Table of Contents
Healthcare seems to be one of those issues which everybody is looking at the wrong way. That is, they are looking at various schemes to pay for our existing system without really reforming it. You would only need to eliminate four or five major abuses, and the cost savings would be so great that the question of HOW you paid for it would cease to be overwhelming.
What is really needed is what Theodore Roosevelt called “Trust Busting”. Key points would be:
1. Elimination of lawsuits against doctors and other medical providers, and you would have to do two other things at the same time. There would be a general fund to compensate victims of malpractice for actual damage and a non-inbred system for weeding out those guilty of malpractice. The non-inbred system would be a tribunal composed not just of other doctors, but of plumbers, electricians, engineers, and everybody else as well.
2. Elimination of the artificial exclusivity of the medical system. In other words our medical schools could easily produce two or three times the number of doctors they do with no noticeable drop off in quality.
3. Elimination of the factors which drive the cost of medicines towards unaffordability. That would include both lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and government agencies which force costs into the billions to develop any new drug. There should be no suing a pharmaceutical for any drug which has passed FDA approval and it should not cost billions of dollars to get any new drug past FDA approval. But, basically, what you’re talking about here is bringing Big Pharma to heel, i.e. trust busting.
4. Elimination of the outmoded WW-II notion of triage in favor of a system which took some rational account of who pays for the system and who doesn't. The horror stories I keep reading about the middle-class guy with an injured child having to fill out forms for three hours while an endless procession of illegal immigrants just walks in and are seen, would end, as would any possibility of that child waiting three hours for treatment while people were being seen for heroin overdoses or other lifestyle issues.
5. Private/for-profit hospitals. Nobody should want hospitals owned by the federal government but, by all accounts, private/for-profit hospitals are also problematical. What we probably want would be hospitals owned by the local communities which they serve.
By far the biggest item is that first one. I don't know the exact numbers but if you add every cost involved in our present out-of-control lawyering, it has to be a major fraction if not more than half of our medical costs. The trial lawyers' guild being one of the two major pillars of financial support for the democrat party is the basic reason nobody is saying anything about that part of the problem.
Other than that, you almost have to have seen some of the problems close up to have any sort of a feel for them.
Item 2, this is what I saw in grad school some time ago, although I do not have any reason to think much has changed. In the school I attended, there appeared to be sixty or seventy first year med students walking around and all but one or two of them would have made perfectly good doctors, they were all very bright and highly motivated. The only way the school should have lost any of those kids was either they discovered they couldn't deal with the sight of blood in real life or six months later they changed their minds and went off to Hollywood to become actors or actresses; the school should never have lost more than ten percent of them. But they knew from day one that they were keeping 35% of that class.
That system says that you know several things about the guy working on your body: You know he's a survivor, and that's highly unlikely to be from being better qualified than 65% of the other students; You know he hasn't had enough sleep (he's doing his work and the work of that missing 65%); You know he's probably doing some sort of drugs to deal with the lack of sleep... Medical schools should be told that henceforth if they ever drop more than 10% of an incoming class, they'll lose their accreditation.
Item 3. My father walks into a pharmacy in Switzerland with a bottle of pills he normally pays $50 for in Fla. and asks the pharmacist if he can fill it. "Why certainly sir!", fills the bottle of pills and says "That will be $3.50." Seeing that my father was standing there in a state of shock, the man says "Gee, I'm sorry, Mr. H., you see, we have socialized medicine in Switzerland and if you were a Swiss citizen and paid into the system, why I could sell you this bottle of pills for $1.50 but, since you're foreign and do not pay into the system I have to charge you the full price, certainly you can appreciate that."
The guy thought my father was in shock because he was charging him too MUCH... Clearly whatever needs to be done with drugs amounts to trust busting, and not extracting more money from the American people.
Item 4. A caller to the Chris Plant show (D.C./WMAL) recently, an ER nurse, noted that much of the costs which her hospital had to absorb, as do most hospitals, was the problem of people with no resources using the ER as their first and only point of contact to the medical profession. She said that there were gang members who were constantly coming in for repairs from bullet holes and knife damage and drug problems, that they could not legally turn any of those people away, and that there was zero possibility of ever collecting any money from any of them, and that the costs of that were gigantic.
Throwing money at that problems is not going to help anything either. In a reasonable world, those guys would be cared for but not at the ER or at least not the part of the ER where normal people go, and they would not be first in line.
Again, all of these issues boil down to trust busting. You would only need to fix four or five major abuses, and the question of HOW we paid for health care would cease to be overwhelming.
The money and banking system which was set up in 1913, along with the income tax and IRS which was set up to pay interest on debt while using debt as a primary basis for money, has reached the end of its useful lifespan. Glass-Steagal should be implemented immediately, the so-called "Super Priority" of derivative counterparties should be abolished immediately, and a major effort should be made to devise a rational system of money for the United States. The Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the income tax should be abolished, and the power to coin money itself should be reclaimed by congress and state and local governments. No rational government should ever borrow money into existence.
