Bottom Line Of Grace

Oligrachy, Health Care and You

2009-08-07T00:27:00.007-06:00

I have shared with you the contents of HR3200, the proposed Health Care Reform Bill in the House of Representatives, now please allow me to share with you a little piece I wrote in response to Ken Cook, author of "A Conservative's Guide to Water Cooler Politics" and a member of the corporate anti-health community organizing group FreedomWorks, which is chaired by former Senate Majority Leader, Dick Armey.

Enjoy!

KEN COOK

Well, well, well. There is “true” information then there is socialist propaganda. The liberals think you are well informed when you agree with them. Regardless of how well informed you may be they will still tell you there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of their plans when you disagree with their plans even when you provide factual data and history to evidence your point.

Congress admits they have not read the resolution and if they have not read it their understanding must come from an explanation provided by others. Anyone who has read it knows to fully understand the resolution you must cross reference dozens of previous documents to make sure you understand the language that is being added and struck.

I am proud to be a part of The American Liberty Alliance and to work hand in hand with many great national organizations like Freedom Works as well as hundreds of local organizers and thousands of local activists to keep the fight alive and to take it straight to the source.

BottomLineOfGrace

No Ken. Like nearly all of you Republicans, these days, you seem to be completely infatuated with anything that is counter to or detracts from the truth. Liberals do not think that people are well informed only when they agree with us. Liberals agree with people that are informed. We do not gather to compare notes and talking points, we do our own research independently. We do not listen to talk radio and paid pundits and simply nod and agree. We research the facts for ourselves and see if we agree or not. We search for truth, justice and the true American way. We are Supermen, fighting against, you, the Lex Luthor’s of this real world.

Nearly all of us have some serious disagreements with the Democratic Party at large, and find that party to be a most imperfect solution. However, we will gladly take imperfect over putrid everyday. And Putrid is what the Republican Party has become. The Health Care debate is one of those perfect issues, that, if one will take pause to be objective and step back and look at the broad strokes of the debate and the two sides and what they are fighting for or not fighting for, it becomes very clear how absolutely wrong and morally bankrupt the right is and how the left can only be seen to be fighting for a government (at least on this issue) that is truly for the people, by the people.

The right LOVES to talk about the evils of Socialism because the evils of Socialism tend to grant more freedom to the individual and less freedom to non-human, non-sovereign, multinational, corporations that have no value of human life outside of how they can profit from them. These untruthful scare tactics distract from several key truths and propagate several lies and half truths where the only intention that can be taken from those edicts is to trick the working class into believing that the woes of sick and villainous corporations are actually their woes too and to keep the working class enraged, depressed, reactionary and too blind to see all that you would steal from them. Freedom, money, power, rights, individualness, health and even life itself.

The Socialism talk uses a tactic where they point out Socialist countries as examples, except they generally describe the former Soviet Union, instead of the actual effects of Socialism on those countries they actually name. Like Denmark, Sweden, France, Canada and so on. This allows the GOP to distort reality on two fronts. The first being the obvious, those and other Socialist countries actually have societies that are MUCH more free in terms of human rights and individual liberties and are actually far more prosperous, because they do not allow their corporations to form a parasitic relationship with their country. Secondly, the Soviet Union was known as a COMMUNIST country. However, the moniker of Communism isn't actually true either. The Soviet Union was NEVER actually a Communist country. Lennin was the first to kill Marx's dream, but Stalin, mastered that same perversion. What the Soviet Union was in all actuality and what caused it's fall, no less, was the fact that the Soviet Union was an OLIGARCHY! A system where the resources of the nation and its population were wrest from them and given to the few wealthy and powerful of the nation. When the foundation of a nation (the people) have nothing and begin to crumble and deteriorate, and the few at the top (the corporate sponsored government) is overburdened with all the excesses, like a building designed in the same fashion, it falls.

In the case of the Soviet Union, Stalinism caused the nation to fall. Here in the US, we had 8 years of Oligarchy like, corporate sponsored government and for that we got the largest expanse in government and most intrusive and violating government we have ever known and it cost US in our economy, our national debt and the death, illness and further erosion of our middle class and the collective individuals that comprise our people. In simple terms, it was the EXACT OPPOSITE of the intention behind our nation, America and our Constitution.

The other contortion of reality from the right is the idea that individuals, small and medium sized business which are still run or owned primarily by those that founded those companies, are the same as these large and immoral corporations. They are not. When a company gets so large as to have shed the original founders of that company in lieu of an appointed CEO and Board of Directors, then that company is now run by a system that wholly dictates it's path and the people 'in charge' have now just become cogs in that system. No CEO can decide to take the company down or not take any available path to profit matter it's human toll or morality violations. If it is legal (and even if it isn't provided the corporation can get away with it, which is why the corporations always have their own policy people inside the government), it must be done. If not, that CEO is replaced with someone who will. This is most certainly not like the individuals, small and medium sized businesses of this nation and have no actual commonalities of social, political or economic concern. In fact, the GOP have tricked it's well meaning followers to fight against their own interests and fight for their own enslavement.

The problem here is that, somewhere, long ago in our nations history, we got confused into thinking that the interests of the free market outweigh and should outweigh the interests of the people. And with the advent of corporate personage, corporations can enjoy the freedoms and rights of individuals without any of the responsibilities or consequences. Now it is so that corporate profits are always private and protected, but corporate losses are now social. (So much for the evils of Socialism in this instance, eh?)

The funny thing is that we aren't even talking about socialized health care, universal health care or a single payer system...we are talking about A DAMN CHOICE!!! You like your healthcare? GOOD KEEP IT! You don't? Great! We have MORE OPTIONS!!! ANYONE who says they are for freedom but is against this new option, these new choices...are lying to themselves.

It is real simple to uncover the disguise the GOP is wearing here. What would the government stand to gain by offering a Public Option choice to Americans, outside of the stated desire to offer everyone affordable health care and better health care? (Don't even dare to be dumb enough to state obvious lies about mandating or paying for abortions or putting the elderly out to pasture. I have read HR3200 and I know what is in there and what is NOT in there) Now who stands to lose by having a Public Option? Now ask yourself, is it moral or American to stand with the corporations over the American people?

Yes, I do think it somewhat sad that the government has to step in to stop the deaths and bankruptcies of such a large number of our citizens because of unconscionable corporate greed. Much in the same way I regret that we have to have an NAACP in this country because of how many whites behave badly to those that are not white. Or that we have to have labor unions because of other horrendous atrocities committed by soulless corporate beasts. Or that we have to have murder laws because of how many people decide to kill other people. But we do have to have those things because those abuses and atrocities are well beyond the scope of 'isolated incidents'. So if you don't like the FACT that the government HAS to step in, on behalf of the good of the people and for the sake of the stability of the nation, lay the blame where the blame is due...to the corporations who can not or will not operate within the bounds of moral sensibility and their well paid lap dog servants...like those who built and maintain this site.

Oh and one other thing...about taxes, which you all get so uptight over...

Taxes are like insurance, in that, your insurance company, say for auto insurance, sets a premium for insurance because they know what they will generally have to pay out in yearly claims and know what their employment costs and overhead costs are and what they want their profits to be. Now let's say you have State Farm Auto, for example, and last year State Farm Auto Insurance Company fell victim to over 10,000 incidents of insurance fraud. What do you think is going to happen to your premiums the following years? They go up. Same thing with taxes. A government sets a tax rate, because they know how much money they have to collect in a year to pay for all the things a government does. So what happens to your taxes when, let's say, every single major corporation and many other corporations of smaller sizes plus a measurable amount of the wealthiest individuals of our nation use international banking and tax laws to evade their tax liabilities? You pay more taxes! In fact, there is a single, very small, sea side hotel resort in the Bahamas that serves as the physical corporate address for over 18,000 US corporations! Again, if you want to scream and bemoan your ever increasing tax burden...lay the blame where the blame is due. At the feet of the wealthy, corporate tax evaders and the GOP leadership that run cover for them!

Heath Scare! Tricks or Treats?

2009-07-26T18:58:00.009-06:00

Well we are all bombarded now with the messages and images of the Great Health Care Debate of Late (’09 just didn’t rhyme). In this tug-o-war we have the Republicans trying to preserve the profits of their corporate base and the Democratic President and his Congressional support trying to bring government to the rescue again. We in the middle, the general public, the small business owners and even corporations unrelated to the health care industry, are the targets of the differing messages and then we have the “Blue Dog” Democratic Caucus running interference.

Before going into the hyperbole and claims of the ads and talking points of the pundits, I would first like to go through the existing legislation as it exists today and highlight the portions of the bill that I have comment or concerns on. The full text of the bill can be found at this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111GZYY54:e21369:

NOTE – It does take me some time to read and re-read the bill to gain a clear understanding of what is being stated. If I have anything wrong or have misinterpreted something within this Bill, please bring it to my attention.

So let’s begin:

SEC. 100. PURPOSE; TABLE OF CONTENTS OF DIVISION; GENERAL DEFINITIONS.

(a) Purpose-

(1) IN GENERAL- The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.

