Richard's Chase After Truth

Evolution and the Internet

2011-09-24T07:55:00.000-07:00

But evolution is not "survival of the fittest." It is "survival of the reproducers." It may take many generations, but the evolutionary result of the Internet age will be determined by what form of human is more successful at reproduction. Are computer programmers more attractive to mates? Do poor people with more physical contact and less Internet access produce more babies? Do isolated survival communities produce more offspring without exposure to toxins at the same level as in the "civilized" communities? This is fun to think on. Enjoy today, for tomorrow you will die. -- Politics: Will the advance of a co-dependent socialist society be more reproductive than a one with a global corporate oligarchy? Too close to call.

What do you think? Comment -->

FIRST: Do No Harm

2011-08-05T07:24:00.000-07:00

Senator Thune
Senator Johnson
Representative Noem

---

82% disapproval of Congress! Of course, they're just a bunch of dumb puppets.

---

Well, that is too harsh. But the point is that we elected popular people because we thought they were smart and far-sighted enough to see the next 100 years in the US.

Instead of all of them being thinkers, we see we got a bunch of followers of their "political party." That is not right, correct, or smart on any level. It is lazy, it is an abdication of responsibility.

Every one of our Legislators do not need to be the leader of the pack, but they can use their intelligence and education (probably subsidized by the Government) to work on making life better for the masses -- that is, better for "the governed." (Remember, leaders only get their authority by consent of "the governed.")

We have a good framework in our Constitution. It has worked well for 220 years. The success may have given some of our Legislators an excessive confidence that it will survive any assault.

Part of what makes ours a powerful government is that the governed people can choose to change or cancel it at anytime. That is a risk and responsibility that comes with freedom.

With some of our new and naive Legislators holding to an economic policy position that is not based on science, they can quite easily destroy our America in less 50 years. We have a serious problem. Our great country may not survive. It is not a failing of our Constitutional system. It is a failure of the people in the Legislature who have grown up in a safe and secure country and think that it was there when they were born, so it will be there forever.

We need your vigilance. We need a certain element of paranoia about the survival of our Country in our thinking. We can, firstly, protect the stability of the system we have. Secondly, we can guide it to a theoretical goal. But we must first do no harm.

The extreme "tea party" has a point worth discussing, that there be no increase in taxes. We would all like to have government services (social and infrastructure) for free.

(If you know anyone who has signed a "no new taxes" pledge, please assure them that we will forgive them if they tear up that paper. It was one simple idea that does not apply to our current crisis, though the point is well taken.)

We can even have a discussion about the role of government -- social safety nets, sanitation and highway construction and maintenance, education, defense, regulation to protect consumers or standardize rules of commerce, and so forth. But we ought not test the current systems by destroying it. (To "not test the current system" is a conservative concept -- a priori.)

We will not survive tests by destruction.

---

Do we balance a budget by adjust expenses and income?

Does the half of the population with an IQ less than 100 deserve a secure retirement, perhaps something minimal that has with very little exposure to volatile financial markets?

Should high school drop outs have access to health care, if they are unemployed?

Could there be some Viet Nam or Cold War weapons in the Defense Department that could be canceled?

Answer yes or no, these questions can be studied.

There is no doubt that some businesses have been quite profitable in our system. They are grateful and willing to pay more taxes because they want to thank us and they will still have more money than 95% of us.

Think!

Think about it!

What will put the most money into circulation? Cutting back on government spending to private contractors or contracting for road repair?

Both will "increase the National Debt." But will cutting spending (which slows growth, hence, reduces future revenue) or increasing spending (which can be paid for with future revenue) make our economy better in 10 years?

We will increase our debt by cutting spending because it takes a big source of money out of circulation. ("Circulation" means that it is re-spent, promoting commerce.)

Building roads, for example, will increase our debt, and it will increase our ability to pay off the debt with improved commerce.

Corporations should be able to see that they need government financed infrastructure to get power and get their goods to market -- even electronic services.

Government spending is good for business. Therefore, an appropriate position for Republicans.

In-come and Out-go

2011-07-26T05:22:00.000-07:00

Dear Member of the United States Congress:

You and your cohorts in the United States of America Congress (which includes the Senate and the House of Representatives) are making a circus out of the supposed headquarters of responsibility.

EVERY ECONOMIST will tell you that there are two things to adjust to overcome debt --
1. Reduce Spending, and
2. Increase Income!

Why can we "common people" see the truth in that, while some of our intelligent and elected representatives insist on a "cuts-only" approach. The United States Budget is not a special exception to the rule.

Another and SEPARATE issue is the Debt Ceiling. Republican "leaders" on their own, without approval from Republican legislators like you, have maliciously claimed to link budget reconciliation to the Debt Ceiling. The Constitution says we will pay our debts. To not increase the Debt Limit would be to violate the Constitution.

Of course, under the Constitution, the Executive can pay the bills without any agreement from the Congress. Congress is responsible for authorizing the liabilities in the first place. So Congress has already authorized the Executive to make the payments.

(By the way, Social Security has not caused any of the debt. Social Security is one of the debts that the General Fund has to pay back.)

Consumer Protection from What?

2011-07-25T14:49:00.000-07:00

With a title like "Consumer Protection," there must be an opponent to Consumers. Otherwise, we would not need protection. There are two sides to the problem.

See the video introducing "The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Law."

It may sound "just philosophical," but there is a need to protect people from themselves. There are marketers and consumers. They are all people, but when they get into their roles of selling and needing to buy, there can be abuses in a system where getting the biggest profit is what the sellers want to do; and where the best buy is what the consumer want to get.

The recession we are in now was not caused by bad luck. It was caused by consumers who used the easy application for loans to get houses they couldn't afford to pay for; and by the lenders who made loans that they knew couldn't be paid, but they looked good as an "asset" on their books. It made a "bubble" of loan values to sell on the stock market. When the borrowers could not meet the payments, the truth was exposed that the loans were not backed by buyers who could make the payments. We all suffer because the "financial market" could not keep the cash flowing.

The taxpayers of the US gave money to the financial institutions to keep them in business until the cash can circulate and personal income can match the value of the loans. It is going to be a long and difficult process.

Could we keep this from happening again?

See the video introducing "The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Law."

Yes, we have a Wall Street Reform law that will help make it easier for the borrowers to see bad things that could happen, like what has happened with "variable interest rates." And the Reform and Protection Law will protect lenders from over-extending their reserves because of clear requirements they must meet.

Please distribute the video as best as you can.

Thanks for participating, Richard's Chase After Truth

How to Balance and Keep a Promise

2011-06-29T20:35:00.000-07:00

Dear Representative Noem --

You are in the esteemed office of U.S. House of Representatives to work to solve problems. I thank you for you efforts of applying your intelligence and labor to our nation's needs.
The US Budget is out of balance because the amount of the liabilities is not covered by our revenue. There are three parts of the classic accounting model on which the world's economies are based.
All business uses the formula A=E+L. That is Asset value is equal to the sum of the value of Equity held by the owner(s) plus the debt obligations.

Assets includes the
value of current and potential property and services. One item to consider in budgeting is Revenue -- that would be the money received in the course of operations. If the cash in does not match or exceed the debt payment cash outflow, the life of the business is limited and the business is not credit worthy.
Equity is the part of ownership value held and used by the owners. In the case of our democratic Government, it is the ownership share held by the taxpayers, of the infrastructure, social programs, and revenue of the Government.
Liability value is the total debt that has accrued from borrowing money to keep the business of Government running and to pay the expenses of operation.

When the obligation of the Debt and Expenses exceeds the Revenue, there is a crisis. The Government will have to quickly address the shortfall by adjusting all three parts of the equation, A=E+L.

We have to reduce spending. With only 12% of spending within control of the Congress and President, we will have limited affect by reducing some of these discretionary expenses.
The other 88% of spending will have to come under study. That would include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, and the Department of Defense. The first four that I listed are “entitlements” that can be adjust at several points to increase revenue and reduce expenses for the Government without shifting the burden of cost to the beneficiaries..
The Defense Department consumes more than 50% of the Revenue, so it is one large area that can be adjusted. It has been given nearly everything it requests for over 65 years, so there are probably some internal cultural practices that promote nearly uncontrolled spending. The Department of Defense is most certainly spending on projects that have no direct application to our current security needs. So, a reduction of more than 25% would be possible.
The next source of debt reduction is by increasing income or revenue. The US Government cannot get a second job. We have enough to do with our current operation.
There are Revenue expenses called tax loop holes and exceptions that can be eliminated or reduced. Some were put in place when the Government wanted to encourage oil development 80 years ago, for example. Now, we don't need to let the well established oil industry have that exemption from taxation anymore.
A Revenue increase is essential to a solution of our debt because adjusting the other two categories of spending (discretionary and fixed) cannot even come close to covering the shortfall.

You are encouraged to adjust generously in all categories, as a responsible U.S. Representative, to carry out the mandate of your election.

You were not elected to fulfill the "Republican" agenda. For one thing, it keeps changing; and for another thing, we know you are too smart to believe any one political party has all the answers to life's issues.

(Reply appreciated.)

Fondly, Dr. Richard C. Masterson
RichardsChase.blogspot.com

Why a Safety Net?

2011-05-03T16:44:00.000-07:00

In a free market, the individuals have the freedom to invest and get a profitable return. The person who is intelligent enough and has discretionary income can hire or pay fees to invest in financial instruments. If they do it right, they are rewarded. If not, they loose.

Considering that we have over 300,000,000 people in our country, and that the Congress is in a position to set policy that will assist and aid all of them
to a financially secure retirement. It behooves Legislators to consider a very large and broad application of laws, regulations and programs.

For reasons of Christian ethics and to contain costs of extended catastrophic care, our plans must include the mentally handicapped, retarded, physically handicapped, low wage earner (a lot of workers earn less than poverty level wages), and those susceptible to aggressive investment salesmen. I would expect that is something on the order of 50,000,000 souls.

That is why we need safety nets. Not to compete with individual investment opportunities in the market place. Our Social Security and Medicare do not detract from the market as much as they save our citizens from ill health and financial ruin. Individuals can still invest in the market place however they are able.

We love our friends and neighbors enough to see that every one of them -- all of them -- have a secure retirement outlook with a set of minimal "safety nets" that are independent of the market place.

Fondly, Dr Richard Masterson
CC: RichardsChase.blogspot.com

"Obama vs. Free Speech, Again"*

2011-04-25T08:53:00.000-07:00

"In its Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court held that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they join together to form businesses."*

Did you read that correctly? The author of that statement, whoever it is, thinks that by forming a corporation, the stockholders are giving up
their free speech rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that the stockholders who form a synthetic corporation have formed another agent with it's own right to free speech. When corporations are denied free speech, how would that take free speech rights away from individuals? Corporations are the product of law, not biology or residency. So, how does a corporation get rights that are the same as those of a human that is live-born, has independent thought, and has a vote?