The following is my understanding of the program which the LaRouche organization is advocating for the restoration of the U.S. economy. I am not on board with LPAC on 100% of all issues and there are some big areas of disagreement but, in the subject areas which they are good at, they are supremely good and to my thinking cannot be safely ignored.
· The first and mandatory objective is the restoration of the Glass/Steagall law. That by itself will not fix everything but without it, we're basically doomed. Again, the effect of that law was to protect the money which runs the physical economy of the nation from the clutches of the investment bankers who would otherwise seek to use it as collateral for shaky schemes, particularly derivative trading. With the G/S law now on the platforms of both parties, there would appear to be no reason not to re-enact it immediately.
· The elimination of fictitious derivative "debt" and the orderly bankruptcy of the investment banks wound up with it. Once separated from commercial banking by the G/S law, those banks would no longer be "too big to fail".
· The creation of a national system of credit for necessary infrastructure and other necessary projects. That could take the form of a third National Bank such as existed in the early 1800s although presumably not in private hands, or it could take the form of state banks like that Bank of North Dakota in all states or some combination of those kinds of ideas. That state bank is the main thing which has kept ND immune from the grief of recent years. The Public Banking idea has its own organization and website (http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org).
· A major jobs program such as Donald Trump is advocating, but which has to look 50 years into the future and not 50 years into the past. The jobs have to be meaningful and involve things like infrastructure and other construction, space exploration, and generally things which cannot be done by robots. To the extent possible, the technologies should be things like carbon fiber (future) and not steel (past). You'd still need steel for railroad rails, ships, rifle barrels etc.
· A renewed and re-invigorated space program as a main "science driver" (LPAC's term) for our economy. To my own thinking, that has to begin with blasting our present manned space program out of the black-op lala-land which it presently inhabits, and it has to involve archaeology on places like Mars and Ganymede for starters, and possibly also on Titan and other bodies within our system. The most major goal should be a vastly better understanding of the history of our own system and our own species going back at least to the beginnings of technological civilizations within our system. In other words, we cannot go out into deep space in the condition of amnesia victims, without knowing who and what exactly we actually are.
Whatever we do for a national credit system should not involve gold. ALL money is fiat money; any value which anybody attaches to gold or silver beyond their relatively minimal values as electrical conductors is based on psychology and psychiatry and not on economics or physics.
Since World War II ended, military building has been being used as a primary driving engine for the U.S. economy, the thinking apparently being that that worked during WW-II, and when something works, you stick with it. The problem is that if you build for WW-IV, WW-V, WW-VI etc. long enough, sooner or later it will happen.
Again, there does not appear to be any reason why the Glass/Steagall law could not be implemented now, and at least give Barrack Obama the opportunity to veto it and thereby fully expose himself as a Bond villain before the whole world.
The first item of meaningful political reform HAS TO BE runoff elections or instant runoff elections for all public offices. Nobody should ever fear to vote his first choice, at least on a first ballot, and nobody should ever hold any public office with less than 50% of the vote.
There should be a None-Of-Above choice on all ballots for public office and if that choice ever wins, then the other candidates should be barred for life from holding ANY public office and the parties sponsoring them should be barred for at least ten years from sponsoring candidates for that particular office. The penalty for running dead wood for public offices should be severe. If that law had been in effect in 2008 for instance, the United States would have had a joyous ten-year reprieve from the democrat and republican parties.
There should also be some mechanism to prevent utterly unqualified people from holding high offices. Certainly, a candidate for president or vice president, or for US Senator or member of the House of Representatives should need to obtain the same basic and simple secret level security clearance which anybody would need to be a guard at the gate of any military base in our land. That isn't asking for much but it would have spared us from the last two democrat presidents.
Another item on such a list would be a provision that when a president is impeached and removed, his VP goes out the door with him and the office is either vacant until the next election or an emergency election is held to fill the office for the remainder of the current term. Granted removing a president should be difficult but it should not be impossible and if we couldn't remove Slick, we'd not have been able to remove Hitler or Nero either.
Another item on such a voters' bill of rights should be something which would eliminate voting fraud for all time.
Our entire voting system is fubar and needs to be replaced and a fraud-proof system. Possibilities include:
· The nuclear option: get rid of the secret ballot altogether and have individuals’ contact info and vote stored on some national database which was checkable only for verification/fraud-prevention purposes.
· A combination of biometrics and p2p networking and the idea that ANYBODY could do his own vote tally and that all tallies should match. This would involve a voter keeping his/her own vote on his/her own computer with a fingerprint reader like you see on all govt computers and a record of the voter’s contact info and a biometric reading on a national database, and a p2p network to allow ANYBODY to do his own tally by calling for votes the same way you'd ask or a copy of "you aint nothing but a hound dog" on Kazaa; all tallies should produce the same number within statistical limits.
· The idea of using BitCoin/BlockChain technology for voting, (http://www.followmyvote.com); that might be the best option.
There is also a question as to the extent the people should be voting on some issues directly since we now have the technology to allow that, while the founding fathers did not. You could get some of the social issues settled once and for all and out of politics, and you could limit the scope for corruption and bribery by letting the people themselves settle at least some kinds of issues.