(2) BUILDING ON CURRENT SYSTEM- This division achieves this purpose by building on what works in today's health care system, while repairing the aspects that are broken.

(3) INSURANCE REFORMS- This division--

(A) enacts strong insurance market reforms;

(B) creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans;

(D) initiates shared responsibility among workers, employers, and the government;

so that all Americans have coverage of essential health benefits.

(4) HEALTH DELIVERY REFORM- This division institutes health delivery system reforms both to increase quality and to reduce growth in health spending so that health care becomes more affordable for businesses, families, and government.

(b) Table of Contents of Division- The table of contents of this division is as follows:

Sec. 100. Purpose; table of contents of division; general definitions.

As stated in my blog “My Political Views” section, I have a great desire to see the intent and design of laws adhered to and weighed just as heavily, without contradiction, in comparison to the letter of the laws. I hope this SEC. 100. will be protected in this manner.

OK, let’s move on to:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a)

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

Basically this protects those enrolled in a current health care policy from having their benefits taken or changed by this current legislation. I highlight this section, because I worry that current insurers may attempt to “parse verbiage” to price out existing policy holders while still adhering to law? This goes to an overall concern of mine that private corporations may attempt to use a public option to push those who are sick or suffering from chronic health problems into the Public Option, thus enabling them to offer the lowest price point exclusively for healthy people, while the sick and suffering are forced into the Public Option, which will inherently increase its price point, creating a further drag on the economy.

To counterpoint my own concern and add to the dialog, I believe that the only real antidote to this potential malady would be for the public option to cover the preventative care and other cost prohibitive services and treatments current private policy options generally disallow to fight the affects of these people with such illnesses. However that will mean more upfront costs while striving to achieve a lower cost in the future and hopefully achieving a public with a higher measurement of health, and, in turn productivity. I think I could go back and forth on this almost in perpetuity.

In this same section:

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

This is where it gets thick…

(1) GRACE PERIOD-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Five years for a current insurer to get their employer based policies compliant with the standards and requirements of the sections describing “qualified health benefits”? Longer than a presidential term but shorter than a Senators term, however, most likely overlapping them all depending upon when this might be passed. That is enough time for the Corporations of Big Health to gather their resources to attempt political upheaval and change instead of implementing the required changed to their companies and products. We’ll hear of nightmare stories of how the new system is a failure, while those companies have not even made any changes yet, while crying wolf. You will know this to be true if they are successful in their attempt and the law is revoked or scuttled before the 5 year grace period or if they are unsuccessful and they all race to be granted extensions of the grace period toward the end of the 5 year time table. All moves that will cost consumers and taxpayers alike.

They should change the grace period to a more reasonable 2-3 years to avoid the probable pratfalls of a dishonest dance of corporate manipulation.

Now in the course of this entire subsection it refers to 2 other Acts:

Section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5)

Section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 including paragraph (3)(A)

These are exceptions to the grace period. If the existing employer based coverage consists only of these requirement stated within these sections of these other Acts, then those policies will receive no grace period, and would have to be changed to become compliant or the employer or policy holders can go to the Public Option.

To my estimation, it seems that there is already a set minimal coverage requirement set by these preexisting laws and that if your employer based policy is set at only those minimums, there is no grace period, the products must change before Year 1 of the enactment of this Act. If your current employer based policy exceeds these already set minimums but does not meet the required minimum coverage requirements set by this Act, those insurers have a 5 year grace period to make the necessary changes to become compliant with this Act. If your current employer based policy already exceeds the minimum requirements of coverage defined by this Act, then there is no needed change to your existing policy.

There is a similar subsection about individual plans under this “Grandfather Clause”.

SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.

A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.

Good! Unless this section 2701(b)(1)(A) and section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act somehow becomes some kind of loophole in this prohibition of pre-existing conditions clause…

SEC. 114. NONDISCRIMINATION IN BENEFITS; PARITY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER BENEFITS.

(a) Nondiscrimination in Benefits- A qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the Commissioner to prohibit discrimination in health benefits or benefit structures for qualifying health benefits plans, building from sections 702 of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 2702 of the Public Health Service Act, and section 9802 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(b) Parity in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorder Benefits- To the extent such provisions are not superceded by or inconsistent with subtitle C, the provisions of section 2705 (other than subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (c)) of section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act shall apply to a qualified health benefits plan, regardless of whether it is offered in the individual or group market, in the same manner as such provisions apply to health insurance coverage offered in the large group market.

I am highlighting this section, not so much because of what it seems to say about nondiscrimination and parity in mental health and substance abuse disorder, but to note the fact that, again, these prior Acts are continually cited and used to give substance to this Act. They have been referenced at least a half dozen times to this point in the Bill. On one hand I am concerned about what they may mean for this Act, but on the other hand, I’m afraid if I pry those open it may lead me tumbling down the rabbit hole of eternal legislative darkness and confusion. I think I now know what may have been in the back of Barack Obama’s head when he was referencing the Matrix’s “Red Pill \ Blue Pill” choice, while making an analogy to the nation during his press conference on Health Care Reform.

I also underlined a word in this section that seems to have been misspelled or be a typo. Or, actually, MS Word caught the potential error, and I’ll never admit to how many of my spelling and grammatical gaffs it catches and correct for me!

SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commissioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.

(b) Building on Interim Rules- In implementing subsection (a), the Commissioner shall build on the definition and methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the amendments made by section 161 for determining how to calculate the medical loss ratio. Such methodology shall be set at the highest level medical loss ratio possible that is designed to ensure adequate participation by QHBP offering entities, competition in the health insurance market in and out of the Health Insurance Exchange, and value for consumers so that their premiums are used for services.

If I am reading this section correctly, then this is basically putting a cap on the profits of insurers by establishing a cost ratio that must be kept and if the cost ratio is exceeded then there must be some measure of recourse by rebate and premium lowering to wring out those excesses.

On one hand I am all for this. While it is disturbing that it is so necessary that our government interfere with and involve themselves with such intimate aspects of our private market, it is the abuses of the major players of those private markets that have deemed it necessary, and if anyone wants to rail against this or wail about the woes of government intervention, your voices are better pointed toward the abusers that have destabilized our nation and economy than those who are, with good intentions, trying to fix these inequities.

Our health and very lives should NEVER be the leverage for corporate extortion to feed their systems never ending greed.

One the other hand, what concerns me is that so many of the actual details of this Act, including this cost ratio, is to be set by the future Commissioner, instead of by this Act alone. This will inevitably mean that any and all measures of equality, affordability and access to health care will wane and wax in proportion to the political tides.

Slowly we begin the process of revealing the Bill. Throughout this Bill, there are references to terms and items that are not explained until later into the Bill. The following section proves to be a perfect example of this:

SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) In General- A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

(b) Choice of Coverage-

(1) NON-EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan that is not an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, such plan may offer such coverage in addition to the essential benefits package as the QHBP offering entity may specify.

(2) EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS- In the case of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, such plan is required under section 203 to provide specified levels of benefits and, in the case of a plan offering a premium-plus level of benefits, provide additional benefits.

(3) CONTINUATION OF OFFERING OF SEPARATE EXCEPTED BENEFITS COVERAGE- Nothing in this division shall be construed as affecting the offering of health benefits in the form of excepted benefits (described in section 102(b)(1)(B)(ii)) if such benefits are offered under a separate policy, contract, or certificate of insurance.

(c) No Restrictions on Coverage Unrelated to Clinical Appropriateness- A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any restriction (other than cost-sharing) unrelated to clinical appropriateness on the coverage of the health care items and services.

To understand what the term “EXCHANGE” actually means as it pertains to this Bill, you have to peek down to Title II of the Bill. To give you that preview, The “EXCHANGE” is what has been mentioned in the press and the media as “The Gateway”. This is where private insurers can offer policies that adhere to the requirements of coverage and service stated within the Bill can be offered to both employers and individuals, along with the Public Option, as government approved and sponsored health care policies that can be purchased. However, not only does the offered policy have to be approved but so do the individuals and employers that may want to purchase health care plan policies from this Exchange. These limitations will be explained later in Title II of Bill 3200. I kind of think that Title II should have been Title I.

This particular section explains that there will be private options that are part of the Exchange as they adhere to the minimum requirements of coverage, service, accessibility and costs of the Exchange, there will be private policy options that only adhere to the minimums of the essential benefits package or may offer coverage beyond that and that there can be offered separate policy of additional benefits coverage that can be added to the coverage of another or existing policy as long it is offered as a separate policy.

The last paragraph seems to say that insurers can no longer deny any treatment except to adjust the cost sharing or co-pay of any treatment and except for cases of “clinical appropriateness”.

Unless there is a provision later in this Bill that deals with what “clinical appropriateness” is and who can deem it so or not, then I have a problem with this. The biggest problem in our current health care system is that the big insurers and HMO’s purchase Dr.’s and put them on their payroll for the express purpose of putting forth compromised and illegitimate medical arguments (crafted with all due and unnecessary medical lingo possible to appear legitimate and confuse the watchdogs as much as possible) to excuse insurers from having to pay some of the heft that comes with certain procedures and treatments.

