Conservatives have a way of talking about freedom that drives independents and moderates away.
This is really bad for the freedom movement.
The National Democratic Primary Race is likely to be boring which means that independents and many disaffected Democrats will vote in the Republican Primary.
This group is likely to vote for the furthest left candidate in the Republican field.
The massive influx of left leaning independents in the primary is likely to swamp the Tea Party … unless the Tea Party starts talking about freedom in a positive way.
For example, Members of the Tea Party want to overturn ObamaCare. This message resonates with every member of the movement. But it is an inherently negative message.
A campaign to "Restore Health Freedom" starts by overturning of ObamaCare.
This positive message starts a much broader discussion about the nature of health freedom and might help the Tea Party overturn the burdensome regulations put in place by states through the last several decades.
The left (aka, progressivism) has learned to grub power by manipulating language in ways that falsely project negative images onto the cause of freedom. Conservatives play the game that they accept the negative language. Even with the negative language, conservatism is better than progressivism.
Conservatives understand this game, but the population at large does not. The public at large chooses the Republican candidates.
If the Tea Party fails to challenge the manipulated language, the movement is lost.
If the goal is to restore health freedom; the Tea Party might have a chance in 2012. If the message is simply "Repeal ObamaCare" then health freedom is lost for the foreseeable future.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Community Color
My professors in college wasted many lectures spouting praise of Alinsky and Community Organizers.
Such community organizers unite one group against another and tend to created deeper divisions. The end result of activism and community organization tends to be an oppressive political machine and a top-down stagnant community.
The classical liberal tradition of the US Founders discovered that strong individuals make for vibrant communities.
I've burnt thousand of hours on a project called Community Color. The goal of this project was to explore the diversity that occurs in free societies simply by exploring local web sites.
As our nation is focused on the train wreck in Washington, our local communities are falling apart.
The centralized command-and-control economy envisioned by progressives is bankrupt. The classical liberals (aka the US Founders) had the right vision. A free society of strong individuals builds a strong community.
Progressives are leeches that infect both parties. Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover and many Republicans pursue progressive dreams. The LDS church is a top down progressive hierarchy that has Utah divided into an ugly US v. THEM dystopia. (Mormonism is a progressive ideology. There is little difference between the top-down health policies of Romney and Harry Reid. The state was founded as a commune. It still is run by a top down hierachy that actively suppresses non-Mormons.)
My goal in creating Community Color was to find a way to reflect the diversity of communities in the Mountain West.
At this point the project includes little more than a categorized directory and calendar. Unfortunately all the interactive features I added to the site were attacked by spammers.
The process of building the directory exposed me to the diversity of businesses and non-profits that occur in a free society. On the down side, I also got to witness sites going blank during the Obama Dominion.
A free society, by nature, becomes diverse and vibrant as the free people pursue diverse interests. Top-down organized communities tend to be stagnant and dependent on conformity.
Yes, I know diversity is a theme of the left. The current wave of progressives feign a forced diversity in a pathetic attempt to overcome negative images of the Socialism of previous generations.
IMHO, advocates of liberty would do well to emphasize that a free society of strong individuals results in strong communities. Freedom leads to an organic diversity. Foolishly, Conservatives conceded these terms to the left as progressives use forced diversity and top-down community organization in their grub for power.
I wish people would take the time to compare the dynamic social structure of free societies to the contrivances of community organizers and stand on the side of freedom.
Such community organizers unite one group against another and tend to created deeper divisions. The end result of activism and community organization tends to be an oppressive political machine and a top-down stagnant community.
The classical liberal tradition of the US Founders discovered that strong individuals make for vibrant communities.
I've burnt thousand of hours on a project called Community Color. The goal of this project was to explore the diversity that occurs in free societies simply by exploring local web sites.
As our nation is focused on the train wreck in Washington, our local communities are falling apart.
The centralized command-and-control economy envisioned by progressives is bankrupt. The classical liberals (aka the US Founders) had the right vision. A free society of strong individuals builds a strong community.
Progressives are leeches that infect both parties. Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover and many Republicans pursue progressive dreams. The LDS church is a top down progressive hierarchy that has Utah divided into an ugly US v. THEM dystopia. (Mormonism is a progressive ideology. There is little difference between the top-down health policies of Romney and Harry Reid. The state was founded as a commune. It still is run by a top down hierachy that actively suppresses non-Mormons.)
My goal in creating Community Color was to find a way to reflect the diversity of communities in the Mountain West.
At this point the project includes little more than a categorized directory and calendar. Unfortunately all the interactive features I added to the site were attacked by spammers.