Ted Cruz has noted the
following agencies as obvious candidates for being shut down:
· Internal Revenue Service – to dramatically simplify the tax code and enable everyone to fill out their taxes on a postcard or smartphone app.
· Department of Education – to return education to those who know our students best: parents, teachers, local communities, and states. And to block-grant education funding to the states.
· Department of Energy – to cut off the Washington cartel, stop picking winners and losers, and unleash the energy renaissance.
· Department of Commerce – to close the “congressional cookie jar” and promote free enterprise and free trade for every business.
· Department of Housing and Urban Development – to offer real solutions that lift people out of hardship, rather than trapping families in a cycle of poverty, and to empower hurting Americans by reforming most of the remaining programs, such as Section 8 housing.
Obviously dysfunctional agencies like the VA should be shut down as well (it would be cheaper to simply provide veterans with unlimited ebt cards for medical services), as should any government agency which can be shown to have persecuted American citizens for exercising constitutional rights and freedoms. BLM and Fish/Wildlife are obvious candidates.
Ever wonder how states like Florida whose legislatures are overwhelmingly Republican still vote for bad dem candidates for president, or how you get a dem senator in a place like Louisiana? What you're seeing is that manufacturing votes cannot buy a state house. In other words, dems can manufacture all the votes they want in places like Dade County or Philly, and the GOP will still win its own territories, it's only in a national or statewide race that vote manufacturing can decide a race for a public office.
That says that the very first thing we need to do is rescind the 17'th amendment and return the election of US senators to the state houses.
The US capital should probably be made into a museum. Why should anybody living in Nebraska for instance, want their US senators living and working full time in Maryland or Virginia or D.C. with lobbyists working full-time to bribe and influence them, while they are largely out of reach to their constituents in Nebraska? Nothing in private industry works that way anymore other than factories; every other sort of business is now conducted via Live-Meeting, Go-2-Meeting, Skype, Google Hangouts, and airplanes. The ONLY reason the US congress should ever need to be together in one place any more would be to declare war and, for that, they could rent out some football stadium for two days.
In a totally rational world the job of District Attorney as it is known in America would not exist. NOBODY should ever have any sort of a career or money incentive for sending people to prison, much less for executing people. The job of District Attorney in America seems to involve almost limitless power and very little resembling accountability and granted there are good people who hold the job, the attraction which the job has for psychopaths is simply too great.
DA is often the first rung in the ladder of political careers and
some of those careers are paved with the blood and shattered lives of
innocents. Cases which are well known and easy to research on the
internet include those of Janet Reno and her witch hunts, Scott
Harshbarger, Mike Nifong, Martha Cloakley who almost became a US
senator from Massachusetts, Ronnie Earle who managed to convict Tom
Delay of being a Republican, that lunatic sheriff of Wenatchee Wa.
who almost succeeded in having Wenatchee disincorporated when it
could no longer buy insurance, the prosecutors in that hideous David
Camm case in Indiana, the “Kids for Cash” judge and the
prosecutors involved in that disaster in Scranton Pa., Angela Corey,
Marilyn Mosby, and the list goes on.
What is actually needed is to scrap the adversarial system of justice and the job of DA altogether and adopt the inquisitorial system used in France in which the common incentive of all governmental parties involved in a criminal case is a determination of facts.
The "War on Drugs" and the Prison/Industrial Complex should be ended immediately, along with "No-Knock Raids".
The "war on drugs" leads to
"No-knock" raids, which are a clear violation of the fourth amendment and of the common-law principle of a man's home being his "castle". In fact, technically, a homeowner who were to shoot and kill one or more government agents in the process of conducting a "no knock" raid would be entirely within his or her rights.
The incarceration of large numbers of people who would otherwise never have had contact with prison systems. For many this amounts to a career training program for serious crime.
Gang wars, drive-by shootings and the like.
Corruption, the rise of drug cartels, and outright civil wars in other nations which supply drugs to the illegal drug enterprises here.
It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:
The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.
Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.
Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.
"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."
The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.
A rational set of drug laws would:
Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e. take every dime out of that business for criminals.
Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and/or other Jeckyl/Hyde formulas.
Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.
Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?
Until recently, my basic take on immigration has been the following:
As in the case of the "War on Drugs(TM)", the only real solution is to take the profit out of it and in this case the profit is measured in votes.
We need a law and possibly a constitutional amendment requiring a person to be a US citizen for 18 years before they ever vote in a US election. That would not be difficult to justify; I had to be a US citizen for eighteen years before I ever voted in a US election and I don't see any immigrant group which appears better or more deserving of rights than I am.
What is going on both in Europe and the U.S. at the present time, however is more nefarious than that and involves some sort of an overarching plan/scheme to eliminate nation states altogether. That can only be stopped by permanently breaking the power of the globalist idiots responsible for it.
Aside from every other political problem which the United States faces, there is the question of our driving rules having been established in the 1920s through the 1940s . The actual situations on our highways and byways have changed quite a lot, but the rules of the road haven't . A few suggestions: