The Effect of the Candidate

When you vote for a candidate, one needs to consider the effect of the canidate on the system at large.

Obama is an Alinsky-style community organizer. Obama rose to power by organizing one part of a community against the other parts. The result of this type of organizing is an extremely shrill political climate.

Marx played the same game. He organized the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Hundreds of millions of people died under the banner "Workers of the World Unite!"

Obama is a wonderful speaker, but the effect he has is devasting for our nation.

I agree with Ron Paul on most of his positions from ending the Federal Reserve to his differentiation of defense and militarism.

Sadly, I fear that, if he won the presidency, his administration would be undermined by the Republican establishment and that he would not have the positive effect I desire.

Romney is part of a Republican establishment that has a history of stifling the freedom movement in the Republican Party. In Utah, the Republican Establishment took the Health Exchange from ObamaCare, declared them to be free market and imposed them on the people with no debate.

Anyone who tries to stand against the imposition of RomneyCare will be viciously attacked by the Romney clones.

Now, I agree that Newt Gingrich is a deeply flawed candidate. Everyone knows Gingrich is deeply flawed. He is a geek who gets excited by technology and loves fanciful ideas like space travel.

Gingrich's presidency is likely to lead to a period in which people are talking about big ideas.

In summary: Obama unites people against eachother. This Marxian/Alinsky style of politics leads to deep division:

Ron Paul hopes to restore America by obstructionism. He is likely to have a bunker presidency followed by a progressive.

The organization Mitt Romney will lead to eight years of the Republican Establishment actively silencing voices of liberty on the Right.

The deeply flawed Newt Gingrich is likely to lead to a period in which people talked about big ideas. The biggest of all ideas is freedom. I think Newt is more likely to succeed in restoring Health freedom than Ron Paul.

In conclusion, Newt Gingrich is a deeply flawed candidate, but he is probably the best choice for the GOP, which just happens to be a deeply flawed party.

Chasing Emerging Markets

The most exciting development of the last two decades was the rapid expansion of the emerging markets.

Third world countries that used to wallow in dire poverty have begun to take shape as vibrant modern economies.

During the Bush era, the emerging markets surged forth as the primary growth areas in the world economy.

Intelligent business leaders have learned that they need to identify and chase growing markets. As the emerging markets were the primary growth area in the world, American companies were wise to seek a part in the action.

I dislike that some companies have outsourced jobs simply to cut costs; however, I believe the driving economic force behind outsourcing was the desire of US companies to diversify their portfolio and to chase opportunities in the exciting growth of the emerging markets.

There are many voices calling for a new age of protectionism, and for the United States government to begin penalizing firms for investing in the emerging markets.

I find this new atmosphere of protectionism troubling.

The call to penalize American businesses for investing in the emerging markets will not stop growth around the world. Programs to penalize American companies for participating in emerging markets will simply hurt the interest of American businesses, while triggering trade wars against our nation.

I agree that rhetoric against companies that outsource to lower employee costs is effective. However, since it is impossible to determine the intent behind actions. there is no way to separate those firms seeking to engage in emerging markets from those simply seeking to lower costs. As the former is far more important than the latter, I'm inclined to push compelling rhetoric aside and say that America companies should seek opportunities in the emerging markets and we should avoid the protectionisth stance.

A Business Movement

As the primary progresses, I hope that it has become clear to the defenders of freedom that presidential politics cannot restore America.

Government, by nature, is a constraint placed upon the people. The founders created a limited government to reduce the burden of this constraint.

The best one can hope for in presidential politics is a candidate who will keep government in check. Even if a principled constitutionalist like Ron Paul won the election, the president would be besieged by a well honed political machine that feeds off government largess.

The biggest problem in our nation is not the government, but a top-heavy corrupt financial system dominated by big banks and captured centralized exchanges.

The best way to reform these corrupt businesses is to create alternatives.

In the last two years I've blogged on The Medical Savings and Loan as an alternative to insurance.