This is not an example of "honest discussion." We need to be using the same vocabulary, or to explain ourselves fully, to avoid miss-communications with consequences such as extreme polarization and bias, in spite of common interests.

Please leave your Comments

________________
"Obama vs. Free Speech, Again," no author, nationalreview.com/archive, 2011 Apr 25.

Shal I Cry or Vomit?

2011-04-18T12:22:00.000-07:00

About Representative Noem's first 100 days --

I am a US Citizen who feels the pain of a high national debt, and I know that the security in America that makes entrepreneurs confident to try new businesses and hire new workers is because of our safety nets of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Now you tell me you want to tear all that down? What should I do, cry or vomit. It is profoundly emotional to me and to millions of others -- some of whom are not voters because they are too poor and illiterate.

Don't we want Christian ethics to prevail? Don't we want to help those in need? Along the way, could we set up financial and health care minimums that are independent of the whims of a market.

I have heard and read some "conservatives" (Some of them make it into a bad word by their behavior.) suggest that the market place has made computers cheaper because of consumer pressure and free competition, so this ought to be the model for the entire market system. Whoa!

I am a retired doctor. I have seen the results of the quest for financial security in health care. It is not pretty, or healthy.

Some services are personal and yet come from the community. Health care, roads, education, and many others cannot be done on an open market. The downside from the losses is too serious. A publicly financed source of these is the humane and Christian solution -- not part voucher market.

Those who choose, and can afford to, can opt out at their own expense, to an alternative. So the free market will still be there; public education does not put a lid on schooling; public sponsored health care does not prohibit "Hollywood resort" care.

I want to cry when my Representative, the only one I have, wants to tear down laws that are in place. Your constituent newsletter tells me that you are against anything that comes from the President Obama administration. Sorry, but that is not reasonable, as wrong as you may think some of his policies may be.

You are in office to solve our problems.

(I can imagine someone thinking, "But Obama is the problem." Such pre-judgment of the President who shares an interest in making America better, is totally out of touch with reality. Yes, some of Obama's ideas are wrong. But he is smart and compassionate -- two traits that will help YOU work out solutions with him.)

(The problems we have are not DOMA, Affordable Health Care Law, simply overspending in the budget, and so forth.)

Please find a way to make friends with everyone in Washington, and keep Americans secure with a retirement plan and medical plan that do not use a competitive market to make them "cheaper." "Cheaper" is not better for those who can't afford an insurance premium at all. Those are the ones Jesus told us to care for -- widows, orphans, poor.

Fondly, Dr. Richard Masterson
CC: RichardsChase.blogspot.com

A survey before we talk --

2011-04-17T21:43:00.000-07:00

1. Do you think people will ever populate the the earth in enough numbers to use up the oil or water or land? Ever?

2. Do you think it might be possible for very rich companies use advertising, and money and fame rewards to some people, to get them to make laws that will let companies sell whatever they want to whomever they want for any price they want? Could it be possible?

Click on Comments below or send email to survey@genehunter.us with your response.

Why? It's “The Audacity of Hope”

2011-04-08T13:36:00.000-07:00

I have read the book. Now I understand. I think I agree very much with what Barack Obama is saying. In my head I am sure of it.

But, the rest of the world has not publicly discussed these thoughts: Why should I care about the poor, disabled, or underemployed? Why should I not keep all the money I have earned, and persist in using my own ingenuity to get more if I allow other people the right to gain or loose as they choose or are able?

Some of the answers available to these kinds of questions can be very selfish and self-destructive. Of course, those who answer thus become so self-indulged that they don't see other people starving or ill; or that other people could have lost all they had to enrich another. The self-gratifyers see those as problems that are the result of the “loser’s” own lack of initiative – there are no such things as good or bad birth place, social prejudices, mental or physical infirmity, or fraudulent abuse, that should be of any concern to the selfish. As long as the “winners” have money, they rationalize, they can get food, housing, transportation, music, entertainment, without any concern for the welfare of others.

At the extreme, this can make a polarized population. That polarization that will reduce productivity for everyone in an environment of polarized animosity.

President Obama has written:

“Ultimately, though, I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in “either/or” thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace “socialized medicine.”

“...[It] works well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government.“

“What's needed is a broad majority of Americans ... who are reengaged in the project of national renewal, and who see their own self-interest as inextricably linked to the interests of others”*

*Obama, Barack, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Crown Publishers, New York, 2006, pages 39-40.

Christian Treatment of the Poor

2011-04-07T21:01:00.000-07:00

The traditions of Western Civilization and our Judea-christian heritage demand that we develop a social policy that conforms to inspired writings. Here are 12 of the verses:

Old Testament on kind treatment of the Poor:

"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you
to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11

"Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns." Deuteronomy 24:14

"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." Proverbs 14:31

"He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done." Proverbs 19:17

Advise to those who are not kind to the poor:

"'Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow...." Deuteronomy 27:19

"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished." Proverbs 17:5

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich -- both come to poverty." Proverbs 22:16

" So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against … those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me,' says the LORD Almighty." Malachi 3:5

In the Gospels

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matthew 25:35

"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40

"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind." Luke 14:13

"Beware of the teachers of the law . . . They devour your widows' houses . . . Such men will be punished severely." Luke 20:46-47

Easily email your US Legislators --

2011-04-01T12:32:00.000-07:00

You get to your US Legislator's "email form" by going to TheirName.house.gov for a Representative, and TheirName.senate.gov for your senator. Then click on "Contact" and "Email."

If you don't connect to TheirName, simply go to house.gov or senate.gov to find them in the directory. (And you can find current activities and bills at congress.gov.)

You will have the nuisance of filling in several form blanks, but that is what puts more value on your email letter than a regular email message that could be spam. So, fill in the blanks, select the topic, type your message, and click submit. Some will ask you again, on another screen, if you really want to send the message.

Representatives and Senators do read and tally the email forms that you send. They need to hear from you.

Please, write to them today, and often hereafter. Put their Contact Form in your Favorite Bookmarks.

How Conservatives can cut the US Budget

2011-04-01T08:56:00.000-07:00

RE: Representative Noem's contribution appeal

Dear Representative Noem and Her Fundraisers --

Please cut spending where you can while IMPROVING roads, and IMPROVING education, and IMPROVING access to the Internet for everyone, and IMPROVING farmers' long term survival better than short term subsidies do, for examples. All these examples will improve our quality of life and increase the potential for increased tax
revenue from the improved business environment, hence, they reduce the debt. Think about the next 50 or 100 years.

Please, Do Not Take Away What We Have.

If you can improve the Affordable Care Law, you've got our support, for another example. (It's cheaper than the cost of the "repeal" effort that the extreme Tea Party proposes, too.)

Tearing down what has been done, does not prove strength.

The Republican Education & Republican Workforce Committee

2011-01-21T15:13:00.000-08:00

Our House of Representative has been invaded by a disease. The majority party is claiming "ownership" of the committees.

You may have thought you had a legislature that represented the voters. Think again.

Representative Kline (Minnesota) chairs the Education & Workforce Committee. He makes it clear in his electronic newsletter that broadcasts the weekly wrap up. He lists the Republican members of the committee. He publishes opinion/editorials espousing the extreme conservative view.

You may have thought that a committee was formed to study an issue to produce the best outcome for the United States. Think again.

This E&W Committee Newsletter is so short sighted and ego-centric that there is not even an opt-out or unsubscribe link.

There is a valid Conservative political philosophy, but this is not it.

A Clear Definition of the Two Sides

2011-01-14T15:45:00.000-08:00

"One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

"The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them
to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty." *

What do you think? Can we do both? Is there something in between? Is there a mix that will appease both?
____________________________________
Paul Krugman, "A Tale of Two Moralities," New York Times (nytimes.com), 2011 January 13.

Conservative Speaks to the Problem

2011-01-13T10:01:00.000-08:00

Here is evidence that not all conservatives are at the extreme reactionary end of the political scale. This is a paragraph from Conrad Black's op-ed* that enumerates the failures of the "political class." I would give it a score of more than 95% accurate. I ask each of you to let your legislators know that you want them to TAKE ACTION on one or more specific issue from this list. This is a list of topics where all our legislators can ""find common ground". (Mr. Boehner does not want to use the word "compromise.") Let's just do it!

"The political class has done nothing to alleviate a dependence on foreign oil that makes the U.S. a co-combatant on each side of the War
on Terror because of its contribution to the wealth of petroleum-exporting states that finance Muslim extremism. The political class has mired almost the entire conventional-ground-forces military capability of the United States in an unremitting area among ungrateful people for almost a decade at a cost of trillions of dollars, over 5,000 American servicemen’s lives, and tens of thousands of American casualties. The political class has presided over a shocking deterioration of the education standards of the country, done nothing to address the excessive cost and uneven availability of medical care, and the descent of the justice system into a racket in which the whole system of checks and balances is threatened by a rogue prosecutocracy that mindlessly or maliciously prosecutes whomever it wishes and has so deformed the Bill of Rights that it is successful 95 percent of the time. (There are 47 million Americans with a criminal record, and the U.S. has six to twelve times as many incarcerated people as other prosperous and advanced democracies such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.) The decline of the influence and prestige and economic and moral strength of the United States in the world in the last 20 years has been precipitous. The politicians have failed, the system is failing, the people don’t like it, and, at some point, some of the crazy ones become violent." *
__________________________________
* Conrad Black, "Tucson and the Failure of the Political Class," The National Review Online (nationalreview.com), 2011 Jan 10. Mr. Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom and Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. He can be reached at cbletters@gmail.com.
__________________________________

The list of some of the issues where

"the politicians have failed [and] the people don't like it":

Move toward energy independence
Extract ourselves from financing both the extremists and our wars with them
Improve education to compete globally
Equalize the cost of, and access to medical care
Reduce the number and size of legal settlements

"Buy American"

2011-01-08T10:53:00.000-08:00

This is my sign. But in 1984, Wal-Mart had a "Buy American" campaign that seems to have ended when the mark-up profit was greater with goods from China -- despite the kind of labor, the pollution, the discipline of the labor force, the government subsidies that skew the balance of the business economy, the harm to local labor and markets, et cetera.

(Please help me find online, the old Buy American advertisements. Also, I would like to find the original eSurance animated character, before "Pink.")

Reaganite Ideas and Some Dissent

2010-12-31T15:34:00.000-08:00

Deroy Murdock has written “Three Ideas for the New Congress.”* In this op-ed, he also shows signs of the infighting that is coming to us in 2011.

First, let’s address his three trivial ideas, which are only indicators of what some Conservatives consider to be important issue, and why they take the wrong approach on these.

1. Mr. Murdock suggests a Higher-Rate Optional Tax where a tax payer can elect to pay a higher income tax rate. He would rather not legally increase the rate for that income bracket. Does he think tax revenue (income to the government) would increase even 1% with HOT? There already is a US Treasury agency, the Bureau of the Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia, that will accept your check without any questions.

