Friday, August 11, 2017

Book of Commandments on Health Care Reform

I need to explain to readers my circumstances. I live in Utah. Utah is controlled by the LDS Church. I am not a member of the LDS Church.

Anyway, In 1833, Joseph Smith published a work called "The Book of Commandments which was renamed to "The Doctrine and Covenants." You can find the original plates on the The Institution for Religious Research.

This is the part of the work relevant to the health care debate.
25 Thou knowest my laws, they are given in my scriptures, he that sinneth and repenth not, shall be cast out.

26 If thou lovest me, thou shat serve me and keep all of my commandments; and behold, thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast unto me, wih a covenant and deed which cannot be broken; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church, and two of the elders, such as he shall appoint and set apart for that purpose.

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

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

29 And the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer the poor and needy, as shall be appointed to the elders of the church and the bishop; and for the purpose of purchasing lands, and the building up of the New Jerusalem, which is hereafter to be revealed; that my covenant people may be gathered in one, in the day that I shall come to my temple.

The first sentence emphasizes that these are commandments directly from God. These commandments were intended to be the beating heart of Mormonism.

A person who does not follow God's Commandments is a sinner. God commands that the faithful cast out anyone who challenges the commandments revealed by Joseph Smith.

The Commandment is that people are to give all their property to the church. The church will give back to people as the church sees fit. This new system was called "The United Order of Enoch." Mormon Fundamentalist groups such as the FLDS continue to practice the laws of the United Order. The church owns all the property. The people subsist on what the church doles out.

Joseph Smith's followers rose up after he published the "Book of Commandments." Smith changed the word "all" to "of" in the "Doctrine and Covenants." Members of the mainstream LDS Community take the commandment to mean that they are to buy insurance.

I want to argue for true free market reform as an alternative to insurance. I routinely experience the following. I go to a meetings hosted by the GOP or other Conservative group. I mention that I favor free market reform. An enforcer from the LDS church realizes that free market reforms are against the fundamental teachings of the LDS Church. I get thrown out of the meeting. I have actually been called "a Servant of Satan" simply for considering the free market alternatives to a socialized market.

I would like to point out that most LDS politicians favor the basic structure of PPACA. Senator Harry Reid (a Democratic Senator from Nevada) was the primary architect of PPACA. His plan was based on the plan by Mitt Romney. Governors Mike Leavitt, Gary Herbert, and Jon Huntsman all support variations of PPACA. Most LDS politicians are all openly opposed to free market reforms.

As for the accusation that I am a Servant of Satan for considering free market reform. This argument is based on the dubious claim that Joseph Smith is the Prophet of God. In the same book that Smith proposed socializing our economy, Smith restored the doctrine of polygamy. This self-proclaimed Prophet of God said that God demanded that he sleep with multiple women. There is documentation that Smith sealed himself to at least 49 wives. Some were as young as 14. There are reports that he made advances on many more.

I read the Book of Mormon and the D&C several times. They appear to be written by a con artist.

I prefer the US Constitution to the words of a con man.

The Mormon notion that one should cast out people for questioning their prophet is against the principles of freedom of speech, but the LDS Church controls the state and there is really not much I can do except hope that I can find a group outside of the state of Utah interested in free market care. Quite frankly, I feel things are quite hopeless.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

The Package

As mentioned in my last post: The Medicals Savings and Loan is based on a mathematical model of the way that people financed health care before the invention of big insurance.

I created this project because I realized several decades ago that the only way that we could have free market health care reform.

Prior to insurance people financed care through a combination of savings, loans and grants.

The Medical Savings and Loan creates a formal structure around a traditional structure. The formalized structure includes an accounting system and a position called a health care advocate.

Creating an accounting system is not an anti-market activity.

The development of accounting played a vital role in the evolution of our understanding of markets.

Conservatives spit in my face and kick me down for saying that we to create an accounting system.

Creating an accounting system is pro market.