Now we come to a big reveal:

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

(a) In General- In this division, the term `essential benefits package' means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that--

(1) provides payment for the items and services described in subsection (b) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical or other appropriate clinical or professional practice;

(2) limits cost-sharing for such covered health care items and services in accordance with such benefit standards, consistent with subsection (c);

(3) does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services;

(4) complies with section 115(a) (relating to network adequacy); and

(5) is equivalent, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage.

(b) Minimum Services To Be Covered- The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES- There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care.

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION-

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION- The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL- The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

(C) USE OF COPAYMENTS- In establishing cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance.

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE-

(A) IN GENERAL- The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

(B) REFERENCE BENEFITS PACKAGE DESCRIBED- The reference benefits package described in this subparagraph is the essential benefits package if there were no cost-sharing imposed.

I have no problems with Section 122 (a) or (b) and (c) (1) I applaud, however I have some concerns with (c) (2) (B) where they put in place a system for price increases but not price decreases. I could see where another boom and bust market cycle could price out certain Americans out of a policy, which is not offered through the Exchange (including the Public Option), that a consumer prefers to have. However, due to the fact that it is stated that the Public Option would include a price scale dependant upon an individuals or employers resources and ability to pay, it still beats being completely left out in the cold.

I also like (c) (2) (c) and (3) where it states that these policies may not share any more than 30% of the costs with the policy holder(s) and that the use of copayments, not coinsurance will be used to determine the value of cost sharing. That seems fair.

The next two sections deal with the formation of a Health Benefits Advisory Committee and a Process for Adoption of Recommendations, so I’ll skip those and move to:

Subtitle D--Additional Consumer Protections

Now overall, I do have a concern right off, where Americans at the lower levels of our economy may be targeted for and fall victim to unscrupulous companies and unethical policies, unless the Commissioner and the governing committee takes proactive steps, instead of sitting back waiting for consumer complaints, or, at least, there is some easily accessible and no cost way to make said complaints.

Then again, there is a series of subtitles and sections dedicated to defining the governance, duties and responsibilities of the Commissioner and other posts and positions created by this Act.

So I’ll skip to what just may be the biggest weakness and largest loophole of this Bill:

Subtitle F--Relation to Other Requirements; Miscellaneous

SEC. 151. RELATION TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Coverage Not Offered Through Exchange-

(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of health insurance coverage not offered through the Health Insurance Exchange (whether or not offered in connection with an employment-based health plan), and in the case of employment-based health plans, the requirements of this title do not supercede any requirements applicable under titles XXII and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, parts 6 and 7 of subtitle B of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or State law, except insofar as such requirements prevent the application of a requirement of this division, as determined by the Commissioner.

(2) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed as affecting the application of section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

(b) Coverage Offered Through Exchange-

(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of health insurance coverage offered through the Health Insurance Exchange--

(A) the requirements of this title do not supercede any requirements (including requirements relating to genetic information nondiscrimination and mental health) applicable under title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act or under State law, except insofar as such requirements prevent the application of a requirement of this division, as determined by the Commissioner; and

(B) individual rights and remedies under State laws shall apply.

(2) CONSTRUCTION- In the case of coverage described in paragraph (1), nothing in such paragraph shall be construed as preventing the application of rights and remedies under State laws with respect to any requirement referred to in paragraph (1)(A).

OK let me get this straight. This Bill that may become an Act and Federal Law can NOT supercede (I’m not convinced that MS Word is actually correct about this word or not, which is why I highlighted it and let it stand…I’ll check on it later) even STATE LAW? I thought Federal Law always superceded State Law! So if State law can trump this Act, then how much of this Act could be scuttled and rendered null and void?

Let me provide a perfect example of what I am talking about with this next portion just 2 sections later:

SEC. 153. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

(a) Retaliation Prohibited- No employer may discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or other privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the employee)--

(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be provided to the employer, the Federal Government, or the attorney general of a State information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of any provision of this Act or any order, rule, or regulation promulgated under this Act;

(2) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding concerning such violation;

(3) assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in such a proceeding; or

(4) objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee (or other such person) reasonably believed to be in violation of any provision of this Act or any order, rule, or regulation promulgated under this Act.

(b) Enforcement Action- An employee covered by this section who alleges discrimination by an employer in violation of subsection (a) may bring an action governed by the rules, procedures, legal burdens of proof, and remedies set forth in section 40(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2087(b)).

(c) Employer Defined- As used in this section, the term `employer' means any person (including one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, trusts, professional membership organization including a certification, disciplinary, or other professional body, unincorporated organizations, nongovernmental organizations, or trustees) engaged in profit or nonprofit business or industry whose activities are governed by this Act, and any agent, contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or consultant of such person.

(d) Rule of Construction- The rule of construction set forth in section 20109(h) of title 49, United States Code, shall also apply to this section.

Here in Colorado, all employment is “at will” employment, which basically means that an employer may terminate any employee for any reason at any time. If this means that the laws providing employers relief from recourse stemming from the firing of employees (except those circumstance provided for by law in regards to discrimination and sexual harassment), wouldn’t those laws supercede this Act and render those protections void?

How much of this bill could be invalidated by existing or new State Laws that may be enacted in the future to beg off the requirements of this Bill? It would, in some ways, make it easier for Big Health to gut this potential Act and it certainly can’t make anyone in need of this important piece of legislative reform living in, oh let’s say, Texas, feel hopeful. I hope I am missing something here.

This leads us to the next portion:

Subtitle G--Early Investments

SEC. 161. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.

(a) Group Health Insurance Coverage- Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting after section 2713 the following new section:

Now this is interesting. This possible Act, which can not supercede the previous Acts it references and any applicable State Laws, is now amending one of those Acts, and another one mentioned later in this Subtitle. Basically these amendments deal with the addition of certain aspects of this Act in regards to the medical cost ratio and insurer rescissions of insurance policies. Afterward it amends another previous Act in regards to Administrative Simplification and Standardize Electronic Administrative Transactions.

Now get this, in Section 164, defining a Reinsurance Program for Retirees, it states that any appropriations from the Retiree Reserve Trust Fund “…shall not be taken into account for purposes of any budget enforcement procedures including allocations under section 302(a) and (b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act…”. I didn’t realize they even had to mention that Act anymore. It seemed that it was pretty well understood that the only reason why Congress applauded then President Clinton after signing that Act into law was to simultaneously crumple and wad up that bill before tossing it over their collective shoulders, discarding it.

What I don’t get is why they wouldn’t just make this Act supercede these previous Acts and State Laws instead of wording this Bill to awkwardly be subservient to those previous laws while simultaneously adding to and changing those laws. This reeks of being a loophole landmine to me. Maybe one of you out there can point out the logic of going about reform this way to me and explain the benefits or necessities of this seemingly odd tactic.

Outside of that overall concern, the only other things I would like to point out in these sections would be:

SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

`(a) Standards for Financial and Administrative Transactions-

(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS- The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall--

(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;

`(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;

`(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;

The HIPAA Laws were supposed to tackle some of the problem with insurers using non-standard number systems so that claims would get the first round of instant denials the industry so desperately seeks by instituting (among other things) a claim numbering system that was spelled out very clearly, so that both traditional and electronic processing of claims by the billing professionals of health care providers could avoid the instant denials and get quickly to the payment or justified (at least supposed justified) denials of claims. Instead, insurers quickly did silly things like add another numerical or alpha character to those numbers, creating the instant denials they had enjoyed before. If things like these are not enforced, then costs will not come down as much as they should. People have no idea how many infantile and illegal games Big Health companies play to protect their coffers, hoping to pad their profits, or at least gamble those monies on the stock market to make money with that money for as long as possible, before they have to pay it out. This is a measurable amount of the exploded cost of health care that we, the consumers and taxpayers, invariably pay for.

`(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

Could this be another point of entry for Identity Theft or some new like crime? I am concerned about how much personal information may be linked to these cards and how they might be exploited by the criminal element, private corporations or even the government. We are definitely entering the boundary waters of technology that can cut costs and improve efficiencies but also lead to abuse and misuse. Although there are several parts of this sections that does address the governing of the abuse and misuse of this data, it still comes down to enforcement. I sincerely hope this will not be another toothless piece of legislature when all is said and done.

OK so now we get to The Exchange:

TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND RELATED PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Health Insurance Exchange

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE; OUTLINE OF DUTIES; DEFINITIONS.

(a) Establishment- There is established within the Health Choices Administration and under the direction of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option.

Basically this is the gateway for employers and individuals to purchase a health benefit plan that is qualified by the government and participates in this market or Exchange, including the Public Option. But we are all not automatically eligible for the Exchange…

SEC. 202. EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS.

(a) Access to Coverage- In accordance with this section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage.

This section begins with talking about individual eligibility but we will soon see that employers will also have to be deemed eligible by the Commissioner into order to purchase from the Exchange as seen here:

(b) Definitions- In this division:

(1) EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL- The term `Exchange-eligible individual' means an individual who is eligible under this section to be enrolled through the Health Insurance Exchange in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan and, with respect to family coverage, includes dependents of such individual.