2. Require that federal structures can only be named in honor of people over ten years dead. This would save money, and reduce the embarrassment when a living honorarian is proven to be a criminal. Seems fair.

3. Amend the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act to make incandescent light bulbs on the same legal status as the energy efficient “Compact Florescent Lamps” despite the energy savings – which means less expense and less CO2. Mr. Murdock claims it would save jobs, without considering that someone still has to manufacture the new bulbs.

Secondly, he calls G.W. Bush a “socialist Republican” which is amusing. The Republicans are even finding those awful socialists in their midst. Watch out, other Republicans, here comes the name calling.

* “Three Simple Reaganite Ideas for the New Congress” by Deroy Murdock, National Review Online (nationalreview.com), 31 Dec 2010.

###

Please click on Comments below to post your response, or corrections . . . .

Take the Flame out of Inflamatory, PLEASE !

2010-12-29T19:30:00.000-08:00

Dear Editors of the National Review Online:

If you are interested in calming the US political scene so we can pursue happiness, you could use softer language. You use verbal construction and word choices that elicit emotional responses that are not productive, except to sell subscriptions. And, maybe, they are just journalistic emphasis to dramatize your opinion.

Consider the re-write in the right hand column. It is an effort to neutral journalism.

Thank you for you kind attention.

Fondly, Dr. Richard Chase Masterson

RichardsChase.blogspot.com

S’mores Please*

One key ingredient in Sarah Palin’s political dynamite is the cheerful scorn with which she regards Washington, a small but zesty serving of which she recently dished up for First Lady Michelle Obama and her anti-obesity crusade. During an episode of her reality show, the once (and future?) candidate cooked up a mess of hot s’mores and a side of even hotter politics, declaring: “This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.”

Palin was being over-generous in her paraphrase. What Mrs. Obama in fact said was considerably more worrisome: “We can’t just leave it up the parents.” Her particular target was unhealthful school lunches, which parents presumably require help from distant federal authorities to improve; it is clear from this and much else that the first lady envisions a very broad role for the federal government in menu planning. If her vision leaves any room for limitation on government interference in family affairs, it is impossible to detect it. Palin, responding specifically to this boundless license for federal meddling, later expanded on her views: “Instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us, according to some politician’s -- or politician’s wife’s -- priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us, as individuals, to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions.” (There is something particularly delicious in Palin’s tone when she pronounces the words “politician’s wife” -- if there should be such a thing as a Palin administration, we are confident that the apparently easygoing Mr. Palin will not evolve into the first scold.)

As is the case with practically all things Palin, this latest statement has led to a predictable chorus of harrumphing nanny-staters, not every one of whom is obviously qualified to lecture the body politic on healthful eating. CNN’s fulsome Roland Martin declared Palin’s observation “so stupid that it defies logic,” and added that the former governor is too ignorant to “understand how devastating obesity is to the future of the United States.” Defying logic, Mr. Martin, along with practically all of Mrs. Palin’s critics on the issue, is missing a piece in his argument: specifically, even a smattering of evidence that busybody campaigns of the sort in which Mrs. Obama is engaged are likely to do more good than harm when it comes to extraordinarily complex issues such as obesity -- which is indeed positioned to impose significant costs, both financial and human, on the American people.

The evidence is, in fact, to the contrary, suggesting that well-intentioned government policies will make the problem worse: To the extent that political action has thus far affected American obesity, it has been a thumb on the wrong side of the scales, subsidizing the worst kinds of foods through the farm-subsidy and school-lunch programs, and often giving out precisely the wrong kind of dietary advice.

Obesity is, in truth, among our least tractable public-health problems. It is an absolute Gordian knot of nutrition, behavior, genetics, child-rearing environments, hormonal biology, economics, and other factors too numerous and too subtle to catalog. As New York University obesity-policy scholar Rogan Kersh has noted, the problem “has proved impervious to clinical treatment or public-health exhortation,” and it is by no means clear what, if anything, public policy can accomplish, or what the best avenue for reform is, if indeed there is one. For an administration prone to smug castigation of its predecessors for their allegedly insufficient deference to scientific expertise, the Obama team is here shockingly cavalier about a scientific question of substantial depth and complexity. If Mrs. Obama, between her undergraduate major in sociology, her minor in African-American studies, and her law degree somehow managed also to acquire a great deal of expertise regarding a medical issue that has proved remarkably difficult for actual scholars and learned authorities, she has not seen fit to share how and where she acquired it.

Mrs. Obama’s “eat your veggies” crusade is at once a remarkably shallow response and a remarkably ambitious one: She may know next to nothing about the deeper issues, but she has adamant faith that the transformative quality of political power will allow even the most ignorant politician -- or politician’s wife -- to ameliorate any problem, even one that has thus far proved “impervious to clinical treatment.” By the same token, Mrs. Palin’s dismissal of that conceit contains more wisdom than is understood by political entrepreneurs of the Obama variety or by their factota in the media. Advantage: Palin.

First ladies have their causes, the general rule of which is that they do less damage the farther away from public policy they stay. If the Obama administration should happen to win the wars (and keep the won wars won) and balance the budget, head off the looming fiscal crisis, and present the American people with the head of Osama bin Laden, perhaps at that time it can get back to us about the broccoli. Until then, we have more of an appetite for Mrs. Palin’s healthy skepticism of governmental ambition than for Mrs. Obama’s overegged federal pudding: Washington has enough on its plate.

_________________________________

“S’mores Please” was written by The Editors, National Review Online, 2010 Dec 28 (nationalreview.com).

Yes, S’mores, Please*

One key ingredient in Sarah Palin’s popularity is the cheerful scorn with which she regards Washington politics, a small but zesty serving of which she recently dished up for First Lady Michelle Obama and her anti-obesity crusade. During an episode of her reality show, the former governor cooked up a mess of hot s’mores and a side of hot political comment, declaring, “This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.” Palin was being overly patronizing in her paraphrase. What Mrs. Obama in fact said was more illustrative her belief in the role of government in public health.(1) She said, “We can’t just leave it up the parents.”

Her particular target was unhealthy school lunches, independent of political philosophies, which may require standards codified by the federal government. It is clear from this and much else, that the First Lady supports the federal government’s role in school menu planning. She apparently believes that un-regulated school menu planning is not in the best interest or our greater social health.

Palin, responding to the suggestion of federal regulation, later expanded on her views when she said, “Instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us, according to some politician’s -- or politician’s wife’s -- priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us, as individuals, to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions.” (There is some sarcasm in Palin’s tone when she pronounces the words “politician’s wife” – claiming that if there should be a Palin administration, the apparently easygoing Mr. Palin would not evolve into the First Scold.)

As is the case with practically all things Palin, this latest statement has led to a response from people who believe the government has a say in public health, not every one of whom is qualified either, to lecture the body politic on healthful eating.

CNN’s effusive Roland Martin declared Palin’s observation “so stupid that it defies logic,” and added that the former governor does not have the health and public policy qualifications to “understand how devastating obesity is to the future of the United States.”

Mr. Martin, and many others, do not understand that there is little evidence that campaigns of the sort in which Mrs. Obama is engaged are likely to do more good than harm when it comes to extraordinarily complex issues such as obesity -- which is indeed positioned to impose significant costs, both financial and human, on the American people.

There is evidence that well-intentioned government policies have made the problem worse. To the extent that political action has thus far had little effect on American obesity. It has been a thumb on the scales, subsidizing questionable foods through the farm-subsidy and school-lunch programs, and often giving out potentially the wrong kind of dietary advice.

If Mrs. Obama, with her undergraduate major in sociology, minor in African-American studies, and law degree, has managed to acquire expertise regarding a medical issue that has proved difficult for other scholars and learned authorities, she would help improve public health if she would share more, including her source.

Mrs. Obama’s “eat your veggies” crusade is only one facet of a complex issue. She may know little about the deeper issues, but she has adamant faith that the transformative quality of political power will ameliorate a ubiquitous social problem, even one that has thus far proved “impervious to clinical treatment.”

By the same token, Mrs. Palin’s dismissal of that attitude as conceit may contains more wisdom than is understood by the Obama administration or by their factota in the media. The advantage may be to Pallin because First Ladys’ causes generally will leave less of a mark the father away from public policy they stay

If the Obama administration should happen to win the wars (and keep the won wars won) and balance the budget, head off the looming fiscal crisis, and present the American people with the head of Osama bin Laden, perhaps at that time the President can get back to us about the broccoli.

Until then, we have to discuss school health and nutrition by the proxies of Mrs. Palin’s healthy skepticism of governmental ambition and Mrs. Obama’s overegged federal pudding: Washington politics has enough on its plate.

____________ Notes ___________

1. That is to assure that there is a minimum level of nutrition, among other things, that our growing children need to achieve health for optimal happiness and participation in society, and to be a minimal burden on health care services and social break down due to poor health.

2. (Need citation in original article.)

_____________________________

“Yes, S’mores, Please,” was written by Dr. Richard Chase Masterson for his opinion blog at RichardsChase.blogspot.com. It is his response (re-write) to “S’more Please”, written by The Editors, National Review Online (nationalreview.com), 2010 Dec 28._

"Tea Party Burlesque" *

2010-12-27T09:26:00.000-08:00

Sub-title, "Wanting More."

We -- you, me, everyone -- are looking for fulfillment. We seek a higher purpose than work, eat, sleep.

We have a need for personal affection, appreciation, and association. Some see it as a social core value to sustain our individual selves and our future -- that is, personal future and the future of our progeny.

There is something constructive in "If it feels good, it must be right." That's because feeling good (appropriate) comes from comparing the current situation to an internal value to get an affirming result. The possibilities are infinite, depending on our internal scale.

I am writing you to suggest that we not look to "the way our predecessors did it" as the measure of the best way to proceed. On the other hand, to consider it the best way just because it is "new and different" is not necessarily true.

A rich part of my urge to belong is to get into deep conversations with people like you, without pre-judgments, to discuss even the basis of our values. We need a frank discussion about the inter-relationship of language, sex, procreation, health, wealth, markets. Developing a "long view" would be ideal. We don't have to have a mutually agreeable long view, but if we have developed our "standards and objectives" openly, we are more apt to get a result that will perpetuate the human race and enrich our current lives.

For a trite example, we need government leadership by smart people who will communicate before condemning. The leaders who value individual worthiness need to accept that there is a theoretical "free market", and the leaders who hold commerce to be the root of human development need to respect the idea that there would not be commerce without healthy individuals.

So let's get ourselves leaders who will talk about the universe between commerce and individuals. They would be leaders who do no name calling; who do not block progress just because they don't get their way in a specific issue; who do not let other leaders go unrecognized for their deviation from a quest for truth; and who promote other traits like intelligence, tolerance, and education.

The leaders we need are -- play the drum roll -- you and me. Let's write and talk and listen, guiding others to be good listeners with tolerance and patience. Let's not obstruct other's sincere efforts to improve life, without consideration of our mutual goals of comfort and survival.