The regulatory environment makes starting the MS&L difficult.

I am tired of just blogging and want to engage in affirmation action ... NOW.

I've applied free market principles to other areas of life and have a really fun recreational product that is ready to go live as soon as I can find a few dozen victims participants.

The goal of this effort is to use social media to create a network of businesses in a recreational/sports industry.

Presidential politics and agitating will not restore America. Action will. I am tired of just agitating ... if anyone else is tired of agitating and wants to get to work starting a weekend (recreational) business that actively discusses the free market please contact me.

Congress Passes the Laws, the Prez Administrates

I love Ron Paul as a Congressman. We need more people like him in the legislature.

That said, I am hoping Newt Gingrich wins the nomination for president.


Newt is a lover of big ideas. This deeply flawed candidate has a history of flitting from big idea to big idea, but he does have a history of getting big ideas in place.

Mr. Gingrich might best be described as a random policy generator.

He jumps from idea to idea and one comes out as policy.

If Mr. Gingrich won the presidency, I suspect that we would enter a period in which people started discussing big ideas with hopes of getting their ideas churned through the random policy generator.

The biggest of all big ideas is freedom.

Having a random policy generator in the White House is scary, however, I've come to realize that the people matter more than the presidency.

The idea that the presidency is going to restore our freedom is absurd. The only way to restore freedom is for the people to take it back.

Of the candidates on the ballot, Newt's presidency is most likely to lead to a culture where people gear up to take their freedom back.

I love the ideas of Ron Paul. I fear that his trying to legislate from an administration position would lead to a negative public reaction and a bunker mentality in the White House, which would not advance freedom.

The worst of the candidates is the organization man Mitt Romney. Mitt will speak free market rhetoric while passing progressive legislation. The cultural climate would become stagnant as his organization will actively suppress real discourse in the community.

I am happy with Gingrich taking the lead in South Carolina and believe he is the least bad of the presidential candidates.

I say least bad, because I think the people matter more than the presidency. My greatest hope is that Tea Party and Campaign for Liberty continue to thrive.

Freedom is not a gift from the presidency, it is gift from the creator that people must defend or lose.

The Limited Opportunity for the MS&L

The weak point of PPACA (ObamaCare) is the insurance mandate.  PPACA requires that everybody buys insurance.

The easiest way to attack the mandates is to create a viable alternative to insurance.

The Medical Savings and Loan is a viable alternative to insurance. The MS&L funds health care through a structured savings program supplemented with loans and grants.

Unfortunately, the MS&L is not practical at the moment because our tax laws and health care regulations favor insurance. Notably, insurance allows you to buy healtcare with untaxed dollars. The MS&L would have to use taxed dollars.

The passage of ObamaCare created a limited time opportunity to bring the MS&L into existence.

The first step is political.

People who are against government control of health care can use the MS&L in a campaign for heatlh freedom. The movement would demand that the MS&L be given an even playing field so that it can be developed as an alternative to insurance.

By putting the Medical Savings and Loan on the table, the opponents of PPACA aren't just against something, they are now for something. They are now arguing for a dynamic market that includes insurance and viable alternatives to insurance.

Americans are a positive people. It is easier to win an argument when you are arguing for something.

This political movement cannot exist on its own. If a political movement demands an alternative to insurance and there is no viable alternative to insurance in the mix, then the politicians are spouting empty rhetoric.

So, it is critical to accompany the political effort with a business effort.

The business effort would include a serious effort to make the Medical Savings and Loan a viable product that could be implemented by people who feel underserved by the current insurance paradigm. This is a huge potential market.

The first step in both the political and business movement is for a small group of patriots to get together in a room to start the process of creating a non-profit entity that defines the program.

This would take a weekend and a thousand bucks. I have a week end, I don't have a thousand bucks.

For the last three years, I've concentrated exclusively on this idea of getting a half dozen patriots in a room on a weekend to discuss creating a non-profit organization with the dual goal of arguing for health freedom in the political arena and of creating tools to help people self-finance their care in the business arena.