(2) EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE EMPLOYER- The term `Exchange-eligible employer' means an employer that is eligible under this section to enroll through the Health Insurance Exchange employees of the employer (and their dependents) in Exchange-eligible health benefits plans.

So what makes an individual or employer eligible? I’ll try to parse through and make that as succinct as possible by paraphrasing the next sections dealing with that. I would copy and paste them and then comment, like I have been, except there is so much text and I am already concerned about the length of this post.

A qualifying individual is describes as someone who is does not have coverage either for themselves or from an employer or they are self employed without acceptable coverage.

Employers are defined as anyone who is self employed and has at least one employee, then there are different levels of employers by size, measured primarily by the number of employees that employer has.

Those with acceptable coverage are excluded from being able to purchase health options from the Exchange. Acceptable coverage is defined as:

(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this division, the term `acceptable coverage' means any of the following:

(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.

(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).

(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act, excluding such coverage that is only available because of the application of subsection (u), (z), or (aa) of section 1902 of such Act.

(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.

(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Commissioner in coordination with the Secretary of Treasury to be not less than a level specified by the Commissioner and Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Treasury, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.

(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage, such as a State health benefits risk pool, as the Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, recognizes for purposes of this paragraph.

The Commissioner shall make determinations under this paragraph in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury.

There are also exceptions that may be applicable to certain individuals mentioned later.

The next section deals with the requirements that must be met by insurers before the Commissioner can enter into a contract for that insurer to offer a policy on the Exchange. More or less, it states that the insurer must already offer a qualified basic package lever plan. If they offer a Basic Plan then they can offer an Enhanced Plan, and if they offer an Enhanced Plan, then they can offer a Premium Plan and if they offer a Premium Plan then they can offer a Premium-Plus Plan. In short, a provider can not just offer a deluxe plan or suite of deluxe plans. They must offer first a basic plan before they can offer any plans that would include more coverage and services at greater premiums.

Those plan levels are defined by the following:

(1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish the following standards consistent with this subsection and title I:

(A) BASIC, ENHANCED, AND PREMIUM PLANS- Standards for 3 levels of Exchange-participating health benefits plans: basic, enhanced, and premium (in this division referred to as a `basic plan', `enhanced plan', and `premium plan', respectively).

(B) PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN BENEFITS- Standards for additional benefits that may be offered, consistent with this subsection and subtitle C of title I, under a premium plan (such a plan with additional benefits referred to in this division as a `premium-plus plan').

(2) BASIC PLAN-

(A) IN GENERAL- A basic plan shall offer the essential benefits package required under title I for a qualified health benefits plan.

(B) TIERED COST-SHARING FOR AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS- In the case of an affordable credit eligible individual (as defined in section 242(a)(1)) enrolled in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, the benefits under a basic plan are modified to provide for the reduced cost-sharing for the income tier applicable to the individual under section 244(c).

(3) ENHANCED PLAN- A enhanced plan shall offer, in addition to the level of benefits under the basic plan, a lower level of cost-sharing as provided under title I consistent with section 123(b)(5)(A).

(4) PREMIUM PLAN- A premium plan shall offer, in addition to the level of benefits under the basic plan, a lower level of cost-sharing as provided under title I consistent with section 123(b)(5)(B).

(5) PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN- A premium-plus plan is a premium plan that also provides additional benefits, such as adult oral health and vision care, approved by the Commissioner. The portion of the premium that is attributable to such additional benefits shall be separately specified.

(6) RANGE OF PERMISSIBLE VARIATION IN COST-SHARING- The Commissioner shall establish a permissible range of variation of cost-sharing for each basic, enhanced, and premium plan, except with respect to any benefit for which there is no cost-sharing permitted under the essential benefits package. Such variation shall permit a variation of not more than plus (or minus) 10 percent in cost-sharing with respect to each benefit category specified under section 122.

This sets the standard for the basic plan and then establishes a curve that adjusts valued services and cost sharing for every tier of plan thereafter. Of course, the real specifics are not established here. It seems as those specifics would only be established by the future Commissioner. At least those details are not spelled out as of yet.

The next section deals with the contracts of offering health benefits through the Exchange. The only thing that worries me a bit is this portion:

(3) FAR NOT APPLICABLE- The provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall not apply to contracts between the Commissioner and QHBP offering entities for the offering of Exchange-participating health benefits plans under this title.

I do not know what is in this FAR Act, so I am not sure if I should be concerned or not. Was this the device used by the Bush Administration for awarding no-bid bottomless contracts to their business cronies or is this an Act that ensures the fair and just process of appropriately weighing the costs to benefits ratio of offerings by private enterprise?

The next section deals with Outreach and Enrollment. Basically how the government might get the word our about the Exchange and helping people navigate the Exchange and educating the public on such items as eligibility, the offered health benefit options, coverage and costs involved and so on.

The next section has a portion that does concern me. That section is:

SEC. 206. OTHER FUNCTIONS.

And within Other Functions is this line:

(b) Coordination of Risk Pooling- The Commissioner shall establish a mechanism whereby there is an adjustment made of the premium amounts payable among QHBP offering entities offering Exchange-participating health benefits plans of premiums collected for such plans that takes into account (in a manner specified by the Commissioner) the differences in the risk characteristics of individuals and employers enrolled under the different Exchange-participating health benefits plans offered by such entities so as to minimize the impact of adverse selection of enrollees among the plans offered by such entities.

I hope that this is not yet another way for the poor and credit challenged among us to be singled out and penalized yet again.

The next section establishes a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, the fund which will pay for the Exchange and the bodies that govern it.

The next section is kind of interesting, especially for those who have expressed a desire to succeed from health care (who will remain nameless in the Lone Star State):

SEC. 208. OPTIONAL OPERATION OF STATE-BASED HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES.

(a) In General- If--

(1) a State (or group of States, subject to the approval of the Commissioner) applies to the Commissioner for approval of a State-based Health Insurance Exchange to operate in the State (or group of States); and

(2) the Commissioner approves such State-based Health Insurance Exchange,

That’s right! If you’re a rickety type champion of states rights (at least so far as it suites you), then you can applaud this section of the Bill that would allow for your state, as a single state or within a larger group of states, to form and govern their own Health Insurance Exchange!

However…:

(b) Requirements for Approval- The Commissioner may not approve a State-based Health Insurance Exchange under this section unless the following requirements are met:

(1) The State-based Health Insurance Exchange must demonstrate the capacity to and provide assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner that the State-based Health Insurance Exchange will carry out the functions specified for the Health Insurance Exchange in the State (or States) involved, including--

(A) negotiating and contracting with QHBP offering entities for the offering of Exchange-participating health benefits plan, which satisfy the standards and requirements of this title and title I;

(B) enrolling Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in such State in such plans;

(D) administering affordability credits under subtitle B using the same methodologies (and at least the same income verification methods) as would otherwise apply under such subtitle and at a cost to the Federal Government which does exceed the cost to the Federal Government if this section did not apply; and

(E) enforcement activities consistent with federal requirements.

(2) There is no more than one Health Insurance Exchange operating with respect to any one State.

(3) The State provides assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner that approval of such an Exchange will not result in any net increase in expenditures to the Federal Government.

(4) The State provides for reporting of such information as the Commissioner determines and assurances satisfactory to the Commissioner that it will vigorously enforce violations of applicable requirements.

(5) Such other requirements as the Commissioner may specify.

And…:

(2) TERMINATION; HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE RESUMPTION OF FUNCTIONS- The Commissioner may terminate the approval (for some or all functions) of a State-based Health Insurance Exchange under this section if the Commissioner determines that such Exchange no longer meets the requirements of subsection (b) or is no longer capable of carrying out such functions in accordance with the requirements of this subtitle. In lieu of terminating such approval, the Commissioner may temporarily assume some or all functions of the State-based Health Insurance Exchange until such time as the Commissioner determines the State-based Health Insurance Exchange meets such requirements of subsection (b) and is capable of carrying out such functions in accordance with the requirements of this subtitle.

As well as…:

(d) Retention of Authority-

(1) AUTHORITY RETAINED- Enforcement authorities of the Commissioner shall be retained by the Commissioner.

(2) DISCRETION TO RETAIN ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- The Commissioner may specify functions of the Health Insurance Exchange that--

(A) may not be performed by a State-based Health Insurance Exchange under this section; or

(B) may be performed by the Commissioner and by such a State-based Health Insurance Exchange.

In other words, those States have to play by the same rules of the game that is set forth for the Federal Exchange and can not usurp the authority of the Commissioner.

Now we get to the really exciting or really scary (depending upon who you like to let do the thinking for you) portion of the Bill:

Subtitle B--Public Health Insurance Option

This is also (thank God!) the final chapter of this Bill.

Again, I am only going to highlight portions of note or concern, leaving all those portions that, in my view, at well within the bounds of common sense or of little impact to we, the people, as individuals and small business owners.

Except to note the line of intention for this subsection:

SEC. 221. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

(a) Establishment- For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the `Secretary') shall provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (in this division referred to as the `public health insurance option') that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle. In designing the option, the Secretary's primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without comprimising quality or access to care.

And yes, this time, I definitely found a spelling error!