Foot Note: I don't like (just an opinion, not a policy) that you referred to don't ask, don't tell without capitalizing it. It is my trivial reaction to conclude that you don't respect the value of human rights. This is an example of my trivial pre-judgement. I'm working on it, and will keep communicating. You may be right.

Fondly, Dr. Richard C. Masterson
RichardsChase.blogspot.com

__________________________________
* "Tea Party Burlesque" was written by Kathryn Jean Lopez and was published 2010 Dec 27 at NationalReview.com. Ms. Lopez is an editor-at-large of National Review Online. She can be reached at klopez@nationalreview.com. The column is available exclusively through United Media.

I Have a Really Big Dream

2010-12-18T07:50:00.000-08:00

I have a single dream. It's kind of an omni-dream. There is a central matter-space-energy continuum for all of us-it-them-those. You know, it's my god that is the source-creator of all the other gods. It is above ethics/heaven-hell/physics. It's manifest as a "feeling" or "confidence" or "core re-bar".

Happiness may be too much to ask for. But contentment might be achievable. The politics and policies of today weigh against the inevitable demise of the human race. (Does anyone really believe that we will have children living in a million years?) So we need to look for an amiable way to live together and make life comfortable for the most of us.

Meanwhile, yes, I like universal health care, progressive taxes, and things like that which will make life comfortable for most of us.

How about, "Don't burden our children with debt, pay it off !"?

What have you thought about it? Can you explain it in 50 words or less? Click "Comments" below to post your response.

___________________________________
Our time is limited, and life is even shorter. © 2010, Richard's Chase

Facts to Make You Happier...

2010-12-17T16:15:00.000-08:00

With all the political wrangling that's been going on, you may feel more optimistic when you know these nine facts to be true:

The stimulus legislation has saved or created more than 3 million jobs.
Health care reform will reduce the deficit.
The economy has been in recovery since the third quarter of 2009.
Scientists have concluded that climate change is occurring.
TARP legislation was initiated by President Bush.
It has not been proven that the US Chamber of Commerce spent money from foreign sources on Republican candidates.
There are tax cuts in the stimulus legislation.
Taxes have gone down since 2009.
The bailout of GM and Chrysler was initiated by President Bush.

Source: KnowledgePanel^®, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks. Full report(PDF)

Core Values of Conservative and Liberal

2010-12-11T10:57:00.000-08:00

Several topics around your core values --

Conservatives believe COMMERCE is the hub of social development.

Liberals believe PEOPLE are the hub of social development.

Can we have have Happy People without Healthy Commerce?
Can we have Healthy Commerce without Happy People?

It's a Legislator's job to evaluate each issue without reliance on other people (such as, so called "leaders") telling them what their position "ought to be". That's what makes leaders.

===

Polls are not everything, but they're a clue --

We want to repeal DADT --
We want to keep the Affordable Health Care Law --
We want the New START ratified, now --
We want the millionaires to be taxed at a higher rate, including death estates over millions of dollars --
We want unemployment benefits for those who will spend it to keep our Economy growing --
We want a Legislator who will let their intelligence show --
We want Social Programs that help people paid for by progressive revenue collection.

WE DO NOT WANT
-- A Legislator who will vote in perfect synchronization with their "party leaders"
-- Tax incentives that unbalance the "free market" by subsidize profitable industries like oil drilling
-- Government protection of mineral extraction and financial corporations from losses

Conservatism versus Republicans

2010-11-28T18:17:00.000-08:00

There is a political philosophy that builds on commerce as the pivotal issue for humankind's social development.

It declares that a free market without regulation will self-regulate. If prices are too high, the goods and services will not sell so the vendor will have to reduce prices. If the goods are sold at a price that is too low, the producer will go out of business.

If a business is clever enough monopolize a commodity or service, the prize of profit that they earn is their just reward.

If an employee can not live on the wage they are paid, they can get another job -- a different other job, or another additional job. If workers are paid too little, they can not buy the goods and services offered by commerce, which will encourage business to provide a reasonable pay rate.

Now, that may be good or bad. But what are Republicans doing with their "conservative" politics?

They are not conservatives. They present no programs except to obstruct the opposition party to make them look impotent. That would give the Republicans more "power" in the eyes of an ignorant observer because it would appear that the Republicans are in control of the government.

If anyone believes one of the functions of government is to get something done, to improve lives and commerce, the obstruction tactic is not productive. It may actually look like the Republicans fear letting the opposition do anything at all.

What do we do, now?

Lower Taxes Will Help the Poor?

2010-10-13T07:22:00.000-07:00

"Keeping the Poor in Poverty" by Michael Tanner in NationalReview.com, October 13, 2010 4:00 A.M.

"School choice, lower taxes, job creation: These, and not welfare payments, are what would really help the poor."

Now the TRUTH about the poor --

"School choice" -- Does Mr. Tanner think the poor only includes educated people who can choose a school for their children? How about building a literate society that can act and vote in its own interest by offering a "free, public education system" made available to everyone. Let's not burden them, some of whom have not attended school themselves, with the complex financial, religious, transportation, and social decision of where to send their children to school. A free, state run system is essential to the success of our democracy. Educated people with jobs can argue about what kind of schooling is better; but the poor need access to a basic good education while the conservative elite argue.
"Lower taxes" -- Mr. Tanner thinks the poor pay taxes! He has not read his homework statistics, or he has never had to work. The TRUTH is that the Poor do not pay taxes. Only people with incomes pay taxes. Only people with incomes will benefit from a tax cut!
"Job creation" -- Yes, job creation will help the poor and those who already have incomes, earned and un-earned. Jobs can come by (1) business expansion which most often comes when there is (2) market expansion which comes most often when there are (3) consumers with money to spend which most often comes when (4, where we started) consumers have jobs. Now, where in that cycle could a government most effectively create jobs?
Compel business expansion by money or tax incentives? Not very effective without markets.
Compel market expansion without profits, by money or tax incentives? No. There is no way to increase demand without need by purchaser.
Compel consumers to spend money? Not unless government just gives them money, which would not change the dynamics beyond one purchase.
Compel employment by application of money or tax incentives? Perhaps publicly financed jobs that generate income for the worker and contracting businesses could get things started moving, to some degree. It would keep businesses solvent. It would increase the average income. It would increase consumer demand. Then businesses would be supported by the expanding market, so they would re-invest in themselves.
"Not welfare payments" -- Mr. Tanner, who probably agrees with Christian ethics, wants to see the poor be sick, malnourished, idle, and dying. There may be self-incrimination or hypocrisy here, somewhere.

Do you believe this Great Recession is going to end? If you don't, it won't.

US Senator Thune "Out of the Closet"

2010-10-01T05:10:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Thune (R-SD) -- In receipt of your letter on your position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I appreciate your wanting to wait for the December release of a report from the military. -- There is still a right and wrong position in this case. You may want to wait for proper processing of the issue, but by doing so you come out of the closet ...>
with an opinion that you do not believe homosexuals are people.

-- You will find at the ballot box this year, you will be elected because you are unopposed. If you pay attention to the total number of votes cast, you will see that you were not selected affirmatively. You refusal to take a firm position "for the people" on DADT s part of the reason.

-- You have not been elected to deny that people's sexual orientation is a personality trait that makes them unfit to participate in all the activities of our Government. You are elected to epresent what is right, by thought and science, as your constituents direct you. (OK, a "representative government" puts the "representative" between un-educated and miss-informed electorate and the making of bad policy. But Please don't put un-based and un-proven biases between all of us and good social policy.)

-- The common reasons for supporting the DADT policy are the personal opinions of the un-informed, as follows:
- Gays are not born that way. They chose it.
- Gays recruit "normal" people.
- Gays spread HIV as Divine Punishment.
- Gays in gang showers will assault other people.
- Gays reduce "unit cohesion" because other people will feel uncomfortable.
- Gays are not "natural" like geniuses, protegees, engineers, politicians, doctors (I'm one), non-Christians, and ame-your-minority. Are we mixing heredity (science) and social ignorance?
- Gays have always been oppressed, so we should continue
to do that.

If it ain't Republican, it ain't gonna help anybody . . .

2010-09-22T09:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Thune --

Please show you have the power of independent thinking. You earned your own education. You speak from your own thoughts (mostly) when on the "stump" for a campaign. You chose your wife. You have been elected to represent us, not to represent any one dogma.

Our National Defense needs financing. The inclusion of authorizing the executive . . .>

branch to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" after the December report comes, in has been attached. That is good!

Is there not one "Republican" who can think for themselves on even one bill?

You were not elected to represent "The Republican Party!"

You give us the impression that you would rather see our Country fail than give anything that might look like a legislative victory to the opposing party. How petty. How short sighted. It can be seen as undeserving of respect.

Real people who use their intelligence do not agree on every complex issue, 100%. Only mindless robots and puppets, or cowards who have been whipped into submission.

I want to be your friend. I offer these comments to show you the perception many of us off of Capitol Hill have toward the complete throttle on legislation by only one party.

Thanks for your continued service.

Do you really want this?

2010-09-13T08:58:00.000-07:00

*Do you care about educating our children for the challenges of the 21st century?

*Do you care about protecting the health care of working families?

*Do you care about civil rights and equal pay for equal work?

*Do you care about creating jobs and making our economy more prosperous for all Americans?

*Are you are interested in a clean-energy future that creates jobs right here in America while ending our dependence on any oil?

Then you need to ...
step up and work hard in this election to support Democratic candidates for Congress, because Republicans are going to say 'no' to all of that, and more.

If you care about building a new foundation for our country, from the bottom up, instead of returning to the same tired, worn-out theories that didn't work for the past decade, then we're going to need you to talk to your neighbors, knock on doors, and make phone calls for Democrats who are willing to stand with the President and move our country forward.

We've come too far to turn back now. We can't afford to slow down or sit back and watch everything we've fought for slip away—not when there's so much at stake.

The least you can do is to VOTE in November!

(Slightly edited text from Organizing For America online.)

Add your comments

Click on the word "Comments" below

Baby and bath water

2010-09-11T06:27:00.000-07:00

My very own Representative Sandlin (D?-SD) has stimulated me to these comments. I sent her an email to explain the liberal position, and mine, on Health Care Reform. She needed to hear it 'cause she voted against the recent Patient Affordability and Access Act (or whatever title). She was overly concerned (I think) about the cost. I encouraged her to pass the bill, and now to support the law. Also, to remember that we need for her to author or co-sponsor bills to add a tax on high benefit policies, establish a Medicare Advisory Council, and other specific issues. I tried to emphasize that we liberals want to centralize the administration of services that are accessed universally, like education and health care. By voting against the health care reform bill, she was "throwing out the baby with the bath water."

Am too much of a socialist?

Dear Terry Jones --

2010-09-07T14:46:00.000-07:00

Dear Reverend Jones:

I appeal to you in the name of God to not offend our brothers by burning their holy text.

You have every legal right to do so. And I have a right to burn every copy of the Bible, the Koran, and the books you write. "The Law" is secular; it does not establish or deny religious privileges.

Be an example to the world. Let your light shine. Show compassion. Do not show your disrespect for other people "in the name of The Church." You may want to consider they are . . .
ignorant. If so, you can bring them to God by your example. (You could be an example of hate and bigotry if you burn their text.)

Jesus criticized the Pharisees; He gave them an opportunity to change their ways; He did not destroy their texts or property.

My Jesus would open his doors to offer public enlightenment in the Christian Faith, not aggrandize Himself by a public act that violates the Christian mission of Love and inclusion of anybody who would listen and believe. Shake the dust of the non-believers from your sandals, and move on. Hold no grudge or animosity, rather let them suffer in their own choice to reject God. They will come to see the way to God is by acceptance of His Love, not by violence against others.

Burn the Koran if you want to set the Christian Missions in Muslim countries back three decades.

God bless you, Dr. Richard Masterson

Two Questions

2010-08-22T12:40:00.000-07:00

Do we need to reduce the National Debt to create jobs?

By keeping taxes low on high income people will we reduce the deficit?

Click "Comments" below to make your response.
Remember to click the "Publish" button when you have finished typing.
Feel free to tell me your reasoning.

Balanced Budget or Save Jobs, Senator Thune?

2010-08-14T11:17:00.000-07:00

This is a letter written to Senator John Thune (R-SD) as a paragraph by paragraph response to his letter to me that described why we need his bill, Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act of 2010.

Dear Senator Thune:

Because you are my governing representative in the United States Senate, as a member of your electorate, I need to let you know how I evaluate the Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act of 2010.

First, I want to thank and congratulate you for addressing the powerful issue of debt. Your reference to “common-sense” solutions may
be an over simplification of a complex and delicate issue. There may be no 100% solution.

For example, our country is currently “on the path to fiscal responsibility.” Your three-pronged approach to slow the growth of debt may be better directed at prioritizing survival and employment for your electorate, for as many people as possible – businesses will follow when the people who run them are feeling secure in food, clothing, and shelter.

Your three prongs:

1. The formation of a permanent Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction may be redundant. It is already a duty of my elected Senators and Representatives to effect that result. Also, your description of membership does not make reference to balancing political parties among the membership.

The current temporary committee on deficit reduction may suggest a 30% reduction in military spending. Are you willing to help me support that change? For example, we do not need 57 nuclear submarines when no other country in the world can threaten us with two.

(This is personal and counter to my up-bringing, because I grew up in the household of an Executive in the Douglas Aircraft Company, a defense industry contractor.)

2. Paygo is very reasonable. It is based on a time of predictable revenue and unchanging demands for citizen services. That is not the case in our current economy.

Your estimate of $600 B net cost for the “Affordable Health Care” law may be exaggerated. That amount is cited only by those who opposed the bill when it was being legislated. Of course, it will cost more than the proponents claimed, but not that much. There will be new revenue generators that came with the Affordable Health Care Law. They may not be adequate, and the reduction in cost by savings may not be as great as claimed, but that is your job – to make laws that effect new revenue and cut expenses – to improve the effectiveness of essential services.

3.A. The budget does not need to be set in “Law.” I would think you would not like to see that, really. It could remove any chance you have to adjust for overlooked or newly emerging needs that may change as the year passes. You would like to feel you have good control of the money flow. Well, you do. Use your staff and legislative power day-by-day.

3.B. A 21% increase in non-defense spending can be covered by a 10% reduction in defense spending. It's that simple. Our current increase in non-defense spending is justified to keep the current recession from bottoming out at zero.

Reducing our debt is a laudable goal. The best way to achieve that over the next 10 or 20 years, the medium term – is to get everyone who wants to work into a job. That may require some flexibility in the Federal Budget.

For more on my observations on the truths about our country and how to keep it and improve upon it, you may visit my blog

Barack Has Made a Good Start

2010-08-12T14:29:00.000-07:00

Let's keep a Congress staffed with the People's Progressive Senators and Representative. Vote Democrat.

President Barack Obama has made significant progress on the platform that elected him. The Republicans have been no help. Here's a partial list:

We now have some Wall Street reform. It is not as imposing on the marketplace as it could and should be, but we 95% of the population that make less than $250,000 a year are better protected from

the "special devices" that the smart financial people can develop and use. We need their creativity, but not to misrepresent their products to us, without full explanation and monitoring by regulators.

Unemployment insurance has been extended for the 2,500,000 unemployed. They will spend it, too, and that will stimulate the economy.

Consumer protection law has been enacted, helping consumers and business to clarify contracts. It will improve the market for business because they won't be living out the negative image of ripping off consumers.

Health Care Insurance has been extended to cover children with pre-existing conditions. Eventually coverage will be universal. Everyone will be taxed to help pay for it, but they can have the tax waived if the buy coverage.

A Stimulus Package has help stabilize the economy and assisted a move to alternative energy to oil.

The student loan program has been rescued from a layer of financiers who were distributing government money. Now the government is distributing it.

Women have had a boost in laws to protect them from being paid less than men, just because they are women.

A START treaty has been updated with other nuclear powers.

The rapid rate of job losses in 2008 has been brought down.

-- BTW, did you know the Chamber of Commerce spent up to $3,000,000 to stop the health care reform bill. What a waste. They could have bought health insurance.

Christian Children of Adult Age

2010-08-06T16:39:00.000-07:00

I just heard that the American Family Association made up of Christians is bearing witness to childish behavior. To wit: they want to impeach the judge that decided that homosexual marriages are not a threat to heterosexual marriages and that homosexual parents do no worse in rearing children than straight parents.

The AFA is the brat on the school yard who declares, "I don't like the yellow and green shirt you are wearing, so I am taking my ball home." Which is not a very good example of behavior for compassion and tolerance. I call it a poor illustration of Love.

The AFA president Tim Wildmon wants to "...call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.” Go to the Press Release
______________________________
Leave your Comment . . .

Death Advances Freedom of the Press

2010-05-22T06:37:00.000-07:00

Daniel Pearl was beheaded in 2002. On April 17 this year, President Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act. USA Today says, "The law directs the State Department to ... report, information detailing the state of press freedom and the extent to which governments are supporting or tolerating or are actually involved in violations." At the signing ceremony, Obama said, "Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

An opinion was written by Mark Steyn in NRO (Note 1). He radicalizes the discussion with comments like the President has nothing in his head

(Note 2), that Daniel Pearl "wasn't lost." (Note 3), and denies that the word "imagination" can apply to a person's emotional response to the beheading (Note 4).

Mr. Steyn: 1- would have a better chance of changing their mind if you do not call your debate opponent empty headed; 2- may want to consider the death of Mr. Pearl a loss to his journalism community; and 3- "imagination" can be an emotional visualization response to a traumatic experience.

Rhetoric as in this article is not instructive, and counter to generating understanding and cooperation.

________________

(1) "One of those moments," NationalReviewOnline.com, May 22, 2010

(2) Page 2

(3) Page 1

(4) Page 1

Adjectives are Words that Matter

2010-04-17T14:13:00.000-07:00

In her fiction book, “The Loser Letters,” Mary Eberstadt says the Atheists of the enlightenment and science call Christians “the enemy” and the “dulls” in contrast to themselves, called the “brights.” I think she is a Christian who is trying to prove the Atheists don't have a prayer of a chance of being right. Christians are leading whole and productive lives with their theism, so they don't have any interest in giving up on God.

Well, the problem is not Christians versus Atheists. The problem, in this discussion to which there may be no verifiable ...
answer, is people's use of adjectives that show intolerance and thereby cut off discussion. Pejoratives make the discussion into an argument – each person yelling their point of view without any intent to learn anything.

Everyone has their life choices established for personal matters. They have made their evaluation and considered of the pros and cons to reach the point where they are. What is unique these days is a vociferous defensive response to anyone who has reached a different conclusion as being a threat. It seems to be popular to consider anyone who expresses a different conclusion on the same issues you have faced, to be in error and in need of vigorous chastisement and correction. We may need more of Christ's inclusive love and patience.

Atheists have no animosity toward Christians. They may have some sympathy for them, but respect other people's right to their own choices. There is no contention. Belief in a personal deity can be beneficial.

Another example of setting up hostility by word choice is in a National Review Online article by Mark Steyn (nationalreview.com, April 17, 2010). The article reads well without any adjectives, almost. Some are needed for the topic at hand, but so much of his rhetoric is directed at the bad policy and bad people, that it is difficult to follow what he is talking about through the hostile language.

“Obama ... held a nuclear gabfest in 2010 … and Iran wasn't on the agenda.” Well, Mr. Steyn may not appreciate that it takes time to resolve the problem of a rogue state to the world. Perhaps Mr. Obama is trying to get as much of the world as he can onto the same page regarding their desire for the role of nuclear armament in their lives. Then a logical and widely supported discipline can be exercised with Iran. Or does Mr. Steyn want us to try to settle the nuclear question by a military strike before next Friday? I hope not. We do have some time to work with, and we live happily in the meantime.

Both Lie, So Do Whatever

2010-04-07T06:09:00.000-07:00

Have you noticed how figures and numbers never lie, but liars always figure and use numbers? Since both sides of an issue use "science" and "numbers" to make their points, I will just do whatever I want at the moment. Yeah, like that is considerate of keeping the Earth habitable in 25 generations.

In a recent article* , Ian. Murry does have his vested interest in keeping "plastics" on the market, while fending off charges of abusing consumers with toxic materials. He is Vice President for Strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He points out that a birth control medication (ethinyl estradiol) is toxic ...
much like his BPA is, according to enviromental groups,. He criticises the "envronmentalists" of accepting birth control just because they want to use it, rather than following science, as being inconsistent with their claim that science rules.

So, who is hypocritical, the scientists who want to use toxic birth control, or the marketers who want to sell toxic plastics? Is every one of us supposed to learn organic chemistry and toxicology to make an informed decision? Who can we trust to analyse the facts and report to us? Does it depend on our church and our faith?

I'll just make an educated best guess, and hope it works out. Maybe both hot headed activists are wrong. They can't both be right, can they?
_____
*"The BPA Myth" by Ian Murry, National Review Online, 2010Apr07, ( BPA is the chemical bisphenol A)

Let's make Universal Healthcare better --

2010-03-22T05:57:00.000-07:00

Letter to Representative Herseth Sandlin and Josh Albert,

Instead of standing up for the people you represent, you sided with the insurance companies and voted for the status quo - denial of care, skyrocketing prices, and medical bankruptcy.

You will make me more comfortable supporting you, if you will explain the top 10 of the 100 reasons you voted "nay." From that list we (you, me, and South Dakotans) can generate bills to improve this historic opportunity.

From a specific list of faults, we
can create solutions -- plug the holes and polish the edges.