I live in Utah. Utah is a toxic political environment. However, it is really fun to have meetings at Park City. I am able to travel to Arizona, Las Vegas, Missoula, Denver or other near by states. Someone would have to pay my travel expenses to go much further than that.

Personally, I think either Tucson or Phoenix would be the best place to start a non-profit for health freedom. The Goldwater Institute in Phoenix is pro-freedom and the AAPS in Tucson are pro-health freedom.

Anyway, the passage of ObamaCare in 2009 created a limited opportunity to make the Medical Savings and Loan a reality. The time window on the opportunity is closing. If I can't find six people who are willing to sit in a room with me to talk about health freedom, then the game is over.

Health Care Advocate

My goal with the Medical Savings and Loan was to reverse-engineer an insurance company along free market principles.

I took the large insurance pools and sliced them up into individual accounts owned and controlled by the policy holders.

I realized that people would need help in administering their savings accounts and help in negotiating with doctors.

So, I created a new position called a Health Care Advocate.

In this second step, I take the internal bureaucracy of the insurance company and externalize it.

With standard insurance, you have a large pool of cash controlled by the company. The insurance company then hires an army of actuaries, underwriters, accountants, clerks and claims adjusters whose job it is to protect the pool.

In the Medical Savings and Loan, people own their own health care resources; So I take the same bureaucracy and have it work to help people understand and optimize their health care resources.

I believe that this act of transforming the internal bureaucracy into an external service would dramatically improve the financing of health care.

Answer to a Question

Prd2bnAmerican asked "What happens to the ppl who dont save? Who cant save for future HC?"
The answer to your question is long because I have to look at different populations. This post has four sections:

• The MS&L as an Alternative to Insurance
• The MS&L for the self employed
• The MS&L as Public Policy
• People in Desperate Need

The MS&L as an Alternative to Insurance

Most people these days work for an employer. So the primary market for the MS&L will be as an alternative to insurance. The employer makes the payments into the MS&L. The employees would be asked to sign contracts that they will only use the money for health care.
There are big questions about how ironclad one can make the contract and the tax status of the compensation.

The MS&L for the self employed

The second big group for the product is the self employed. The self employed are looking for an alternative to insurance and are generally motivated to save. The big problem with the self employed is that they suffer big ups and downs in their life.

The MS&L as Public Policy

The Medical Savings and Loan can be used in public policy. For example, if a person has no savings and requests medical care; you would give the person a loan for the care, assign the person a case worker then slam them into a structured savings program. The fact that you gave out a loan gives you a little bit more control than simply giving free health care.

People in Desperate Need

There are people who either have really high medical expenses or really low earning potential.
No matter how you go about financing health care, such people end up consuming more than they produce.
A person with a lifetime income of $400,000 might only have $20k to spend on health care. They don't have the income to pay for insurance. The Medical Savings and Loan gives such people direct control over the amount they have for care while providing substantial supplements.
Likewise, people with middle incomes and wicked nasty health care costs are unable to pay for their care. Again, the program gives such people direct control over some money while receiving supplements.

Conclusion

The Medical Savings and Loan is more flexible than insurance pools. By breaking an insurance pool into individual accounts, it is possible to create a system that can be customized to meet the different needs of different people.
The primary goal of the program is to help those people who can self fund their health care accomplish this goal. This is the bulk of health care in America. Helping working class Americans self-finance their care is empowering. It also reduces the stress on social services.
The Medical Savings and Loan exposes itself in an elegant way to social welfare. While the Medical Savings and Loan does not start with public policy, public policy can draw on the program to give incentives for good behavior. Notably, rather than giving free health care to the poor, the system would give loans and place people into structured savings plans to repay the loans.
No system provides a perfect solution to the problem of people who must consume more than they produce to survive.

Shifting Left

The debt crisis is a the result of multiple causes. What has happened is a general leftward shift in our financing.