After creating a mathematical model, I created a business model for the Medical Savings and Loan. The basis business model has few dependencies on government beyond what is needed for basic contracts.

BTW, we depend on government for most basic contracts. For example an employment contract might say that employees get paid at the end of the month. The government helps enforce this contract.

The idea that we can completely eliminate government is stupid.

Just like the idea that we should oppose the use of accounting in business is stupid.

What I've contended for these last eight years is that: If a group of people got together, created a mathematical model (aka an accounting system) for free market health care, that group could have a positive impact on the debate.

Specifically, the group would end up demonstrating that insurance is anti-market contrivance of the ruling elite.

Insurance is based on the false assumption that the free market is incapable of delivering health care. Because the free market can't deliver care, we must put all of our health care dollars in huge pools controlled by the ruling elite.

The people who control these pools become billionaires. Notably Warren Buffet made his billions by owning insurance companies and controlling the money in insurance pools.

My presentation on the Medical Savings and Loan shows that insurance transfers trillions of dollars from the working poor  to the upper middle class and ruling elite.

Our health care debate for the last century has been built around the insurance industry. Single payer care is a system with one insurance company owned by the state and made totalitarian.

Insurance requires a great deal of government oversight and regulation.

ObamaCare was based on an idea from a conservative group called The Heritage Foundation. The idea is that we can regulate insurance through a network of state run health exchanges. The plan was first put in place by the self-described "severely conservative" Mitt Romney.

Conservative politicians systematically fall back on the basic structure of the PPACA. The Repeal and Replace Legislation put forward by Trump and the GOP replaced ObamaCare with a slightly less toxic version of ObamaCare.

If Americans wanted to restore free market health care, then we would need a group of people to do something radical. I suggest that we do the following.

We start by creating a mathematical model of free market health care (an accounting system). We should build a business model around this accounting system. We should then run simulations that compare the result of this model to the insurance model.

A group that engaged in this type of discovery would be in a position to create real free market reforms.

The process is quite detailed an involved.

Unfortunately, the very first step in this process is to find people who are willing to talk about free market reform.

Freedom isn't free. To maintain freedom, we need people who are brave enough to sit in a room and talk about numbers.

I've been working on this program for about thirty years. I have yet to meet a conservative brave enough to actually talk about the details of freedom in mathematical terms (by mathematics, I mean Accounting which really is a branch of mathematics).

One way to start the program is to create an open source project. Getting the project going would involve people sitting in a room and talking.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

How Did People Fund Health Care Before Group Insurance?

One question people should ask in a health care debate is: How did people fund health care before insurance?

Well, people funded their health care through savings. Often doctors would render service on credit and there were charities for people who needed care beyond their resources.

Wait a second: This thing called "The Medical Savings and Loan" funds care through a combination of savings, a loan reserve and grants.

Something seems very fishy.

Okay, I will finally divulge what I've been up to.

This thing I call "The Medical Savings and Loan" is really just a formalized model of traditional health care.

While working at an insurance company, I asked myself the fundamental question: Does group health insurance do a better job of funding care than traditional methods?

I simply created a mathematical model for traditional health care and insurance based care. The simulations I ran kept showing that traditional care provided greater care for the working poor and small business than insurance.

Insurance benefits the upper middle class and the uber-rich at the cost of the working class.

The big problem with traditional care is that it lacked a good accounting system. The system did not give people adequate information about the amount of money they needed to save. It did a poor job tracking how much people spent on health care and it did a poor job of identifying the people who needed additional help.

We live in the Information Age. What I wanted to do was to create a distributed database so that people could track their care. Realizing that people would have a hard time interfacing with the system, I realized that this new program would create a need for a new position called which I called "A Health Care Advocate."

To streamline the lending process, I created a thing called a Loan Reserve. I also created a streamlined process for administering grants.

With this model in hand, I can prove that a savings based model of health care delivers better care to the working poor and middle class than the insurance model.

I argue that if one enhanced traditional care with health care advocates and a good data reporting system, we could easily create a health care system that would put all other health care systems to shame.