We have stood up against the very powerful insurance corporations. We have proven the Liberal foundation on the Power of the People. Lets make Universal Healthcare workable by submitting bills to modify it. I would be proud to help you.

I want to apologize to Josh. On my first visit to your office I asked him to explain what your position was. He started to recite the list, but I was not the listener I should have been. I interrupted him with challenges to make explanations. I am sorry for that.

I am a retired doctor with first hand experience with insurance corporations' abuses.

I will be in DC in April and May, and hope to see you and Josh, then.

Fondly, Dr. Richard C. Masterson

Health Care Bill Threatens Christianity. Really?

2010-03-14T18:19:00.000-07:00

A letter to a Christian talk radio host, Janet Mefferd --

Janet --

While driving today, I came across you afternoon radio talk show. Your appeal for 1 million emails in the next week surely will be a significant push for your position on the health care bill.

There are some points that you might appreciate more information about.

To start with, we need to agree that there is a problem.
-- The American health care system is an expensive mess.
-- The cost of insurance is out of reach for many people and employers, especially the low income and working class people -- that would be most of us.
-- The growth of the cost of health care is taking it beyond 18% of our Gross Domestic Product, higher than in any other industrialized country.
-- The cost of health services in increasing, but the greatest contributor to our national problem is the
insurance company abuses, which have been enumerated in many previously published documents.
-- People who have insurance need to have some protection from the questionable practices of the insurance companies, such as, dropping sick people, refusing pre-existing conditions, denying benefits when they get
expensive, obstructing claims processing, and other cost reducing/denial tactics.

The solution is going to be very dramatic. It will require a major adjustment in the expectations of patients, the pattern of care from providers, and major changes in the incentives and benefits for the business model of the insurance industry, and much more. The change will be radical and reactionary. It will be religious and secular; it will be conservative and liberal; it will be concrete and creative; It will have successful policies and failing policies which can be adjusted; it will transcend all these philosophies with the common interest to maximize the health care for all Americans and minimize the cost.

Since the insurance corporations are the biggest single contributor to the expense, we either totally replace them, or we impose a system that will regulate their behavior to provide optimal benefits, including customer service, while they earn a profit. Or, we can let the market adjust itself, without a laundry list of regulations by introducing a non-profit company. The owner of the non-profit would probably be the government, as a first choice, because of the national scope and because they have nationwide experience with Medic-Aid and Medicare.

The current legislative bills are not radical enough to meet these goals completely. They do not establish a government owned non-profit insurance company. They will extend coverage to 30 million citizens who are currently uninsured. They will cost a lot less than 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (Additionally, they will reduce the national debt, partially because they will reduce the governments health care expenses.)

Your radio monologue made some claims that are not perfectly accurate. It seems the polarization of opinion has become extreme because of the exaggerated claims made on both side.

To wit:

Not True: The current bills will create nationalized health care.
Not True: The current bills will increase everybody's insurance premiums.
Not True: The important objective is to see that our President fails in his job.

The conclusion regarding your radio show is to request that you take advantage of your platform to encourage tolerance and rational thinking. The emotion of your enthusiasm is commendable. Appealing to listeners brain power would be flattering to both the audience and the speaker.

Another subject --

You reported that the "liberals" had put a Hindu holiday into Texas textbooks. But that clumping of anything you don't agree with into a "liberal" label is over simplification, and it confuses the thinker who is trying to find just what can be done to improve their textbooks. It was probably done by a Hindu.

We love all of God's creatures, even Hindu. We prove our faith that "God will prevail," by showing tolerance and acceptance toward those who are different from us. There are many ways to God, and we cannot presume that we understand all of them, unless we want to presume that we know the mind of God. Is that "humility"? Is that putting our candle on a hill?

Others will judge us and our Faith by what we do -- our fruits. If we espouse intolerance, we will scare them away from The Kingdom, and we will not have happiness and peace in our own lives.

Love God, and please help your listeners understand the factual minutia of an issue like a Federal health care bill. You can be an example to all sides.

God Bless You, and good night.

Fondly, Dr. Richard C. Masterson

###

Visit Janet's Web site JanetMefferd.com for hysterical reports. Why does she talk so defensively?
We've got to love her. She needs it.

Consumers are a tool of Commerce, Not!

2010-02-12T13:05:00.000-08:00

TODAY, FROM SEN. THUNE

"..., financial regulatory reform legislation has not yet been introduced in the Senate.

"I support responsible regulation of financial markets. However, I am cautious of any proposal that consolidates power in Washington.... I believe we must find an appropriate balance that protects the consumer, as well as the investor, while at the same time allows banks to continue to lend in order to spur job creation in the private market as well as make needed credit available to consumers.

"I will continue to review proposals to regulate financial products and institutions. I look forward to supporting laws and regulations . . .
which will provide greater disclosure of risks to consumers and investors, allow American financial markets to remain innovative and competitive, and prevent another crisis like the current one from happening. Furthermore, it will be important to ensure that these proposals are consistent with our nation's free-market tradition.

"As Congress considers this issue, I will be sure to keep your concerns in mind. If you would like additional information on my activities in the Senate, please feel free to visit my website, http://thune.senate.gov. Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch."

MY RESPONSE --

Honorable Senator Thune --

I disagree on your summation of attitude toward financial regulation. It may be the way you want to go, to give consumers all the power to make decisions for themselves. That is not a good idea. The whole idea of regulation that makes the free market work is that some decisions are pre-determined by the regulator or regulatory system. For examples, legal tender is set by a third party; definition of a corporation and authorization of same; definition of contracts; many more.

We need STRONG regulations that prohibit excesses like interest rates on credit cards over 18%, and penalties that have not been explained in plain and bold language; and ATM fees on top of fees ($2+$3+$4) for a single transaction; and more. These actions by creditors need to be prohibited without the consumer being required to be educated on finance economics and being forced to make a major decision before each purchase. The burden must be on the creditor to play within narrow rules.

Creditors are in business at the whim of the consumer, not in business to profit as much as they can from handling the consumer's money.

Business is the product of people; people are not the product of business. Business is a tool of commerce among people; people are not a tool of commerce among businesses.

This is an important principle that I will vote for. Your support will be appreciated.

I hope we can agree on some principles before you get to vote on a specific Consumer Financial Protection bill.

Add "Corpsoul" (c) to your lexicon

2010-01-22T06:15:00.000-08:00

Corpsoul (c) copyright 2010, R.C. Masterson. All rights reserved.
(COR-soul) (noun) A legally formed entity for the purposes of doing business and participating in society. It embodies the corporation attributes to buy and sell, and assume liability in the realm of law and society. Also, it has the attributes of a person or citizen, such as, but not limited to the rights to:

free speech,
petition the government,
bear arms,
be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures,
protection from self-incrimination,
no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment,
and so forth.

Corporations now have a body and soul

2010-01-21T14:34:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court has just decided that there can be no legal limit on the spending by corporations in support of a political candidate or issue.

Where are their heads?

Corporations usually base their decisions on the feelings of a very small Board of Directors. If the majority of stock holders did not tell the Board to take a position, it ought not be considered to have any value. That is, a corporation is not a person. It can not consciously seek or deserve any rights in "the pursuit of happiness." Therefore, it cannot have an opinion unless the majority of the membership or stockholders have expressly declared a unified position.

This refinement of the definition of a corporation will allow the people to pool their efforts in a political action committee; and it will prohibit the small number of members of a Board from spending the money of the members without their documented majority position.

So, the Supreme Court has just given corporations a soul.

Rep. Herseth Sandlin Explains "No" Vote, My Reply

2009-11-13T12:35:00.000-08:00

2009 Nov 12

FROM: Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Dear Richard;
Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts regarding H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

H.R. 3962, a broad health care reform bill, passed the U.S. House of Representatives on November 7, 2009, by a vote of 220 to 215.

I could not support H.R. 3962, but I believe it's critical that we control rising health care costs, increase quality and value within our health care system, and improve access to health care and affordable health insurance coverage.

The House vote on H.R. 3962 represented one of the most important votes of the year, on an issue that has been a priority for me since I first was given the honor of representing;South Dakotain Congress. I have long believed that the strength of our communities inSouth Dakotadepends on the health of our people and that, unfortunately, access to quality, affordable care remains out of reach for far too many;South Dakotans. That is why, over a number of months this year, I worked very hard to negotiate improvements in the legislation, and that is why I was so disappointed that the final bill didn't achieve the goals that I believe are essential for a successful and sustainable health care reform effort.

Nonetheless, I am convinced this Congress and the President will achieve fundamental reform because our country must fix what's broken in our health care system. The status quo is unsustainable. There is simply too much at stake for South Dakota's families and businesses, who have either seen their premiums rise sharply year after year, or who still have no access to an affordable plan.

Done right, health care reform will both ensure that more people have access to quality and affordable health care, and, just as critically, make the common-sense reforms that are necessary to fix an unsustainable system that threatens our fiscal future. These twin goals of improving access, quality and affordability on the one hand, and solidifying the country's fiscal outlook on the other, are not mutually exclusive.; In fact, they are complementary.

Unfortunately, the House bill misses this critical opportunity. While it does include many good provisions, it is not the right answer for South Dakota, it could threaten existing access to health care in our state, and it does not include nearly enough cost-containment and deficit-reduction measures.

I am concerned by the projected impact of the bill's Medicaid provisions on South Dakota's state budget and the reductions in payments for long-term care under Medicare.

Our state is not only facing large deficits in the Medicaid program, but early analysis suggests that the House bill Medicaid provisions would impose at least $87.6 million more in new Medicaid costs on the state than alternative legislation approved with bipartisan support by the Senate Finance Committee. Given that budgetary impact, we have to consider the likelihood that dramatic service cuts would be the end result in South Dakota if the House bill were implemented, and that is a source of serious concern for me.
I also have serious concerns about how the House bill would affect the future of long-term care in our state for seniors. I am concerned that the payment changes under Medicare to nursing homes are unsustainable, and put undue financial pressure on this essential part of the health care infrastructure of South Dakota.

Underlying my concerns relating to Medicaid, long-term care and other issues is a fundamental concern about the effect of the broader House health care reform bill on the nation's long-term deficit, and more specifically, my view that it doesn't do enough to start bringing down the deficit and health care costs in the future.

When it comes to the net change in the federal budgetary commitment to health care, the House bill increases that commitment seven times more than the Senate Finance Committee bill, while failing to include a number of essential cost-containment measures necessary to restrain the future growth of health care spending.

The House bill does include a number of good provisions on which the vast majority of South Dakotans I have talked to agree. For instance, I strongly support provisions in this bill to require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, and to end the insurance companies' ability to cancel coverage when someone becomes sick. These practices must end. In addition, I support establishing health insurance exchanges to provide a transparent and competitive marketplace for individuals and businesses to buy more affordable health care plans.