The process of building the directory exposed me to the diversity of businesses and non-profits that occur in a free society. On the down side, I also got to witness sites going blank during the Obama Dominion.
A free society, by nature, becomes diverse and vibrant as the free people pursue diverse interests. Top-down organized communities tend to be stagnant and dependent on conformity.
Yes, I know diversity is a theme of the left. The current wave of progressives feign a forced diversity in a pathetic attempt to overcome negative images of the Socialism of previous generations.
IMHO, advocates of liberty would do well to emphasize that a free society of strong individuals results in strong communities. Freedom leads to an organic diversity. Foolishly, Conservatives conceded these terms to the left as progressives use forced diversity and top-down community organization in their grub for power.
I wish people would take the time to compare the dynamic social structure of free societies to the contrivances of community organizers and stand on the side of freedom.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Activist Training School
I reluctantly signed up for the Campaign For Liberty Activist Training Camp this weekend at the Southtowne Exposition Center.
I used the word "reluctantly" as I have never been fond of activist training.
Back in school, I followed my professors' lead and attended activist training for Marxist causes and came out of the experience seeing activist training itself as part of the problem.
An activist is self-committed to a cause and no longer committed to the pursuit of the truth. Activists training builds a political hierarchy of dullards and systematically fails in the pursuit of our ideals.
I think it is valuable for conservatives and libertarians to learn about the Alinsky Method to understand the corruption of the left. Sadly, when reactionary conservatives get too engrossed in the method, they become as bad as community organizers of the left.
I am attending the "Activist Training" hoping it will be an opportunity to network.
My greatest fear is that reactionaries will become the spitting image of the left destroying this nation once and for all.
I used the word "reluctantly" as I have never been fond of activist training.
Back in school, I followed my professors' lead and attended activist training for Marxist causes and came out of the experience seeing activist training itself as part of the problem.
An activist is self-committed to a cause and no longer committed to the pursuit of the truth. Activists training builds a political hierarchy of dullards and systematically fails in the pursuit of our ideals.
I think it is valuable for conservatives and libertarians to learn about the Alinsky Method to understand the corruption of the left. Sadly, when reactionary conservatives get too engrossed in the method, they become as bad as community organizers of the left.
I am attending the "Activist Training" hoping it will be an opportunity to network.
My greatest fear is that reactionaries will become the spitting image of the left destroying this nation once and for all.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Beat Up on the Debt Ceiling
The media really beat on the Tea Party during the debt limit debate. The movement likely suffered a loss of political capital for very little gain.
The Tea Party got beat up because they let the left choose the issue. The debt limit was a crisis because the Pelosi/Reid Congress failed to raise the debt limit to match their spending.
The Pelosi/Reid Congress could have used their super majority to raise taxes or raise the debt limit. Pelosi/Reid chose to put our nation is a terrible spot hoping to gain political points by pushing our finances to the brink.
I hope that the budget fiasco made it clear to leaders of the Tea Party movement that they cannot simply let progressives define the battlefield and expect to win.
To restore American freedoms, the Tea Party needs to choose the issue.
The most powerful issue is Health Freedom.
The Health Freedom debate must start with fundamentals. It cannot start with the assumption that employer based insurance is health freedom.
Employer based health insurance was designed by progressives in decades past as part of the path to socialism. In the Carter administration, I attended lectures during which the professor put forward the notion that the first step to socialism was to convince Americans that group funding was the only way to pay for health care.
The professor instructed young activists to promote employer based health care.
I figured that if supporting group-funding of health care was the first step to socialism; then the first step to the restoration of liberty would be to promote self-funded health care.
While working in the insurance industry, I carefully deconstructed a group insurance pool and created a viable alternative to insurance called "The Medical Savings and Loan."
I developed the Medical Savings and Loan as a business model (not as a political platform).
However, I believe that this business model could play a vital role in the restoration movement.
The fact that the MS&L is important. It actually shows how the free market creates new businesses and new jobs.
BTW, the idea that austerity measures lead to prosperity is paradoxical until one realizes that government is, by nature, in a negative space.
Government, by nature, places constraints on the market. The argument for limiting government is a argument for limiting the constraints.
The argument for limited government is convoluted because it argues for a negative. Conservatives seek to place limits on the ability of the government to limit.
Adding the Medical Savings and Loan into the puzzle creates a mechanism in which one is arguing a positive.
My argument is that we should create the Medical Savings and Loan as an alternative to employer based insurance.
The Medical Savings and Loan, at this point, is simply a logical structure for self funded health care.