Basically this section leans on the Social Security Act and Medicaid to provide the framework for this Public Option and also gives it the same tier of coverage policy options as the private offerings through the Exchange.

The next section, which is about premiums and financing, includes start up funding for the Public Option shown here:

(2) START-UP FUNDING-

(A) IN GENERAL- In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In order to provide for initial claims reserves before the collection of premiums, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.

(B) AMORTIZATION OF START-UP FUNDING- The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1.

(C) LIMITATION ON FUNDING- Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

I personally believe that the start up fund should come from the Federal Reserve as punishment and penalty for failing to adequately protect the nation from this last market bust we find ourselves still in, without payback. There has to be some accountability from some agency or party concerning this, and why not use that penalty to benefit those hit hardest by that failure?

The next section is about payment and rates, which, by and large will be set by the Secretary so long as they are within the bounds and limitations of this Act and other applicable titles and sections of prior Acts.

The next sections are about providers and payments to providers and a provider network much of which is again using Medicare to propel its formation and function and also has incentive payment of an extra 5% for the first 3 years plus modernization of payment system reform then rules for provider participation and then a brief section on fraud and abuse provisions that leans on the False Claims Act for substance. All things well and good and fairly intelligent to my eye.

Now the final subtitle:

Subtitle C--Individual Affordability Credits

Basically these sections deal with instituting credits available through the Health Insurance Exchange, identifies what individuals qualify:

SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.

(a) Definition-

(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this division, the term `affordable credit eligible individual' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)--

(A) who is enrolled under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan and is not enrolled under such plan as an employee (or dependent of an employee) through an employer qualified health benefits plan that meets the requirements of section 312;

(B) with family income below 400 percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of the size involved; and

(C) who is not a Medicaid eligible individual, other than an individual described in section 202(d)(3) or an individual during a transition period under section 202(d)(4)(B)(ii).

…and how much that credit would be worth:

SEC. 243. AFFORDABLE PREMIUM CREDIT.

(a) In General- The affordability premium credit under this section for an affordable credit eligible individual enrolled in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is in an amount equal to the amount (if any) by which the premium for the plan (or, if less, the reference premium amount specified in subsection (c)), exceeds the affordable premium amount specified in subsection (b) for the individual.

(b) Affordable Premium Amount-

(1) IN GENERAL- The affordable premium amount specified in this subsection for an individual for monthly premium in a plan year shall be equal to 1/12 of the product of--

(A) the premium percentage limit specified in paragraph (2) for the individual based upon the individual's family income for the plan year; and

(B) the individual's family income for such plan year.

(2) PREMIUM PERCENTAGE LIMITS BASED ON TABLE- The Commissioner shall establish premium percentage limits so that for individuals whose family income is within an income tier specified in the table in subsection (d) such percentage limits shall increase, on a sliding scale in a linear manner, from the initial premium percentage to the final premium percentage specified in such table for such income tier.

Well that is it for now. One of the perils of breaking down legislation before it becomes signed into law is that there are constant changes. Even in the 3 days it took me to write this, there were several sections that seemed to have changed, including a huge section dealing with tax evasion prevention, which no longer seems to be there or just isn’t accessible right now.

I wanted to give people a snap shot of what is actually being debated right now and to, hopefully ease the affects of the hyperbole being bantered back and forth through the airwaves. Other than those portions I highlighted or noted, there is no boogeyman hidden within the texts of this document. There is nothing to suggest that there might be some great calamity with its enactment, at least so far as it exists today.

I myself had a certain amount of trepidation, stemming from the speaking points of the political pundits on talk shows in the weeks ramping up to this. My fear was that there was going to be some kind of mandate requiring everyone to now carry health insurance and that there would be no public option. Much like the extortionist set of laws that require individuals to carry insurance on our personal properties while the government offers no such, not for profit public option for those choices. If there isn’t a better example of corporate invasion and corrupting of government concerns, I don’t know what is.

So for all those out there screaming that this Act would destroy our current health care system (to which I would ask, how can you destroy an already dysfunctional system?) or cause our premiums, co-pays and other costs to skyrocket, are, in no other uncertain terms, lying. It is almost the exact same thing as looking at a skeleton and then commenting upon the deformity or beauty of the body because of the nature of its skin…a skin that isn’t there.

There really isn’t any meat and particular figures in this Bill and it doesn’t look like there is going to be. All of the substance will come from the Secretary, the Commissioner or other governing bodies or entities that will be bound by the framework set down in this Bill.

However, this Bill, as I just stated, not finished and enacted into law yet. I have signed up for certain updates which I hope will keep me sufficiently apprised of any new developments with this Bill and overall effort.

In fact, I just received an update where the Congress is getting bipartisan support for a suggestion to tax the “Rolls Royce” of insurance policies to help pay for portions of this Bill.

I will be keeping on top of this and you all can check back here for any new updates. Please take me to task on anything you think I have misinterpreted and help inform myself and the other readers of this blog. I promise your comments will not go unanswered!

Gates, O' Hell!

2009-07-24T11:34:00.005-06:00

Well I was going to write about the Health Care Reform issue, but, of course, silliness has ensued and overclouded that issue with the debacle surrounding the arrest of Harvard professor, and the most academically achieved black man in America, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and President Obama's remarks in response to a question posed at the end of his national address on Health Care Reform. Allow me to chime in on this incident while turning the course of this discussion, as it relates, to a more important and overreaching issue. The issue is our burgeoning police state, the evil and self serving system of criminal justice and its vicious impact on our society.

I think there is a larger and more applicable issue here aside from race. It's the growing police state in which we live. In a country that is constantly being marketed to its people as a nation of freedom and equality we have witnessed the erosion of privacy, of civil rights and protections and horrible abuses and actions by those who are supposed to protect and serve us, the people. We have seen numerous police beatings, police cleared of shooting innocent civilians, and even the tazing of a little old lady in Texas! This is on top of the untold and probably stunningly high number of false arrests and intrusions of police actions to our daily lives. A close friend of mine was arrested and spent the 4th weekend in jail for what turned out to be nothing more than an administrative error!

Now take in these facts and lay them on top of a national landscape where we have the highest prison incarceration rate in the world. Now add that to the fact that those the monsters of our society, those who splash across our headlines, both local and national, who have raped and murdered our men, women and children, always seem to have an arrest record a half mile long. Seems no matter how much new power and new "tougher" laws we give to our criminal justice system, they can keep us no safer than they did before.

To have anyone arrested in their own home, after showing their ID ONLY because of their attitude in dealing with a police that views themselves beyond reproach, but have EARNED their place of mistrust in much of our society, IS STUPID. Bottom line. Not only was it stupid, it was an abuse and misuse of law to use a 'disorderly conduct' charge to legitimize the arrest of an obviously innocent man only because he angered the officer who was the actual intruder of this man's home.

I also would like to comment on the obvious (and par for the course) contradiction of a conservative base that constantly rails against government intrusion, but if a Democratic leader gets involved, well now government intrusion is righteous.

But again, there is a much bigger issue here at play than this particular incident and the real issue is beyond race relations. What I want to know is when will we, the people, finally wake up and look at the broad stroke of facts surrounding our criminal justice system and finally stand up and demand ACTUAL justice.

If you are a DA or Police Department you want more funding each year than the year prior. However, you can not show a need that may highlight a change in leadership and policy, which will most likely cost you your job. The best way to assure that new and increased funding, without being fired, is a particular set of nearly conflicting set of circumstances. One is that you have to show need while the other is that you must show competency.

Solution? Well if you can abuse civil liberties on purpose to allow those that show a certain criminal psychological profile of psychopathy and escalating behaviours to be continually set free to commit more heinous crimes, then you can show need. While, simultaneously, using these incidents to make a public plea to diminish civil liberties and bestow new powers of government and new tougher laws (when the reality is that there was nothing wrong with the existing laws at all, only the people charged with upholding those laws) then you can use those new tougher laws to increase your conviction levels by targeting the "soft targets" of a society...the innocent, the indigent, the victims.

Wake up people. This was wrong, but not for race and it is only the very sliver tip of a much larger iceberg.

My Faith and Views on Religion

2009-07-23T17:59:00.003-06:00

Please forgive me, I have taken several days to really think about this last piece of the bedrock of my blog. My intention for this blog was to talk about politics, current events and solutions that this country and our society needs to become the exceptional nation and a true leader of progress for the human race. I felt that before I could truely begin, I should set a foundation of information about myself, my views and where I was coming from. But I was wondering if I should even share this because of the fact that I really do not have a relationship with religion, which I separate very distinctly from God.

I also do not want those that have differnt faiths other than the Christian God to think that I was yet another agent seeking to convert, diminish or destroy those people and thier faiths. Let me be clear about that. I would never attempt to do so, because of my personal definition of the application of faith.

The other reason is that, in my view, some peoples relationship with thier religion has created a stronger bond to them than the actual desire to have a relationship with thier God and to become an agent of that God.

At the end of the day, I am someone that believes in a single God, and like other monotheists, I have my own idea of who that God is as a person or being, and that my view is the most correct. Although, I think I am inherrently given some extra merrit, because I am aware of it.

I believe that God is very much the example of the perfect parent. He created this universe, the world and all the truths that lie within them as the system that exemplifies Him and teaches the lessons to us that He would want us to learn. What I believe He wants from us is to have a relationship with Him (what parent would want to be shunned by their children?), He wants us to stop our self destructiveness (what parent would want to watch thier children hurt themselves?), and, most of all, He wants us to focus our goodwill and positive efforts toward the benefit of others. Imagine a world where we as a people would actually try and build people up rather than tear them down. However simple that sounds, it is so hard to practice in a world of fear and anger. I am no exception to this. I try very hard, but I too succumb to the edicts of fear and anger and lose sight of the real truth, the only truth that can ultimately set us all free.

I also believe in faith. To me, faith means that if the ideas and beliefs that I believe in are so right and true, I don't need to try and force feed them to anyone. I can display them. I can talk about them. And I can offer advice or counsel if I am asked or prompted to. But, in my view, those that try and legistrate personal choice or morality and those that concern themselves in the decisions of others that have no direct impact upon them, are weak in faith. If any ideal is an actual universal truth, designed by God, then the consequences of breaching that truth or the rewards of adhering to it, will play themselves out naturally, without the help of any instiution, foundation, association or committee of man.

I wonder if those people that grapple with control of our lives actually believe at all. If so, why wouldn't they see that they interferr with God's ability to honestly deal with us. Put it to you this way, what is the value of a "good" judgement if it was never really yours to make because of the systems of control layed upon us by others?

We also have to make our own mistakes as individual people and learn our own lessons from those mistakes. Without the benefit of personal and intimate experience and knowledge driven from the rewards and consequences of making our own way in the world, we would truely be a more ignorant people.

Over everything else, I belive that God gave us all free agency, and only those who believe thier judgements to be better than God, or those that believe themselves to be God, would dare attempt to usurp the authroity of God.

For myself, I believe that I can serve God by being an agent of peace and freedom. By offering help and kindness to all others, regaurdless of any of the items of separation and difference that we allow into our hearts as righteous and justified. And I do not believe in bad people, just bad behaviours.

My Political Views

2009-07-18T23:21:00.002-06:00

Putting aside those very few of us that are dedicated to an existing third party, this blog is about our current two majority party system and my political views.

I could be wrong, but I believe that only a small minority of US are completely comfortable, content and satisfied with taking the side of either of the existing big ticket parties of this nation. Even if our individual votes lie with either one, 100% of the time, I believe we mostly do so begrudgingly, because of practicality (rarely does a third or independent party have any impact or power) and because of an almost subconscious perception of who might save us from our sufferings. Which group would bring us greater joy, peace, prosperity or justify our sense of justice? Which errant savior do you put your trust in? Do you trust better a system of government or a system of business?

While as we could dissect the two major parties into their various factions derived from the divisions of particular wedge issues; from my prospective, there really seems to be a common thread that makes a Democrat a Democrat and a Republican a Republican. Pro-government or pro-business.

From all that I have ever seen, read, heard and encountered in my life, a Republican views government as a corrupt, inept and hostile force of bureaucracy and regulation; while a Democrat views business and corporate interests as being a corrupt, inept and hostile force of slavery by means of debt and consumption, while creating a kind of umbrella government of the ruling class elite, that exists underneath the fabric of the actual government.

Generally, Republicans inherently believe that democracy and the free market system is where the public should invest their trust. That rules and regulation for the business sector is an encroachment upon individual liberties and puts a stranglehold on creativity and growth. They believe that growth in business always means growth for the people. They believe that government is too large in both structure and reach of power and that government has little to no oversight or accountability. They believe that government, because of either corruption or incompetency, will always botch our economy and invade our privacy and steal our freedoms. This party fights against those forms of socialism that give power to the people and government, and also exclusively desires for power and wealth to be shifted toward corporations.

Generally, Democrats believe that government intervention is needed to protect the people from themselves as well as the entities of corporations and private institutions. They believe in using law and regulation to stave off both the ill affects of corporate activity as it affects social and economic conditions of peoples and its people’s unwise, selfish and criminal behaviours as well as their impacts upon other peoples and the stability of this nation. They believe that the wealthy and private institutions put a stranglehold on the nation through their use of monetary controls and systems of credit. They believe that private companies and institutions perpetuate bigotry and discrimination in all its myriad forms. They believe that only the government has the right, power and authority to level the playing field. This party fights against those forms of an oligarchy that give power to private corporations, institutions and the wealthiest peoples.

While I also err toward the side of my perceived "lesser evil", my more perfect and clear observation is that both parties are, simultaneously, right about the other party, but both are wrong in their true value to us, the individuals, that make us the people. And, what is more, I believe the greatest foul is not the corrosion of liberties and protections of individuals from government and business intrusions, but the flip side of that same coin, which displays the stamp of the missed opportunities for an even greater and more prosperous nation. In my opinion, these missed opportunities, as well as the abatement of social and economic declines, can only be achieved with the creation of a third party. A third party, whose common thread and guiding set of principles, is to bring freedoms and protections of those freedoms, along with our existing constitutional rights, to the people, while checking the power of government and business interests.

A People’s Party; one to complete the trifecta of a nation built upon a mostly successful model of checks and balances which divides power between three branches of government, designed to create and preserve a more perfect union. What we have failed to notice, is that the model of our three branches of government has been successful in keeping this society together for over two and a half centuries, but by not expanding upon that system of checks and balances, brought to us by three separate and differing houses of power, this nation has been experiencing an overall decline in recent decades…A decline in education, in environment, in health care, in poverty, in crime and social justice.

In my opinion, should this imagined “People's Party” ever become reality, it should strive to achieve several lofty, but necessary goals for the express betterment and relief of the people.

The first and most crucial of goals should be that The People's Party would try to flip the chart of assigned punitive accountability. This figurative chart currently places the individual in an Nth degree of accountability, small and medium sized businesses as the next most accountable, publically traded and multi-national corporations has very little accountability while the government and those in office or other positions of government with the least amount of accountability and punitive consequences. In other words, a person is under a deluge of laws, regulations, ordinances, policies and other rules of the road developed by businesses, corporations and government entities and every single violation of any of the overwhelm rules applicable to us at any given time, lead to some detrimental punishment. On the other hand, government agencies or large corporations can violate our rights and freedoms at whim and can expect to face little or no punitive action. This is in exact opposition to each of the aforementioned segments' charted level of power. If we are to believe the old adage about power corrupting and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then we must also know that the only thing that can bring balance to those scales of power is a system of accountability with clear consequences of punishment for the offenders.

Instead, we need a kind of legal relief (of which I will go into greater details later on in this post) for individuals to create an environment that graces people with a certain level of leeway, forgiveness and reinstalls the benefit of doubt on the side of the individual. We also need to alleviate the responsibilities of small and medium sized companies owned by individual citizens. While there also may be a few necessary new regulations that must be enforced upon these kinds of companies to protect individuals, there is also the need to create the same kind of environment for these entities as would be created for individuals. Large publically traded and multi-national corporations need to be reigned in. They must not be able to dictate demands on any person or employee beyond their working hours, they must not have government assistance in making law to force individuals to purchase any item or service, unless that item or service is also provided by the government as a non-profit option and there should be no such thing a limitations of tort or “too big to fail”. One of the saddest commentaries about our society is the fact that we have capitol punishment for individuals but not for corporations. That needs to change. Lastly, but most importantly and actually firstly by order of priority and logistical task, government needs to be accountable and for those within government that violate rights, laws and liberties of individuals, companies, corporations or any other non-government entity, criminal and civil penalties will apply, without exception. I would even go as far as to take the power of Presidential pardons or evacuations from the President in cases of government prosecutions.

Another part of the puzzle is making sure that vain and greedy corporations, business interests and other private sector institutions, do not usurp the power vacuum, vacated for, and to be used by the people. Corporate personage must be repealed or suppressed in lieu of authentic personage. The rights, freedoms and privileges of the people and all the individuals that collectively create the people, must be given more consideration and weight in value, than the value of the dollar or the hopes of the sometimes overreaching corporate schemes of economic gains.

As aforementioned, there should also be legal relief under a larger program of legal reform. Our system of law is supposed to interpret and weigh the law under two different but equal metrics, the letter of the law and the design and intent of the law. However, far too often, law is perverted, subverted or converted so that the law winds up doing something which it was never designed to do, or so that it doesn't do the very thing it was intended to do. This portion of legal reform, called legal reinterpretation, goes to address the issues stemming from the absence of righteous legal interpretation. Legal reinterpretation should start with the original Constitution and Bill of Rights to make sure the intent of those articles and sections are taken into consideration, along with the design and intent of the documents as a whole, to protect and renew the promise of those founding documents and repeal any subversion by following amendments. After a thorough sweeping of the Constitution, then should follow all federal laws and regulations, making sure that cases decided upon those laws do meet both the intent and letter of those laws and that those laws to not superimpose themselves over the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the federal laws only operate within those confines. The same with State Constitutions, then state laws, then county, city and municipalities and so on.

The other leg of legal reform that is needed is a people’s protection clause, so that the recognition of bestowed rights, freedoms and privileges is as law. Making so that individual rights are always, forever, completely inclusive and true. Making so that freedoms are nearly as absolute, except in exceptional circumstances where the rights of some are threatened or violated by the exercise of freedoms of others. And the people’s protection clause should make so that privileges, being the lowest of protected priorities, are still protected until just cause to repeal them is proven in a court by law. More than just the empty recognition, however, we need accountability and punitive corrections to be installed to provide a deterrent to any within government or private entities from willingly violating those protected rights, freedoms and privileges of individuals and non-government entities. Moreover, there should also be a law that states that all persons of government, be it by, election, appointment or employee, should be made to, by punitive deterrent, honor and defend the Constitution, Bill of Rights and all other laws of the land, proactively. A Senator should never try to introduce a bill that would violate the Constitution, a prosecutor should never attempt to subvert any civil liberty or attempt to use civil liberties to gain public outrage, nor should a judge ever allow an illegal or invalid argument, even if the objection or issue was not addressed by the effected parties or counsel.

The third and final leg of this legal reform would be legal repeal, whereby the practice of the aforementioned legal reinterpretation should make for any laws on the books to be repealed because of their illegality or because they are no longer necessary as many legal loopholes would also be collapsed by this rededication to a full course of legal interpretation that includes both the letter and the intent of the laws simultaneously and without trump.

The Peoples Party should also seek to protect the most economically vulnerable of our country from the potentially disastrous practices and systems of corporate greed or government malfeasance. There must also be some kind of correction to our current system of credit along with a financial safety net for anyone and everyone affected by corporations or government malfeasance, whose, sometimes, irresponsible activities create nationwide economic dysfunction that lays waste to innocent lives and disables those survivors from being able to pick up the remaining pieces from those financial blunders. This fund should always funded first, before any other monies for bailout funding are earmarked for so called "too big to fail" corporations.

This can be achieved in a number of ways or by a certain level of execution of all these ways and potentially others. Making sure that all roads do not lead to Wall Street by regulating the amount of money that a business or corporation can invest into those collective markets, so that if there is some future market stumble (especially a stumble brought about by the bumbling and fumbling of those who craft suedo-legitimate schemes while blinded by greed) there would be a certain amount of protection of companies ability to pay out all future employee salaries, and monies for future projects are not lost. Without this kind of protective regulation, market bubble bursts inevitably causes the deepening of those busts into recessions and depressions.

Another step would be to make sure there is a reserved welfare fund for those caught in the special circumstances of a market bust, so that, again, those peoples who, by no fault of their own, would certainly find themselves in financial disaster, which would, in turn, allow companies to lay off some employees to gather their resources for a rebound, while preventing the effects of those layoffs as to not lengthen or deepen the bubble bust into a recession or depression. The fund should replace lost wages or augment lower earned wages of those affected and continue until a certain criteria of market metrics are met that would be defined by Congress and are as unique and applicable to the conditions behind the market bust and all those business sectors greatest hit.

Finally, there should be a complete new set of restrictions on our current system of credit that has been collectively crafted by corporate masters and government assistance. The first step would be the elimination of use of our Social Security Numbers. This should be accomplished by legal reform program because when Social Security Numbers were first created in 1936, it was expressly stated to the public that these numbers would ONLY be used for Social Security benefits. This design and intention was scuttled by The Privacy Act of 1974, so by reinterpreting the design and intent of the original Social Security charter, The Privacy Act of 1974 would be repealed and your SS number would be fully protected by law from corporate or other government agency use. This is very important to rid our society of the associated costs of identity theft and of other types of credit scams.

The second step is to negate the absolute and lasting values of a credit score by making statutes of limitations absolute on debt and that all debt outside of those set statutes of limitations are removed from a person’s credit record under threat of severe penalties. This would also illegalize the practice of 'zombie debt' collections and tactics. This is extremely important because, without this protection, people and their families could rarely escape their lower social economic levels because of this new "cast" type system. A system that could, in perpetuity, level credit consequences that could very well last and affect the person’s children and could theoretically last for generations. I would not love to see a day where people and families are forced to strive for fame and stardom or hope beyond hope for a major lottery jackpot, just so that they could improve their lot in life for themselves and their children.

Also, the practice of hiring, or not hiring, based upon credit or using a credit report as any part of the hiring process must also be abolished. It is completely asinine to refuse a capable and qualified applicant employment based wholly or partially upon their past inability to pay their bills...especially if this new potential position would give that person the resources to pay those outstanding debts. This is the practice of those of sickeningly low moral stock and even lesser minds and an absolute exercise in class warfare.

Another goal would be to mold government and incentivize corporations to become beacons of trust, hope and help to the public at large, instead of being the public’s boon and bust. From changing our current system of Criminal Justice (which stands now as the most literal interpretation of the phrase) to opening the doors of corporations to be a part of our nations education system, giving students the chance to experience the working world and gain some new perspective of various duties and tasks of the day to day operations as part of a high school curriculum. I believe that we as a nation misuse or abuse our resources and also miss grand opportunities for true greatness, and even greater prosperity, only because we are mesmerized by our history and stuck in our old ways of thinking.

Incarceration has almost no express purpose or benefit except to save the public from those that must be segmented from the free population because they show a recent history and present danger to harm, maim or kill others. All other uses of incarceration are only an exercise in the most impotent form of vengeance. Even worse, beyond the fact that incarceration does the public little to no service (except for those who are described above), our current system of incarceration does the public great potential harm. By offering offenders little or no counseling and resources designed to help the offender become a productive and healthy citizen after time served, and then marking them with the scarlet letters of a public record (which bars and continually punishes those who are supposed to be embarking upon a new life, corrected from their past transgressions) on top of the current system of neglect, new criminal education during incarceration, and nearly zero prospects of self sufficiency or achievement, will invariably lead to new transgressions by ex-convicts. While all too many of us are willing to say, "So what?", and follow some perverse, immature and boorish notion of disinterest; there is an even greater loss than of that of the life of the particular offender, which could have been saved. There is the damage, pain, suffering and loss of life that will invariably fall upon the future victims of these desperate and more dangerously made men and women. So if you are one of those cold hearts reading this thinking yourself to be “cool”...you might want to consider well that you are potentially assigning yourself, or your friends and family, the sufferings of the next victims by desperate people, driven back into crime by these ignorant designs.

Instead there should be everyday counseling and job training for all those that are incarcerated. Incarceration should be expressly reserved for violent offenders or those that flee from their alternative sentences. Other forms of sentencing that more fit the specific crimes should be instituted for all other offenders and a clear and easily attainable path to full reinstatement back into society, without lingering penalty, must be defined for each case.

Family services and social services are another piece of the puzzle that is in need in our society and in need of both a stripping of power and imbuement of new powers and resources. There should be no separate powers given to family services or given to a special family court. Police powers must always remain with the police and DA's of the land and judicial responsibility must always be carried out by the existing civil and criminal courts. The reason why is because of the lack of oversight, documented incompetence, accountability and because there is a greater risk of corruption. If anyone within Social or Family Services finds evidence of a serious crime that they can not or do not have the ability to help solve, they can report that to the police and allow them to launch an investigation, just like any other citizen would.

On a related note, something that we also, most definitely do not need are the speeches of pious pandering religious, corporate or government entities on the topics of family or social issues, for cheap political gain. Especially when considering that many of those groups are now led by the founding fathers and mothers of divorce and dysfunction among other social volatilities.

Instead, family and social services should be an open door type service to anyone, regardless of any factor, even age or need. A child can call Family Services for help, as either a husband or mother can. The help that families can expect from a community based Family Services program would include family counseling, lessons in conflict resolution and soft skills like listening and better terms of communication. Family Services could also include resources on different family, child or parent support groups, activities, and also resources for anything from food and clothing shelters to babysitting references and day care providers. Family Services will no longer be an agency drunk on its own power, immune to investigation and prosecution and will be a completely toothless entity. It will not be able to take children away from parents or place children in foster care. That will be the job of the police. And even within the walls of the justice system, never again, can any government or agency kidnap a child from their parents based solely on economic hardship. We need a Family Service for the stability of our nation and people. We need a drop in the divorce rate, a drop in the incidence of child abuse, we need children to grow up more wise, educated, mature and become young adults more capable of making good decisions and becoming self sufficient productive citizens and, hopefully, more able to create stable, peaceful families themselves.

A person can call Social Services for help outside for needs of family unity. Social Services will operate in the same manner and function and have the same kinds of resources like family services does. The kinds of help one could expect from Social Services could include everything from substance abuse counseling, to access to different occupational training courses and also a work center and a place to find different community events, activities and resources. We need a Social Service to help stave off the ill effects of substance abuse, violence, suicide, mental disease and other social ills.

If the people had a help line, a system of helpful resources, that is as toothless as it is resourceful and powerful, given by a government or non-profit agency or a collective of cooperating agencies, then we would also see a dramatic decrease in crime, divorce, accidents, violence, substance abuse and the effects of other social problems which include costs of varied metrics and a dramatic increase in productivity, peace, stability and prosperity for all.