Unfortunately, in my view the House bill has not come far enough from where it started, and the bill does not yet represent the right formula for South Dakota. Nonetheless, I am very optimistic that, with the House and Senate working together with the President, we will achieve a good bill for South Dakota and the country during this Congress, because the time has come for fundamental reform.

Again, I believe the Congress has a responsibility to pass health care reform legislation that is deficit-neutral, that ensures access, fairness and affordability of coverage for South Dakotans, and that takes a responsible approach to long-term costs with a focus on achieving higher quality health care outcomes. This bill meets some of these goals but not all, and therefore, I could not support it. I remain steadfastly committed to improving this legislation and I am optimistic that through the legislative process we will achieve what South Dakotans deserve, which is a fiscally responsible and sustainable reform of the health care system that will dramatically improve coverage and quality for all.

I'll keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to consider these issues. Thanks again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Member of Congress

My Reply

CC: Josh Albert (Legislative Director), Jane C. Murphy (HCAN)

You [Representative Herseth Sandlin] have a point, if the increase in our debt would be that great. However, there is some kind of moral obligation to take care of our fellows. We must think some more on this.

Perhaps we should have separate bills for
1. Eliminate the anti-trust exemption of the McCarren-Ferguson law.
2. Establish a self-supporting, non-profit, nation-wide Public Health Insurance company (no opt-out or trigger).
2. Pass insurance reform to require guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewable policies.

Establishing the Public Company will eliminate a great deal of the abuse done now by the insurance corporations who have a monopoly. The net cost of a Public Company after 10 years would be close to zero. Legislative insurance reform could follow, and would apply to all companies, both public and private.

Fondly, Dr. Richard C. Masterson

Open Letter to Rep. Sandllin

2009-11-06T04:58:00.000-08:00

Dear Representative Herseth Sandlin:

Health Care Reform – YES!
Please begin some benefits THIS YEAR!
(perhaps children)

We elected you to represent us. We, the majority, want (and feel we need and deserve) a fundamental change in our health care delivery system. The key barrier to health care is economics which are controlled by the insurance corporation monopoly. Health Care Insurance Corporations may not be the only factor in limiting access, increasing cost, denying benefits, and so forth, but it is the greatest contributor by far.

We need an extreme change in our health care delivery system. (See note 1 about abortion and aliens.) A publicly owned insurance company would be best. It would passively reduce costs to citizens and government. It would improve access because of reduced premium rates. It would reduce denials of benefits because of the increased competition to please the subscribers. It would improve insurance corporations adherence to their contracts without scheming to reduced their costs by over selling policies that imply generous benefits and then refusing to pay out by straining the interpretation of the fine print in the contracts they print and sell.

As a health care provider, I will testify that I would rather have an easy 60% compensation from a government insurance than have to deal with any current insurance corporation. They are sticklers for irrelevant details and so many other ploys to delay and reduce their payments. My operating costs accrue while they earn interest on money they hold, if they ever do get around to paying. I'm sure HOSPITALS would agree.

And, please, remove the exemption from anti-trust that the insurance corporations have (the McCarran-Ferguson law).

We voters are willing to pay more in taxes to get health insurance coverage from a non-profit government plan because it will reduce our net expense. (See note 2.) And a public option will increase access for the 100,000 uninsured in South Dakota. (See note 3). We know it's true.

(If 100,000 are uninsured or under-insured, do the statistics mean that 100 die each year in South Dakota because of insurance corporation practices – unaffordable premiums, denial of benefits and coverage, and under-covered subscribers due to co-pays and deductibles? That's the ratio in the National statistics -- 40,000,000 uninsured and 40,000 die due to lack of insurance.)

Which do you want more: the support of the electorate, or the campaign money from the insurance corporations? Are you for us, or the insurance corporations? We need to kill the insurance corporate monopoly and abuse, not the corporations. We need to provide health care for every citizen.

Any legislator who does not act to our wishes may face a campaign to get them replaced at their next election. It's just a fact of doing what is expected. I don't like to present ultimatums, but there are some serious issues on which we need strong representation.

Thank you for your service,
Dr. Richard C. Masterson

PS: I hope to get appointed to see you in Washington before the 10th of November. I may be able to bring my Canadian friend who is willing to answer questions about his country's plan.

Note 1: HR 3962 (and HR 3200) include denial of Federal payment for abortion except for incest, rape, and life of mother. Also included is denial of Federal health care for non-citizens – employers are required by law to verify citizenship before hiring. (We need stronger enforcement of this employment law rather that making a duplication of it for another agency to wrestle with.)

Note 2: The worst case would be a net change in subscriber costs of about zero. Because we are over spending now the sum of:
+ increased lost work time (reduced personal income, GDP productivity, and social contribution) due to more serious illnesses,
+ premium,
+ deductible,
+ copay,
and get poor “service”.

As soon as we get a Public Insurance Company Option, that cost may be matched by increases in taxes for immediate set-up, initial loss funding, and national debt payment. (The public company will be required to pay back loans, and cover losses with premiums.)

But we will be healthier!

(“Poor Service” and “Good Service” refers to denials, exemptions, requirements, out-of-network care, demand for 'further documentation', courteous and sympathetic phone calls and letters, and so forth.)

Note 3: Access to care for the un/under-insured will improve primarily due to the premium reduction. It will make is less expensive for government programs to provide insurance, too.

The insurance corporation tactics that are unfavorable from many angles to the subscribers are also barriers to care, not just “business tactics.” They are keeping us sick.

###

Senator Reid's "Public Option" = NO!

2009-10-27T07:44:00.000-07:00

If there is an Opt Out for states or ANY EXCLUSION, there will not be enough subscribers to make a statistical impact on our Health Care System. The Senator Reid proposal is NOT REFORM!

When a PO is AVAILABLE TO ANYONE not employed or already covered is put into the market, we will see a lot of the current mess clean up itself without a lot of pages of insurance corporation monopoly "dos" and "don'ts". It's so simple!

A Viable Health Care Compromise

2009-10-14T09:12:00.000-07:00

The Mission of Our Health Care System:

Keep every healthy citizen healthy, and

make every sick citizen healthy.

To achieve the urgently needed improvement in our health care system with legislation (currently H.R.3200), it must primarily minimize the impact of profiteering on the delivery of health care. Our national experience with a “for profit” health care system has shown that it has produced outstanding care with . . .

limited availability of care to those who can afford it. Money has become the primary gate keeper, without regard to citizenship, the need, or the benefit of improved health to the community.

Insurance companies operate for profit. They sell contracts with the objective of keeping expenses below revenue as far as possible, and because citizens are willing to pay a lot for the value they attach to their health, premiums can be set very high.

A “public option” in the law can be a compromise, within itself. It can both, (1) preserve the private insurance companies with their profit objective, and (2) improve universal access to care for every legal citizen. It would not be a “single payer” system, and neither would it be an uncontrolled, ineffective, and expensive free market with exclusive “care for profit.” This would be a uniquely American system.

The Current Health Care System

In the United States, we are proud to run a capitalistic economy within a democratic republic. It has many challenges. The profit motive may not always be in the interest of the individual citizens. There are examples of monopolistic abuses in our history where one company gets control of a market and keeps prices high while minimizing product or service quality so the difference can be collected as profit.

A person’s health is a state of being that every one of use wants to maintain, and sometimes repair. Maintenance is mostly a day to day life style and personal behavior task. The repair and recovery from ill health, whether caused by disease or accident, is also part of every person’s life. But the extent of a future and inevitable infirmity is an unknown -- when it will happen and how much treatment will cost.

The “for profit” insurance companies are necessary to fill the market need to cover the risk. That is, they are needed to provide financial assistance by pooling funds collected as premiums, to be used to cover the unknown future health care expenses for an individual. Insurance companies have a relatively large pool of funds from which to operate, and can apply the mathematics of actuarial science to maintain their solvency and collect a reasonable profit.

With the “profit motive,” there is a conflict when the quest for maximizing profit detracts from the primary mission of basic health for every citizen. The conflict is readily manifest in our current system as insurance company abuse. It does not need to come from a monopoly by only one company. When the aggregate of insurance companies perceive the value their customers put on their health and their fear of unknown future ill health and its costs, the insurance company can set prices according “what the traffic will bear.”

Here is a partial list to illustrate the some actual abuses by insurance companies that sell contracts to cover costs of an unknown future expense. They have the right to sell contracts with limits on specific treatments or diagnoses covered or not covered, with the obligation to make such limits very clear to the lay citizen. However, insurance companies have been abusive, to illustrate:

1.Insurance companies represent, by way of their sales personnel and media advertising, that their policies “will cover your medical expenses in case of illness or accident.” That kind of statement implies that “all” of your expenses will be covered. It is naive of the consumer to believe almost everything will be covered, but it is a false implication insurance companies take unfair advantage of. And then they hide exceptions and exclusions in the fine print.
2.Insurance companies do not make any significant effort to be consumer friendly when processing claims. They put the burden of additional documentation, for example, on the patient. It appears to be a tactic to discourage claims for benefits.
3.Insurance companies only demonstrate an interest in health improvement when it would give a dollar profit by reducing benefit payouts, for the pennies they spend on prevention.
4.Insurance companies have written patients to tell them doctors have been over charging or offering unnecessary treatment. This may be an effort to convince the patient that they are getting unnecessary treatment, which will, therefore, not be paid as an insurance benefit. However, it has created antagonism in the health care triad of patient, provider and payer.
5.One of the biggest health care insurance purchasers is under threat of becoming a smaller part of the market by the ever increasing premiums. The small businesses that desires to buy health care coverage for their employees are finding they are priced out of the market. This is certainly not to the benefit of the consumer/employee/patient, or the insurance company’s own sales over the long term. We are concerned for citizen employer and citizen employee.
6.Insurance companies have proposed many mechanisms for their relationship with health care providers, some of them, like the “capitation” scheme, require the doctor/hospital carry the risk of loss if there is heavy demand for care. This is unfair to providers with limited funding and no expertise in actuarial calculations.
A Compromise for Universal Access and Insurance Company Profitability

Inserting a Public Option into the health care system would dramatically change the appearance and operation of the business of health care and could change how patients view their care costs, payments, and treatment choices.

As defined in H.R.3200, the Public Option is required to comply with all the regulations in the Insurance Exchange, just like the private company plans. The Public Option is getting Government funding for set-up and reserves for the first three month anticipated benefits to be paid out. However, all of that must be paid back to the US Treasury over the next 10 years. Further, the Private Option is required to set premiums to cover all the benefits it pays. It cannot use the deep pocket of the US Treasury for its operations. So, it’s a level playing field.

Depending on the scope of benefits available in the Public Option Basic Benefit Plan, there may be a reduction the demand for care that is covered by current insurance policies. This may be more of an un-based fear on the part of the insurance companies than it is a reality. There will always be a desire on the part of the public for care modalities outside any limited scope of care provided by a Public Option program.