Things that our parents would only buy with cash on hand, we now buy on debt. The things our parents used to save for, we now fund with insurance. Even worse, Americans in our progressive age feel a great sense of entitlement and demand that a great many services be handed to them by the community.

The way out of the debt crisis is to create a mechanism to shift things back to the right.

The goal of the Medical Savings and Loan is to reverse-engineer an insurance pool with a minimal amount of disruption.

The biggest challenge is that a large number of people are now dependent on insurance.

I almost used the phrase "heavily invested in insurance." But insurance is not an investment. You may be paying an insurance premium of $18,000 a year, but none of that money is going to build equity. Insurance is all pay-go.

A person in his sixties may have paid a half million dollars in insurance premiums. That money is all gone. Bye, Bye. Your insurance agent has a fancy car, and you now have dependency.

A dramatic shift from insurance back to savings is problematic because the people who've developed a dependency on insurance will get scrunched by the process.

We, as a society, do not like to see people getting schrunched.

The Medical Savings and Loan addresses this problem by looking at each person individually. Remember, the mantra of the program is "those who can self fund their care should self fund their care. Those who can't need assistance."

The MS&L uses a system of savings and loans to help those people who can self-fund their care do so, and a system of grants for those who cannot.

So, if you look at a person in his sixties, you will find that the person has relatively low income and relatively high medical expenses. A guy who makes $50k a year and is 4 years from retirement has only $200,000 to work with. A person near retirement does not have time to pay back any loans. So, a company switching from insurance to the Medical Savings and Loan, they would have to pay for this guy's medical expenses with grants.

The Medical Savings and Loan is all data driven. The program compiles, on a person by person basis, all of the information on income and expected health expenses. In the first years of the program, the company would have to top load the grant portion of the program.

As people build up savings, the amount of money needed for the grant program would decrease.

IMHO, insurance is a poisoned product. When I worked in insurance, I found that the system promised care that they never delivered. It is likely that many of the people who paid into insurance all their lives will get less health care by switching back to self funded care.

This is a fault of insurance, not the fault of the Medical Savings and Loan.

An alcoholic gets the shakes when he tries to sober up. The fact that sobriety hurts is not the result of sobriety being bad. Sobriety hurts because the drinking was bad.

The Medical Savings and Loan is a mathematical model for transitioning from group funded to individually funded care. It is worth examination. The program, as designed, can help reduce the adverse affects of switching from a debtor society back to a saving society.

Definition of Medical Savings and Loan

I am interested in starting a dialogue about a thing I call The Medical Savings and Loan.

The Medical Savings and Loan is a free market alternative to insurance pools. The program argues that the problem in American health care is the use of group funding for individual consumption. I developed the program by reverse-engineering an insurance pool into individual accounts.

Here is my problem:

For a dialogue to exist, the people in the dialogue must agree to the definition of terms.

If no-one agrees to the definition of terms, then I'm just monologuing. Monologuing leads nowhere. With no-one agreeing to the definition of terms, the program itself simply degenerates into agitation.

There is a great deal of mathematics behind the plan.
People have asked me to give them links to more information on the plan.

But I don't want to put up any more pages until I have a chance to sit down and talk face to face with people to make sure they understand the definitions.

I have a presentation that takes an hour or so in which I introduce the basic plan. I really don't want to post anything more online until I give the presentation ... somewhere.

I live in Utah. I am not LDS. This is not a get-rich-quick scheme. It is a serious academic conversation about financing health care.

I can easily travel to Colorado, Arizona, Nevada or Idaho. If anyone is interested in hosting the discussion they can contact me. I am hesitant to write more on the plan prior to presenting it to a group for review.

Question and Answer

Here is a quick Question and Answer session to help clarify the difference between the Republican and Democratic approach to Health Care Reform:

What do you call a Health Exchange run by Democrats?

    Socialism

What do you call a Health Exchange run by Republicans?

    Capitalism