Another part of the People’s Party platform would be to involve corporations, business interests and other non-government entities into the individual lives and futures of the people in a way that is both beneficial to those entities short and long term goals and provides benefit to individuals simultaneously. These kinds of community investment programs could include things like offering internships where the work involved would be a part of a schools curriculum and offers academic credit to the participants in the fields of study most applicable to the differing fields of study. Another idea would be to offer the same kinds of internships as part of new workforce training through a community Social Service office. The imagination would be the only limitation to quid pro quo programs that offer opportunities for individual advancement and reward companies with a combination of free workers, tax incentives and greater public knowledge of a company or its brand. There could be no better marketing and no better brand experience than to expose your company to a young mind or a person in need of a path for greater career achievement.

These would be the main thrusts and goals of this Peoples Party, if I were to craft it.

There have been social and economic losses and gains throughout the course of our history, however, I believe that we have become a deteriorating society. One factor in our nation’s malaise over the last forty years is the lack of demonstrations and upheavals by the people which cause social change and used to act as our third "Peoples Party". The lack of involvement by large groups of individuals is, from my perspective, most likely due to the mastery of the new mass media’s, learned through the fires of trial and error, by the political, corporate and religious establishments, which keep the public in factions. Groups so small in number that they can rarely come to consensus on one issue or philosophy to unite enough people and march to demand the kinds of change that any and all nations need in order to grow, learn and advance their society at large. United we stand, divided we fall.

The other factor involved with our national devolution is the increasing demands of time and resources on individuals by government, corporate and business interests that help to fill our individual days. This creates a public of individuals that are constantly on the go, consistently restless and continually confused. I believe that this construct of constant distress and distraction is causing the collective nerves of the people in this country to become increasingly frayed. Without being able to take the time and care to pause, step back, and view the whole of our individual lives and our nation, at large, we miss these obviously simple truths. We forget the fundamentals of life, liberty and our pursuits of happiness.

We must, one day, take this power back before we come to a place where we must do so desperately in a place of deficit. I believe the best and most peaceful way to do this is to do it now, and to establish this third People's Party or something very similar. We must then get behind that party in a way that will guarantee the needed share of power between the pro-government Democratic Party, the pro-corporate Republican Party and the newly established People’s Party. When I imagine a three party government that grapples for, shares and checks power for the betterment of government, corporations and individuals, I can see a better future for all the citizens of The United States of America.

But I don't have all the answers...just some ideas. Disagree? Take me to task! Post your response now, I promise, it will not fall upon deaf ears.

My View on Values

2009-07-17T19:29:00.004-06:00

I was watching a news program tonight when the story of Walter Cronkite's passing came to light. Like so many things in our cultures history, my personal perspective of Walter sits where the formation of HBO, MTV and the burgeoning cable channel era along with the transition of news mainly being delivered in the form of paper to being delivered by television and then by internet and now watching the transition of news being derived and reported by professional journalists, to being augmented and, who knows, maybe even replaced (although I sincerely hope not) by us, the interested and now participating news consumer. I watched as we got our first Space Shuttle flight and landing, forgoing the pervious towering rocket and splash down pod landings. I watched in utter amazement at the Jackson 5, special effects spectacular, video, "Can You Feel It", and have now seen the passing of the groups, and possibly the world's, greatest star, Michael Jackson.

Just this morning, I was watching Krull and remembered fondly how I once thought of that movie as the one of the greats in special effects and now view it's visual pageantry as quaint and cheesy. My life seems to span the new modern era to the post modern era, and while I am very excited for the future of what may come, I am also reverent of the past, and that it is, ever so quickly, fading away. This, more than any other motivation, is what has inspired me to finally join the blogging fray. While I may get booed off the page, my hope is that I will inspire a reaction to involve you to action and participation on these discussions, topics, rants and raves of the very near future.

However...where to begin? Maybe, at the beginning...or at least...to present an homage to the fundamentals. Values. My Values in particular. Where am I coming from? What is my drive and desire? What am I hoping to accomplish, outside of readership.

My values, at least in the context of this and all other public forums, have nothing to do with personal morality. Personal morality is for yourself, myself and what ever God or universe you may believe in. People of all or no faith's are often quite fond of reminding us at this point of Christ's defense of the adulterer lending us the line of "Let he who among you is without sin, cast the first stone.", however, what they miss is the obvious fact that Christ, at that moment, was saying that that woman's choice was between her, the men involved and their God, not the false pieties of the mob, who have no personal investment.

I feel this is important to note because it goes to present a case which states that these kinds of values, the values of personal morality, are far too often used by those seeking political gain to distract and manipulate us from the values which are much more fundamental, absolutely universal and are in effect for us all.

Those universal values are the most simple and fundamental. How does one define terms of "good" or "bad"?

For myself, those terms are values that equate to other values. To me, "good" is a value that encompasses the equating values of "life", "growth", "individual freedom", "peace", "prosperity", "fun", "understanding", "compassion", "grace", "positive", "health" and "longevity". I am sure there are others, but at some point I have to stop, and I think I have given enough to make the clear impact of intention desired.

"Bad" is equated by values of "death", "atrophy", "individual confinement or restriction", "war", "disaster", "crime", "self-centeredness", "indifference", "indecency", "negative", "disease" and "evanescence".

While some of those reading this now may think this trite, let me inspire you with an analogy of a star studded but losing, sports franchise (think of the Yankee's). In my estimation, when you have a team comprised of an all-star line up, at just about every position, yet still struggle to even crack the top of your division, I believe the problem is a lack of focus on the fundamentals of the game. Instead of coaching fundamentals and letting the talent appear on the field, the coaches or managers may, instead look to extract the talent from it's marquee line up and the shift away from the fundamentals allows other teams who must focus on fundamentals to surpass the stars (in pinstripes).

The very same thing happens to us as a whole nation. The lack of focus on universal fundamentals, which affect us all, regardless of religious belief, is what builds the nest that comforts a collection of institutions that are, by and large, free of punitive accountability. Which, in turn, have disastrous effects on the lives of everyday people. If we were to, instead, reinvest our attention to the universal values, afore mentioned, and develop litmus tests to measure those in high office of any government branch, post or corporate leadership, we would find ourselves not having those that lead us today, but instead, a high quality of leadership, in every guiding venue, which would (at least in my theory of the world) bring everyday individuals to greater prosperity. This should also lead to a drop in crime, disease, malfeasance, malnutrition and death.

I am, an unabashed, idealist. And like so many greater persons before me, I will attempt to bring my idealism to practical practice. However, that means understanding that there will be the quickly inevitable conflict of values that bring all bright things to confusion. For simple example, while I am pro-growth, a step that a company might take for huge growth may come at the expense of many individuals. In this case, I think it is important to look at the differing values of both loss and gain and weigh them with the appropriate measurements. In my estimation, those who are the poorest, receive a larger measurement value than those that are more prosperous. My own personal morality is in play here, however, so is my universal values. The reasoning behind that is because, overwhelmingly speaking, what ever social economic level is fed by new growth, so grows the all economic levels above them. So if a society were to give new resources to the poorest, those poor would exhaust those resources on their unmet needs and wants, in turn, bringing new resources to the middle poor, then the middle class, then the upper-middle class, to the lower executive class and so on and so forth. While bringing new resources to very wealthiest of us, may or may not, feed any economic levels below them. Maybe they hire new people, maybe not, and if so, how many, if any, would come from the ranks of the poorest? Maybe the wealthiest spend more money than they did before, maybe not? And if they did, how much of that money would go to luxury spending that renew the resources of the upper classes and how much of it would be spent that would renew the resources of the poorest of us? Maybe, and most likely, in our society, the wealthiest of us would opt, instead, to sink their shiniest coin into the gamble of suedo-investing, before they would, only by necessity, pay those moneys out to vendors or employees or new projects, which does almost no one, any measurable amount of good. However, sometimes the opposite is true, which has also happened.

Either way, I do support what ever will create the most guaranteed positive result for the most amount of people possible. I just may not always know what that way might be, as many of you would not. Also, because no man is perfect, I may not always abide by my system of universal values, but I do strive to with constant persistence.

Do not think me anti-business. I do believe in anyone trying to make money from any worthwhile endeavor they may undertake. For example, I have, myself, created an "AdServe" account, hoping (probably against hope) that I may have some measurable readership and they may click on any of the ads that are served upon my blog page. However, because (unless I missed it somewhere, again, I am brand new to this) I do not have control over the ads served here (which I will not and can not make any personal avouchment for), I may be unwittingly supporting industries or companies I find myself at the various odds against. However it was a devil I was willing to pay dues to, in the desperate hope of gaining an income which might allow me to more focus on this blog, which, by the measurement of traffic alone, might be an endorsement of the value that people may find here. But I digress...

The point being is that, when measuring the values of "good" or "bad" the differing sides of the scales are rarely without weight. I, myself, in my estimation of the most correct universal value system, give individuals greater weight than any institution and give those that are poorer greater weight than those who have more resources available.

How about you? What is your universal system of values? Are they something you live as well as preach?

Do you disagree with me? Take me to task! Post your response now, I promise, it will not fall upon deaf ears.