by the insurance industry. The primary concern of insurance regulators is to keep newcomers out and to keep the money flowing to the insider cronies.
However, there is a huge population which is deeply unsatisfied with the insurance industry. If a group created a new business model and there was public support for trying the new model, it would be possible to overcome the inertia of regulation.
We are a year or two away from being able to realize the creation of businesses that use the new business model.
If business model exists and there is a group to support the business model and there is a demand for businesses to execute the model; then the business will come into reality.
So, my goal for the last six years has been to get a group of people in a room. I would give a presentation on free market health care reform. If there was interest in creating a business model, the group would engage in the academic exercise of creating a business model. This would involve research, writing contracts, etc..
What is the cost of holding a meeting? The cost is essentially nothing. Attending a meeting takes one afternoon.
Even if you don't like me or my proposed business model, the act of talking about an alternative to insurance might have a positive effect.
PPACA is premised on the assumption that group health insurance is the only possible way to fund health care.
If a group meets and talks about free market alternatives to insurance, the group would poke a hole in this false assumption.
If the group created a peer reviewed business model that presents an alternative to insurance, the group would poke a larger hole in the false assumption.
Creating a business model that that segments of the market finds superior to employer based health insurance would rip a gushing tear in the false assumption. If people began executing on the model, the house of cards called PPACA just might come crashing down.
The process I propose is simple. I created a silly little presentation about free market health care. The goal of the meeting is to gather people who are interested in free market health care reform.
The meeting closes with a workshop. The workshop starts, at an academic level, the process of creating a business model.
I created a legal entity called "The Health Care Advocate Association." My idea is that the HCAA will be a membership organization that defines the new business model.
For the first year, the group would be a for-profit educational association engaged in an academic quest of discussing business models.
In this incubation phase, the group will seek to piece together enough resources so that if a business sought to implement the business model, the HCAA could provide support to the business.
I guess I should point out that the founding members of the HCAA would have the ground level position in the creation of a new business that might eventually handle several hundred billion dollars in revenue.
So, yes, you would come to a meeting to listen to an insufferable buffoon talk about the mathematics of funding health care. You will have to donate some time to create a business model.
After spending several tedious weekends talking about the mathematics of health care, you will meet a multi-million dollar business owner who is so upset at her insurance company that she is willing to pay you big bucks to implement the new business model … and guess what, you just set yourself up for life.
The potential is there, but to get the ball rolling I need to meet people who want to save the American system in self rule.
The presentation is not the end goal. It is a step to the second goal which is the creation of an entity that defines a new business model.
Creating the business model is a tedious chore. If you ask people like Warren Buffett, Bill Gate and Steve Jobs, they will tell you that the point of creating a business model is eventually to execute on a business.
I love the start up environment. Quite frankly, in my opinion, this whole thing is extremely fun.
Unfortunately, I live in Utah. Utah has a closed culture which is hostile to business innovation. I would be happy to travel if there was a group within a day's drive of Utah willing to to through this process.
Better yet, a person could travel to Utah to attend the workshop.
Utah just happens to have the best snow on earth. A person could come out to a ski vacation in Park City, Snowbird, Alta, Brighton or Solitude. After spending the day skiing, they would endure the presentation.
During the next day, people would go to a ski area where they would sit on a chair lift talking business and politics. They would ski down the slope then get on another ski lift and talk some more about business and politics. Again they would ski down the slope and get on another lift talking about business and politics.
You will probably break for an hour. Eat a gourmet hamburger, then get on another lift to talk about business and politics and ski down another slope. You will repeat this process until you either break a leg or it gets dark.
After spending a vacation at a world class ski resort, you will go back to wherever with new insights in funding health care and a cast. (Hopefully you won't go home in a cast, most people end their ski vacation with a funny raccoon shaped sunburn outlining the goggles they wore skiing.
GetSkiTickets.com and Liftopia offer online deals on ski tickets.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Six Years and Counting
The Health Freedom Workshop was a bust. Six years into this effort. I have yet to find a conservative within 700 miles of Salt Lake City who is willing to talk about free market alternatives to ObamaCare.
Utah is a closed society. So, once again I am looking beyond the Zion Curtain and thinking of giving in to wanderlust.
There is a FreedomFest going down in Las Vegas from July 9-12. They are charging $400 to attend. That is simply too much. I can't afford to attend the event, but if there were people wanting to discuss free market health care reform either before or after Freedom, I could make a drive down into the Western Desert.
I just discovered something much more interesting.
Dr. Ben Carson will be at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver from July 18-20
Dr. Carson is the only national voice I've heard actually talking about a true savings based health care system
I've been working on developing a savings based health care system since the 1980s.
If I could get my research into the hands of Dr. Carson, it might be possible to make true free market health care reform a reality.
(BTW: The HSA/HDHC combination is a bad mix. It is easy to prove why this is so. Please, don't tell me an HSA+HDHC policy is savings based. It is not. It''s just a tax break for the wealthy.).
My big problem is figuring out how to get the money for the event, gas and a hotel room every other night. I burned up all of my personal savings trying to find people interest in defeating ObamaCare. Traveling costs money. When I travel, I like to stay in a hotel every other night to recharge the camera.
Since the Western Conservative Conference is in Denver, I could take pictures of Colorado along the way. I might be able to get something from a huge pile of photos.
My one big hesitation about the Western Conservative Conference is that I am not a conservative. A conservative is closed-minded.
I believe that people should engage in intellectual inquiry. Unlike Conservatives who simply blow partisan hot air, I believe strongly in vigorous research of issues and the scientific method.
It is funny though. Living in Utah, the most Conservative area West of Iran, I've come to see modern conservatism as a big a threat to liberty as modern liberalism. If I had to spend three days listen clap trap about how "conservative" means freedom and "liberal" means slavery; my head might explode.
This Conservative belief that freedom is slavery and slavery freedom traces to the father of Modern Conservatism -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). I will have to bring along a library with Hegel, Machiavelli and Plato. That way when people start pounding me over the head with their Hegelian belief that Freedom is Slavery (Conservatism), I can pound back.
Of course, here I have to ask: It is fair to go to an event called "conservative" when I am adamantly opposed to the views of Hegel, Machiavelli and Plato (the intellectual fathers of Conservatism)?
The conference is at a place called "Colorado Christian University." Christian Conservatism is a little different than LDS Conservatism which is about as Hegelian as one can get.
But, my goal isn't to discuss philosophy. My goal is simply to find people who are interested in defeating PPACA. If Dr. Ben Carson is at the Western Conservative Conference, there might be people who are interested in free market health care reform.
Utah is a closed society. So, once again I am looking beyond the Zion Curtain and thinking of giving in to wanderlust.
There is a FreedomFest going down in Las Vegas from July 9-12. They are charging $400 to attend. That is simply too much. I can't afford to attend the event, but if there were people wanting to discuss free market health care reform either before or after Freedom, I could make a drive down into the Western Desert.
I just discovered something much more interesting.
Dr. Ben Carson will be at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver from July 18-20
Dr. Carson is the only national voice I've heard actually talking about a true savings based health care system
I've been working on developing a savings based health care system since the 1980s.
If I could get my research into the hands of Dr. Carson, it might be possible to make true free market health care reform a reality.
(BTW: The HSA/HDHC combination is a bad mix. It is easy to prove why this is so. Please, don't tell me an HSA+HDHC policy is savings based. It is not. It''s just a tax break for the wealthy.).
My big problem is figuring out how to get the money for the event, gas and a hotel room every other night. I burned up all of my personal savings trying to find people interest in defeating ObamaCare. Traveling costs money. When I travel, I like to stay in a hotel every other night to recharge the camera.
Since the Western Conservative Conference is in Denver, I could take pictures of Colorado along the way. I might be able to get something from a huge pile of photos.
My one big hesitation about the Western Conservative Conference is that I am not a conservative. A conservative is closed-minded.
I believe that people should engage in intellectual inquiry. Unlike Conservatives who simply blow partisan hot air, I believe strongly in vigorous research of issues and the scientific method.
It is funny though. Living in Utah, the most Conservative area West of Iran, I've come to see modern conservatism as a big a threat to liberty as modern liberalism. If I had to spend three days listen clap trap about how "conservative" means freedom and "liberal" means slavery; my head might explode.
This Conservative belief that freedom is slavery and slavery freedom traces to the father of Modern Conservatism -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). I will have to bring along a library with Hegel, Machiavelli and Plato. That way when people start pounding me over the head with their Hegelian belief that Freedom is Slavery (Conservatism), I can pound back.
Of course, here I have to ask: It is fair to go to an event called "conservative" when I am adamantly opposed to the views of Hegel, Machiavelli and Plato (the intellectual fathers of Conservatism)?
The conference is at a place called "Colorado Christian University." Christian Conservatism is a little different than LDS Conservatism which is about as Hegelian as one can get.
But, my goal isn't to discuss philosophy. My goal is simply to find people who are interested in defeating PPACA. If Dr. Ben Carson is at the Western Conservative Conference, there might be people who are interested in free market health care reform.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Creating a System that Works
PPACA (ObamaCare) is clearly a failed law and a failed system.
Despite it being a bad law, the system in already entrenched. The only way to uproot this failed program is to create an alternative that will work.
This is the goal of the Health Freedom Workshop that I hope to host tomorrow (on Thursday 1/2 at 6:30 PM). The workshop will present a detailed mathematical model for funding health care that can be easily be implemented.
The structure is quite similar to the ideals espoused by Dr Ben Carson but from the perspective of a system engineer. I worked setting up programs for insurance companies.
The workshop involves creating a model of a free market based health care system compared to employer based insurance.
It takes an hour to present the models, but the models are extremely clear. This introduction simply has to come in the form of a workshop because if someone fails to understand the model, they would miss the reasons why this very simple system could undermine support for PPACA.
The meeting is in Mill Creek Township (that is the town Southeast of Salt Lake City). The meeting starts at 6:30 PM. I will boil up a Dutch Oven of chili to feed people who miss dinner for the meeting.
The meeting will involve me yammering for an hour followed by an open discussion.
You can sign up on Freedom Works. Just log in with your twitter account. I will email you the exact address.
Despite it being a bad law, the system in already entrenched. The only way to uproot this failed program is to create an alternative that will work.
This is the goal of the Health Freedom Workshop that I hope to host tomorrow (on Thursday 1/2 at 6:30 PM). The workshop will present a detailed mathematical model for funding health care that can be easily be implemented.
The structure is quite similar to the ideals espoused by Dr Ben Carson but from the perspective of a system engineer. I worked setting up programs for insurance companies.
The workshop involves creating a model of a free market based health care system compared to employer based insurance.
It takes an hour to present the models, but the models are extremely clear. This introduction simply has to come in the form of a workshop because if someone fails to understand the model, they would miss the reasons why this very simple system could undermine support for PPACA.
The meeting is in Mill Creek Township (that is the town Southeast of Salt Lake City). The meeting starts at 6:30 PM. I will boil up a Dutch Oven of chili to feed people who miss dinner for the meeting.
The meeting will involve me yammering for an hour followed by an open discussion.
You can sign up on Freedom Works. Just log in with your twitter account. I will email you the exact address.
The New Years Starts on a Low Note
Happy New Years.
There is still not a single sign up for my Health Freedom Workshop here in Salt Lake City.
BTW The fact that no-one is interested in my event doesn't bother me. What bugs me is that there are no other events I can find in the area where people are standing up for liberty.
Defending our health freedom is the most important issue of our day. If no-one stands up for freedom, then freedom will be lost in our generation.
Utah United was a well funded group with. There is not a single event in their 2014 calendar.
My health freedom workshop is not a diatribe against ObamaCare. The presentation is not a state program. I create an alternative business model for funding health care and argue that the inequities in health care are the result of the business models used to finance care.
This presentation provides a framework for discussing free market health care reform.
I understand that people are put off by me. What bothers me is that no-one in this "Conservative" movement seems to be interested in discussing the issue.
Health care is a complex issue that simply has to be discussed face to face. The complete lack of interest in the subject has me deeply concerned.
I might reschedule the program. I would like input on the date. I am willing to travel. I do not have money to travel, so if I have to travel I have to figure out how to pay for the trip. For example I could host the presentation alongside a fundraiser to pay for the gas and hotel. If 20 people in Phoenix were interested in the presentation and we raised ten dollars a piece from the attendees, we would go a long way to paying for a hotel and the gas.
Anyway, my presentation is scheduled for tomorrow. 1/2/2014. You can sign up using your twitter account. I will make a huge pot of chili tomorrow in anticipation of the event.
There is still not a single sign up for my Health Freedom Workshop here in Salt Lake City.
BTW The fact that no-one is interested in my event doesn't bother me. What bugs me is that there are no other events I can find in the area where people are standing up for liberty.
Defending our health freedom is the most important issue of our day. If no-one stands up for freedom, then freedom will be lost in our generation.
Utah United was a well funded group with. There is not a single event in their 2014 calendar.
My health freedom workshop is not a diatribe against ObamaCare. The presentation is not a state program. I create an alternative business model for funding health care and argue that the inequities in health care are the result of the business models used to finance care.
This presentation provides a framework for discussing free market health care reform.
I understand that people are put off by me. What bothers me is that no-one in this "Conservative" movement seems to be interested in discussing the issue.
Health care is a complex issue that simply has to be discussed face to face. The complete lack of interest in the subject has me deeply concerned.
I might reschedule the program. I would like input on the date. I am willing to travel. I do not have money to travel, so if I have to travel I have to figure out how to pay for the trip. For example I could host the presentation alongside a fundraiser to pay for the gas and hotel. If 20 people in Phoenix were interested in the presentation and we raised ten dollars a piece from the attendees, we would go a long way to paying for a hotel and the gas.
Anyway, my presentation is scheduled for tomorrow. 1/2/2014. You can sign up using your twitter account. I will make a huge pot of chili tomorrow in anticipation of the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)