The establishment of a very limited scope of benefits for the Public Option will open a larger market for the insurance companies to cover additional care options that may be perceived as desirable by the consumer. And, a limited scope of benefits for the Public Option will provide a “safety net” level of care for every citizen, thus assuring everyone in our country will have access to care, and every citizen will then be able to make an optimal contribution to our society. And the limited scope of benefits in the Public Option will allay fears of “socialized medicine.”

There needs to be more visible discussion of the scope of benefits that a Public Option would make available to nearly every citizen. This is important because (1) there are limited resources of money to spend on care, and (2) it will define by their exclusion, health risks for alternative financial mechanisms like private supplemental insurance.

A limited list of services covered can be composed and published. But there will probably always be pressure applied to the authors of such a list to change it both ways, more exclusive and more inclusive. Insurers who sell policies to cover the risk perceived by consumers for alternative care will want the list to be very limited so they will have more alternative choices to sell coverage for. Health care providers and tax payers will want a very expansive list so they will have access to the most elaborate care available, regardless of cost and proven effectiveness. Both these views are extremes. So, this now becomes an opportunity to apply science to the evaluation of therapies and their cost effectiveness, much the same as insurance companies do with their actuaries.

Conclusion

Because of the massive profits of insurance companies, and the rising share of the Gross Domestic Product of providing the current level of health care (disease treatment) in the United States, it has become necessary to place strict regulation on the capitalistic “care for profit” model.

Health Care is necessary for the individual, our society, and survival of the human species. Health Care needs to be regulated outside of most market economic systems.

There is a very workable compromise that will provide limited care to every citizen without taking the profitable “risk coverage” market away from insurance companies. Simply stated, it will:

1.Provide a limited safety net level of care through a Public Option, and

2.Encourage insurance companies to provide policy packages for basic care and the many alternative care options that are available, that is, basic, special and supplemental policies for groups, employers, and individuals.

Work remains to be done, and legislative adjustments will be made in the years ahead. Let’s begin.

Olbermann Convinced Me!

2009-10-10T19:02:00.000-07:00

I cried Tuesday night at Keith Olbermann's "Special Comments" show. I hope you have a chance to see it, hear it, or read it. His whole hour (net time a lot less) was a report on health care. He is a pro. He has been a "reporter/journalist" for many years. He got to the essence of the issue which is independent of political party. . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33213245/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

He makes it clear that "doctors, nurses, and pharmacists" are all on our side. It is exclusively the insurance corporations that are the true enemy. (We need to set the Senators, especially, down to watch it.)

He recommends we donate to the National Association of Free Clinics (freeclinics.us) to open weekly clinics in the capitol cities of the states of 5 Senators who have voted against the Public Option. Let the Senators see how many people have been unable to get health care because of the cost. We know that more than 40,000 die dead each year -- 120 a day -- because their insurance won't pay for care. (One study said 18,000; a more recent Harvard study said 48,000 die!)

Call your two Senators: 202-224-2131, or get the list. (All of them)
Email your Senators via their Web forms: http://senate.gov, then click "Senators".
Tell your friends.

We need a publicly operated insurance company.

Fondly, Richard M...
_______________________
Member of H-CAN

Visit with Senator Thune's Office

2009-10-05T20:52:00.000-07:00

2009 Sep 29, Tuesday, Senator Thune's Office

Our conversation started very easily with Republican staffer Meredith saying that (1) reforming health care is important, and (2) that insurance companies are not going to help. Those were my first two points in my prepared discussion bullets. So, I felt quite encouraged about working on the reform model with her. Then we got to the Free Market way of doing business.

Meredith Brown, Legislative Assistant on Health for Senator John Thune, Republican from South Dakota, hosted me for nearly a half hour discussion of the reform of our American health care system. She works in the Washington, DC office of Senator John Thune (R-SD).

I was first greeted by Jessica Yearous, Staff Assistant, with a cup of coffee. (Yes, it was good coffee.) After a brief wait and some talk about the weather and my full time RV living with Jessica, Meredith arrived and introduced herself. Then we went into the adjoining conference room.

The insurance company issue covered the following points:
The profit motive has led to setting high rates and denying benefits. Meredith pointed out that most health insurance companies are "non-profit." So there is some other reason to abuse the consumer?
The free market -- We agreed that we need to provide/force coverage for pre-existing conditions. (We didn't discuss portability between jobs or lost job.) I granted that I am equivicating on "pre-existing conditions" because I feel that, on some level, when the insurer sees a documented above average risk coming, they should be able to increase premium or get some extra compensation, while I feel that the consumer needs to be able to get some kind of affordable coverage at the same time. (Perhaps a "high risk pool" as proposed by Senator McCain.)
I reported that there is a "culture" in place now that includes abuse. I was even advised by a Medicaid consultant to bill for a larger filling than I had placed, if I thought the fee should be higher.

Subsidizing the purchase of insurance is not a cost cutting reform, we agreed. It would be a subsidy to insurance company profits; especially because there are no limits on the premiums the insurance company can charge while collecting a taxpayer subsidy for the difference. It may make insurance available for many of the un-insured, but it would be an ever escallating expense.

The patient's option to buy additional insurance should be available, I claimed. There should not be a prohibition on consumers buying "botique" policies or supplemental policies. I feel there there will always be people who are outside the mainstream who want alternaive treatment -- medical modalities, cosmetics, luxury treatment, and so forth -- who should be able to satisfy their desires. This lead to two points:
Meredith pointed out that people in England who can afford to, have the option of flying to America to get care they want. I was wondereing as she said that, "Why they can't buy 'out of system' care in England?" There must be some allowance for cosmetic or alternative care.
"Balance billing" was discussed. Meredith had not heard the expression, but did understand the concept. We did not conclude whether we supported it or not. It means allowing the provider to bill their own fee and applying insurance benefits as partial payment. That is currently prohibited in the provider agreement with the insurance corporations signed by the provider if they want to be an "preferred provider" who can recieve payments from the insurance corporation. (The patient/insurance customer is encouraged to seek out "preferred providers" by a reduction in their co-payment.)

There should be a "safety net" list of procedure or diagnoses that are benefits of the public option -- much like the MedicAid services limited list. This would give everyone a minimum of care. And the schedule of services covered would create a supplemental insurance market for the insurance corporations to provide public service at a profit.

Meredith mentioned, when we were comparing Medicaid to the services from a universal coverage, that "some people" suggest that the government give the health care funds in the program directly to the recipients so they can buy what is best for them in the (free) marketplace. I said, "Oh, no! You don't want to do that!" Meredith's response was one of suprise. Either I was rude, or she had not heard before that a major function of Medicaid is to provide care to the poor and uneducated who are in-capable of making a purchase decision on their own. I was trying to say that we should expand the provision of the Medicaid schedule of services to include everyone. Hence, we would have universal coverage without totally removing the need for the individual or group to purchase supplemental insurances. The minimal services available could include "preventive procedures."

Tort reform was brought up by Meredith. I agree that there is a lot of service provided that is only necessary to minimize the losses if the provider is sued. (The statistics are that every provider will be sued at least once, on average.) We agree that tort reform will help recudce the costs of care. (If we reduce our legal costs, we are reducing the attorny's income.)

I pointed out that if we just focus on reducing costs, I believe we will get an automatic improvement in outcomes. The reduction of frivilous law suits, the elimination of "defensive medicine" (un-necessary procedure just to prepare for a defense in a potential law suit if the patient becomes unhappy), the activation of a government sponsored non-profit company, and the new emphasis on using "most effective" techniques (lowest overhead expense with same or better result expectations) will improve quality. It could be called "effectiveness" or "efficiency."

Unfortunately, Meredith feels that if we get a health reform bill/law, it will be a subsidy for the insurance corporations, and increased costs for the government, to provide care to some of the un-insured. I am holding out for a non-profit company established by the US Government. We need to do something "extreme." The degree to which insurance corporations fight against a Public Option, indicates how much more helpful the Public Option would be for citizens in getting the abusive insurance industry under control and improving care.

Health Care, U.S. Legislature

2009-10-05T09:08:00.000-07:00

Visits with the South Dakota Senator's Offices --

Senator Thune's (R-SD), see September 29

Senator Johnson's (D-SD), see September 25

(Sorry I am so tardy in posting these summaries of my visits.)

===

Fantastic Summary of the Whole Issue:

"Poor Substitutes — Why Cooperatives and Triggers Can't Achieve the Goals of a Public Option" by Dr. J.S. Hacker, New England Journal of Medicine, September 23, 2009.

Read on line

===

September 30, 2009, Wednesday

I sent email to five Democrat Senators on the Finance Committee:
"I am disappointed in your position in the Finance Committee on the Public Option amendments. A Public Option will establish a self-supporting and non-profit insurance company. That's all. We are patients/constituents versus insurance corporations. I am a doctor who sides with the patients. -Fondly Yours, Dr. R.C. Masterson (D-SD resident). Available at 202-841-4265 and RichnKay.blogspot.com."

To Senators (using their web forms):

Baucus (MT),
Carper (DE),
Conrad (ND),
Lincoln (AR),
Bill Nelson (FL)

===

I sent a "Thank You" to Senator Kerry (D-MA). His comments in Committee were right on target.

###

Visit with Senator Johnson's Office

2009-10-05T09:05:00.000-07:00

2009 Sep 25, Friday (reporting 10 days later)

The Metro trip to the Hart Senate Office Building was un-eventful, except that I got off one stop too late. I had to walk about a mile back from the Judiciary Station. It was the end of the run for the Red Line that morning, anyway, because a person had been hit by the train in the Gallery Station, the next stop. (I returned by boarding at Union Station. It was much handier.)

I was greeted and welcomed by Megan DesCamps, Legislative Assistant on Health, and by Hannah Hagstrom, Research Assistant.

In the conference room, we had the large table for just the three of us, and the opening moments were awkward, as we each waited for the other to begin the conversation -- wondering what the other person wanted to talk about.

This conversation was easier after I got a direct "yes" response to the question, "Does Senator Johnson support a public option?" It does not have it's final form defined, yet. But it would be, it seems, to be just another insurance company but established by the US Government as a non-profit.

When I asked how I could help to make the public option part of the law, I was told

Talk it up with friends, neighbors, clubs and at church
Attend rallies and events in support
Join Americans for Health Care for America Now! (H-CAN)

I had hoped to find a more direct place to help to effect meaningful reform to the health care system.

I asked what I might expect when I visit Senator Thune's office because he is a Republican. The suggestions were:

Tort reform/defensive medicine would be presented for a cost cutting measure
Insurance exchanges or co-ops would be suggested to keep insurance in the Free Market model, and they would be presented as cost cutting
They do not want the Government interfering with business

Hannah was the only one of us to take any notes.

###

Now we begin

2009-10-01T15:22:00.000-07:00

This is the place where Dr. Richard Chase Masterson will post his analyses of current events, and some not so current. Philosophy and politics, opinions and options, will be discussed. Make it a two way by posting your comments, too.

Let's go!