What I've been doing for the last eight years is simply trying to find people brave enough to discuss the mathematics of health care.

The actual system I am discussing isn't really radical. It is just a formalized version of traditional care. I enhance traditional care with an accounting system and a position called "The Health Care Advocate."

My presentation also discusses how one can incrementally transition from the insurance model to a savings based model.

The program can replace ObamaCare without disruption. Quite frankly it is likely to get more resources to the people in need. All I need to do is find people brave enough to discuss the mathematics of health care.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Health Care Liberalization

For the last eight years I've had the goal of attending a meeting about free market health care.

My goal was to find candidates to support.

To my horror, I could not find any conservative candidate or conservative group that was making a strong appeal for real free market reforms.

The conservatives I encountered suffered the illusion that insurance was health care. At best they sought reduced regulations on the insurance industry.

I worked for a state run insurance company writing computer programs to track claims and calculate premiums. I realized that the insurance industry was creating more inequities than it solved. I decided to leave what I considered a morally bankrupt industry.

After leaving insurance, I worked on a little project where I reverse engineered an insurance pool into individual accounts. This simple plan created an account that tracked an individuals income and net savings. It supplemented the account with a loan reserve and grants. It replaced the insurance agents and claims adjusters with a new position called a Health Care Advocate.

The program I created eliminated the inequities that made me leave insurance.

Back to the health care debate.

Unable to find a candidate who was talking about free market health care reform, I decided to host a presentation. This presentation would present the model I used for health care reform. I would then use the model to expose the inequities caused by group insurance.

I put a lot of work into the presentation.

For example, I introduce the concept by creating a business. I chose this path because I want to emphasize that funding health care is a business problem. As it is a business problem we need to think in terms of creating new businesses.

In the presentation, I create a new business. I chose the name "Medical Savings and Loan" to invoke images from the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." In this movie, George Bailey (played by James Stewart) runs a local savings and loan and competes against big finance.

After creating the Medical Savings and Loan, I compare it to the model used for group insurance. I show how group insurance creates inequities and concentrates wealth.

Insurance does something even worse. Insurance takes individual risks. Puts the risks in a huge pool and creates a systemic economic risk.

I highlight this by looking at the collapse of the savings and loan industry. Savings and Loans were insured by a Federal agency called the FSLIC (Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Company).

The Carter Administration sought to stimulate the economy by increasing the interest paid at savings and loans and encouraging savings and loans to take on more risk. Many savings and loans developed absurd portfolios and the FSLIC became untenable.

Reagan tried to address the problem by further deregulation. The federal government program that insurance savings and loans collapsed and wiped out an entire sector of the banking market.

The FSLIC is an example of a Federal insurance program creating systemic risk that wiped out a sector of the economy.

I think the name "Medical Savings and Loan" is adequate for the conversation I wanted to have.

After I talk about the insurance industry. I then talk about using the basic model of the MS&L in social policy.

This is where things get progressive.

The Medical Savings and Loan creates an interesting framework in which one can create income brackets.

The program starts with the statement: "Those who can self-fund their care should."

(A corollary to the statement is those who can't need assistance.)

The program will encourage people to save for their health care.

Lets imagine two people. The first person makes $10,000 a year. We might deem it reasonable that this person saves $1,000 for health care. A second person makes $500,000 a year. This person might save $50,000 or more for care.

(Much, if not all of this money is invested in a loan reserve).

After 10 years, the first person has $10k and the second $500k. These people have a $300,000 health care expense. The first person takes out a loan. I guess the second person could pay in cash.

Repayment of the loan is based on the ability of the person to repay the loan.

The person who made $10k a year sees his income drop to $5k a year. This person can't repay the loan; so we write it off. The second person saw her income drop to $100k after the health problem. This person could pay off the loan.

The program creates a vehicle for means testing medicare. Let's imagine two retires. The first has $100k in assets. The second $10M in assets. They both have $300k of end of life expenses.

The person with $100 can't pay back the whole loan. Maybe the person should payback $50k leaving $50k to heirs.

The person with $10,000,000 in assets could payback $300,000 and still leave heirs with a tidy inheritance.

Note, asking the person with $10,000,000 to pay back a loan for medical services is not a tax. It is the way a free market is supposed to work

NOTE, the formulas created by the Medical Savings and Loan are far more versatile than those used in standard insurance. It is possible to replace the pools used in the current health care system with loans over a period of time.

To recap, the Medical Savings and Loan works as follows. It starts with the statement that those who can self fund their care should. It creates an accounting system that tracks a person's income, net worth and health care expenses. The program creates a loan reserve to assure that people have access to sufficient funds to pay for care at any given time.

The program gives everyone a Health Care Advocate. The advocate will help people find doctors and apply for loans and grants when people need care.

The money in the system flows from individual accounts to the health care provider. People are now paying for their care with their money. They have a knowledgeable advocate to help negotiate bills. This will restore the pricing mechanism in health care and drop prices.

Most people can self fund their care. The program will identify the people who can't self fund care. The loan reserve will write off the loans for people who can't repay their loans (my presentation talks in detail about the grant process).

So, while the Medical Savings and Loan is built around the ideal: "Those who can self fund their care should." It also creates a mechanism that transfers money from the rich and healthy to the poor and sickly.

The program is not about eliminating wealth transfer in health care. What the program does is determine the amount needed to transfer for a good health care system and is more efficient in transferring the money than either insurance or socialism (A reminder: Single Payer Health Care is insurance made totalitarian).

There is a lot more to my health care presentation than this blog post.

The Medical Savings and Loan creates a new mathematical model for funding health care and compares this model to insurance.

The really hard part to convey in my presentation is conveying the versatility of the mew mathematical model. The presentation shows how the model can be implemented as a small business. It ends by showing how basic concepts from the model could be used by policy makers to identify the people who need assistance, how assistance they need and it creates mechanisms for transferring resources to the people who need assistance in an efficient manner.

It is actually an intriguing presentation. I've been hoping for the last several years to find people brave enough to discuss alternatives to the current group insurance market.

Friday, July 28, 2017

Bottoms Up to Health Care Reform

A primary reason that GOP failed with Repeal and Replace was that the GOP was trying fix health care from the top down.

A top down approach inevitably benefits the people at the top while depriving health care to the people on the bottom.

Real Health care is about our daily lives.

The best approach to health care reform is to start at the bottom and work up.

The great thing about open source design is that the open methodology allows for a bottom up approach.

The open source proposal is that a group of people get together to talk about free market health care reform. The group would start an open source project to create an alternative to group health insurance.

The plan would include the creation of a distributed database to hold health care data. It would also include the creation of a new business plan to fund health care.

The business model is a real business model with a real profit potential.

The Open Source Project would lead to a detailed discussion of the mathematics of funding health care.

The business model I propose requires a different set of regulations than insurance. The creation of this new business model ends up highlighting the problems created by ObamaCare, TrumpCare, RomneyCare and related efforts at health care reform.

I live in Salt Lake City. I am willing to travel, but I would need a guarantee that there would be people willing to dedicated several afternoons to the discussion of the health care before I travel.

Conclusion: The Open Source program that I propose would create a bottoms up approach to health care reform. Essentially the program creates a network of small businesses to take on big insurance. This bottoms up approach to health care reform would provide people with more and better care than the top down approaches to health care reform that come from Washington DC.

An Open Source Project

The Senate's "Skinny Repeal" failed and it appears that the GOP's plan to Repeal and Replace PPACA has gone down in flames.

IMHO, the GOP's efforts failed because the GOP did not have a compelling alternative to PPACA.

The GOP did not have a compelling alternative to PPACA because conservatives have failed to discuss health care in detail.

For the last eight years I have contended that group of people could radically change the health care debate if they sat down and discussed health care.

An interesting way to start a conversation is to start an Open Source Project.

The current health care debate holds is premised on the idea that group health insurance is the only possible way to fund health care. If insurance is the only way to fund health care, then we must have a public policy to force people to buy insurance.

NOTE: Single payer health care is group insurance with a single provider. Single Payer is insurance made totalitarian.

I hold that the way to radically change the health care debate is to create an alternative to centralized insurance.

So, I propose launching an Open Source Project to create an alternative to insurance. I will tweet about the idea using the hashtag #OSHCR.

Insurance companies use intrusive centralized database to track health care. They use massive centralized pools to fund care.

These centralized databases and centralized pools lead to a concentration in wealth and power.

The Open Source Health Care Reform would use a distributed database and distributed pools to fund care.

The goal of the project isn't to create a single business. The goal is to create a network of small businesses. The project would create business models for these small businesses.

The project would create a new position called a "Health Care Advocate" to replace the insurance agents, medical transcriptionists and claims adjusters in insurance.

The Open Source Project is not just about writing computer code. The project will create new businesses.

Anyone who participates in the Open Source Project would be on the inside track to starting a business in a very lucrative field.

I have already thrown in several thousand hours into creating a market based alternative to insurance.

My analysis has shown that breaking up huge insurance pools into a distributed network would do several things. The program would restore the pricing mechanism in health care: Giving people more care for less. It would create a model that promotes maintaining health over the current model that just treats sickness. The program would create thousands of new businesses. The program would reduce the gap between rich and poor.

Above all, the program would be fun.

My claims aren't just pie in the sky. The claims are based on common sense.

Putting all of our health care dollars in centralized pools controlled by a ruling elite has the predictable effect of concentrating wealth.

This is basic common sense. If we put all of our health care dollars in centralized pools. The people who control these pools will get immensely wealthy while everyone sees the financial condition deteriorate.

Conversely, if we broke huge centralized pools into smaller accounts, we would see a more equitable distribution of wealth.

The really fun thing about an Open Source Project is that such a project would get people to talk about the foundations of health care.

The failure of the GOP to pass a Repeal and Replace bill shows that groups that fail to discuss health care will never be able to create a compelling health care reform plan.

Anyway, I will start tweeting using the hashtag #OSHCR (my apologies to the Occupational Safety and Health Registry of Ireland for taking your tag).

The goal of this Open Source Project is to reverse engineer a centralized health pool into smaller businesses and individual accounts.

The project would create a business model for a network of small businesses. It would create a distributed database to be hosted in the cloud and it would create a new profession called a Health Care Advocate.

I contend that this Open Source Project would have a positive affect on the debate and is likely to have a positive effect on the health care debate.

I will tweet with the hashtag OSHCR. If there is interest in the idea, I will run either an Indiegogo or Kickstarter campaign to raise funds to have a meeting a publish a book about the effort.

Anyone interested in helping write a book would get title credit on the book.

The Constitution and Health Care

Republicans tend hold the separation of powers held by the US Constitution in high esteem.

The Constitution did not give the US Congress the powers to regulate health care.

I have a great deal of respect for traditional Republicans who balk at this process of writing a Federal Health Care bill.

The US Congress is not the correct venue for setting health care policy.

The problem we face right now is that the PPACA passed by the Democrats undermined the health care market and created an environment where insurance companies are collapsing under unreasonable regulations.

The PPACA created a regulatory environment where one cannot simply repeal PPACA because the insurance market would collapse after its repeal.

People are depending on their insurance companies for their health care.

The "Repeal and Replace" argument started with the realization that repealing would harm the American public.

Instead of spending the effort to develop a replacement. A large number of conservative candidates (including Donald Trump) began using "Repeal and Replace" as a slogan.

Conservative candidates ran on the slogan "Repeal and Replace" without taking the time to develop a replacement.

While I respect traditional candidates who simply want the Federal Government out of health care. I am livid with those candidates who campaigned on "Repeal and Replace" without taking the time to create a replacement. Campaigning on Repeal and Replace without a replacement in mind did a great deal of harm to our nation.

Of course, all is not lost. I still contend that if a group of people sat down and spoke about free market health care reform that that group could revolutionize the health care sector and restore our health freedom.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Choking on Health Care

I am delighted that, after eight years of mindless posturing, conservatives have finally started to debate health care.

Unfortunately, the debate in the Senate simply shows that conservatives do not have a positive health care plan. The sad result is that the Republican Party is choking.

In the last eight years, conservatives had ample time to devise an alternative approach to health care.

Rather than taking the high road. Conservatives did nothing but posture on the issue while attacking their enemies.

Health care is the most important issue of our generation. Unfortunately, there is no way to develop a health care bill without discussing health care.

Right now, the Senate is having the most important debate of the Trump presidency.

What do conservatives do?

Since they are choking on health care. Conservatives return to their culture war playbook.

To divert attention from health care, President Trump issued a provocative tweet about transgendered members in the military. The Trump administration also issued a major initiative against MS13.

Once again, Conservatives show that they have no interest in delivering better health. Conservatives simply want to play culture war and divert attention from the most important debate.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Sorry, but Mr. Trump is the Liar Here

Sorry Mr. President, but the campaign slogan of "Repeal and Replace" was a lie.

Donald Trump's slogan of Repeal and Replace was a fake promise.

The slogan implied that Trump had a great plan to replace the PPACA in the works. People voted for Trump believing that he had a plan.

The pathetic health care debate that just unfolded in the House and Senate indicates clearly that neither Trump nor the GOP had a plan for replacing PPACA in mind. The conservatives in Congress simply had hollow words.

A person who says that they are going to do something without having a plan to carry the action through is engaged in a lie.

The current effort at health care reform is not salvageable.

The best path forward is to scrub the current fiasco. The GOP needs to go back to the drawing board. Debate health care and develop a good plan for replacing the PPACA.

Fake Promise

Donald Trump loves to complain about "fake news."

As it turns out, Donald Trump did something far worse. Trump campaigned on the promise that he would "Repeal and Replace ObamaCare" when did not have a substantive plan for replacing the bill.

Of course, Trump was not the only conservative to use use the slogan "Repeal and Replace" without first engaging in a substantive debate about alternatives.

So, I decided to pen a few posts with the absurd hash tag #FakePromise on the horrible job that conservatives have done on the cause of advancing liberty.

Technically a "Fake Promise" is a promise that is not really a promise. A better word is "False Promise." A hash tag is like a trademark and does not need to make sense.

While my hashtag is absurd the issue of health care is serious.

Conservatives had eight years to work on a replacement for ObamaCare.

What happened during these years is that conservatives positioned themselves as champions of the free market while actively suppressing debates about free market reforms.

I know for a fact that conservatives actively suppress discussions of free market reform.

As you see, I have several thousand hours developing a framework for enacting free market reforms.

I gave this framework for discussing health care reform the campy name "The Medical Savings and Loan."

The Medical Savings and Loan is a model for funding health care that uses a combination of savings accounts, a loan reserve and a generously funded system of grants to fund health care.

I worked for a half decade in a state run insurance company writing programs to track claims and calculate insurance premiums. I discovered that the insurance model created predictable inequities and that the industry as a whole created a market that favored the extremely wealthy and upper middle class over the working poor and small business.

I created a mathematical model that replaced centralized insurance pools with a combination of savings accounts, a loan reserve and generously funded grants. The plan creates a new position called "The Health Care Advocate." The simulations I ran indicated that such a model would dramatically improve the health care of the working poor and small businesses.

I gave this model the campy name "The Medical Savings and Loan." The name is a reference to the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" in which George Bailey's Savings and Loan stands against big finance represented by the curmudgeon Henry Potter.

To contribute to the health care debate, I developed a presentation in which I develop the Medical Savings and Loan as a business model then argue that it serves people better than big insurance.

The presentation takes about two hours.

The presentation leads immediately to action items and possible ideas about enacting free market health care reform.

What consistently happens is that, when I bring this presentation to conservatives, they immediately shut down debate when I question big insurance.

Personally, I believe that the path I am following with the Medical Savings and Loan could lead directly to better health care legislation.

I understand that my belief is my belief. I understand that my beliefs might be wrong.

What I've discovered in these last three decades is that both progressives and conservatives systematically shut down debate when ideas are put forward.

Donald Trump's fake promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare was just one lie in a long string of lies put forward by conservatives to stifle debate.

So, I figured that, while Trump tries to push a corrupt health care plan on the nation, I would call Trump out as the liar that he is.

Trump campaigned on a fake promise that he had a great plan to replace PPACA, when he did not have such a plan. By pushing a fake promise, Trump contributed to an environment which suppressed the discussion of ideas. The result is that the GOP does not have a decent health care plan.

The American people are suffering because Donald Trump made a #FakePromise.

Sunday, April 2, 2017

On Attacking the Freedom Caucus

Wow, the venom being aimed at the Freedom caucus in the wake of the TrumpCare vote is something to behold.

The Tea Party and freedom caucus played a vital role in tempering government expansion in the Obama years and were the primary reason for the revival of the Republican Party.

The GOP establishment sees the Freedom Caucus as a band of useful idiots who help the power mongers of the GOP when in the minority, but need to be soundly scolded and sent packing when the GOP is in power.

I have to admit. I am extremely upset with the Freedom Caucus myself.

I am not upset that the Freedom Caucus stands for liberty. I am upset that they spent seven years posturing on freedom but failed to create a viable alternative to ObamaCare.

Because the members of the freedom caucus will not discuss health care, we are stuck with TrumpCare.

TrumpCare is nothing more than ObamaCare with fewer benefits. TrumpCare, ObamaCare and RomneyCare are all the same damn thing.

Americans have a bigger reason to be upset with Trump than with the Freedom Caucus. Trump campaign slogan was to "Repeal and Replace Obamacare." His plan turned out to be little more than the to rename and rebrand ObamaCare (with fewer benefits).

Trump's campaign of "Repeal and Replace" was a lie. I am extremely upset with the lie.

Americans need to discuss health care. The only possible way to come to create a decent health care system is to discuss health care.

Trumps lie that that he had a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare made it that much more difficult to find people to discuss health care reform.

It was obvious, to me at least, that there was no substance behind Trump's campaign slogan. If Trump had a viable plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, he would have presented the plan and not just the slogan.

But, none of the GOP candidates were presenting viable paths to free market reform.

We are eight years into a health care debate, and I haven't found anyone in the GOP, with the Exception of Ben Carson, who has even the slightest interest in discussing health care reform.

I love that members of the freedom caucus is standing up for freedom.

Unfortunately, the Freedom Caucus is in a losing fight. Because Conservatives systematically fail to discuss health care, we are guaranteed to lose our liberty.

Simply standing for liberty does nothing. Simply standing for something is nothing but empty posturing. For people to realize liberty, we need leaders who actively engage in debates and who seek to solve our nation's problems with liberty.

A free society is not simply a society in which the government does nothing. A free society is one where people are engaged, at multiple levels, to improve the society.

A free society is not won through obstruction alone. It is one in which people are actively engaged in improving their personal lives and their communities at large.

The Freedom Caucus has failed to date because they have been following the Conservative methodology of obstruction and reaction. By following the path, the Freedom Caucus uses obstructions as its primary tool of engagement, the Freedom Caucus has failed to create a viable alternative to ObamaCare.

I am angry that the Freedom Caucus failed to create an alternative to ObamaCare, but, as they are the best that we have at the moment, I can't share in the hatred that Trump and the media have directed at the Freedom Caucus.

Friday, March 24, 2017

Told You So

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone else, of course, would benefit.

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

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

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

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

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