If the Tea Party argued for this new logical structure in conjuction with the argument for limited government, then they would have a complete system which shows why constraining government leads to prosperity.
Much as I would like to move on to different topics, I think I will continue to pound the drum for the Medical Savings and Loan through 2012.
The Tea Party got beat up because they let the left choose the issue. The debt limit was a crisis because the Pelosi/Reid Congress failed to raise the debt limit to match their spending.
The Pelosi/Reid Congress could have used their super majority to raise taxes or raise the debt limit. Pelosi/Reid chose to put our nation is a terrible spot hoping to gain political points by pushing our finances to the brink.
I hope that the budget fiasco made it clear to leaders of the Tea Party movement that they cannot simply let progressives define the battlefield and expect to win.
To restore American freedoms, the Tea Party needs to choose the issue.
The most powerful issue is Health Freedom.
The Health Freedom debate must start with fundamentals. It cannot start with the assumption that employer based insurance is health freedom.
Employer based health insurance was designed by progressives in decades past as part of the path to socialism. In the Carter administration, I attended lectures during which the professor put forward the notion that the first step to socialism was to convince Americans that group funding was the only way to pay for health care.
The professor instructed young activists to promote employer based health care.
I figured that if supporting group-funding of health care was the first step to socialism; then the first step to the restoration of liberty would be to promote self-funded health care.
While working in the insurance industry, I carefully deconstructed a group insurance pool and created a viable alternative to insurance called "The Medical Savings and Loan."
I developed the Medical Savings and Loan as a business model (not as a political platform).
However, I believe that this business model could play a vital role in the restoration movement.
The fact that the MS&L is important. It actually shows how the free market creates new businesses and new jobs.
BTW, the idea that austerity measures lead to prosperity is paradoxical until one realizes that government is, by nature, in a negative space.
Government, by nature, places constraints on the market. The argument for limiting government is a argument for limiting the constraints.
The argument for limited government is convoluted because it argues for a negative. Conservatives seek to place limits on the ability of the government to limit.
Adding the Medical Savings and Loan into the puzzle creates a mechanism in which one is arguing a positive.
My argument is that we should create the Medical Savings and Loan as an alternative to employer based insurance.
The Medical Savings and Loan, at this point, is simply a logical structure for self funded health care.
If the Tea Party argued for this new logical structure in conjuction with the argument for limited government, then they would have a complete system which shows why constraining government leads to prosperity.
Much as I would like to move on to different topics, I think I will continue to pound the drum for the Medical Savings and Loan through 2012.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
A Parasitic Nation?
In 1983, Ronald Reagan created a stir by calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Predictibly, the MSM and cultural elite belittled Reagan as a lunatic for the statement; however, the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev and others engaged in introspection and saw great faults in their nation.
In 1987, the failed experiment of the Soviet Union finally collapsed.
This week Russian leader Vladimir Putin called the United States a parasite stating that we are living beyond our means and leeching off the world economy.
Prior to the New Deal and Great Society, the United States was the world's leading producer. In our new progressive era, we systematically attack and burden the productive sectors of our economy to create massive subsidies. This backwards way of thinking has created the largest parasitic class since the days before the of Ancient Rome.
Last century, America was the largest creditor nation in human history. Our political class borrowed and spent until we've become the laster creditor nation in history.
The parasite class not only lives in the government. Parasitism has taken over our schools and much of our financial sector.
Our current financial world is built around hedging and not producing.
The fall of America is a horrifying show to watch. The parasitic ruling class of America is bound to eat this nation whole and is likely to take down much of the world in its fall.
In 1987, the failed experiment of the Soviet Union finally collapsed.
This week Russian leader Vladimir Putin called the United States a parasite stating that we are living beyond our means and leeching off the world economy.
Prior to the New Deal and Great Society, the United States was the world's leading producer. In our new progressive era, we systematically attack and burden the productive sectors of our economy to create massive subsidies. This backwards way of thinking has created the largest parasitic class since the days before the of Ancient Rome.
Last century, America was the largest creditor nation in human history. Our political class borrowed and spent until we've become the laster creditor nation in history.
The parasite class not only lives in the government. Parasitism has taken over our schools and much of our financial sector.
Our current financial world is built around hedging and not producing.
The fall of America is a horrifying show to watch. The parasitic ruling class of America is bound to eat this nation whole and is likely to take down much of the world in its fall.
Monday, August 01, 2011
On the Battle Against Evil
There are two ways of looking at the issue of evil.
One can see evil as the opposite of good, or one can see evil as the perversion of good.
When one holds that evil is the opposite of good, one develops the idea that fighting evil is a matter of fighting those labeled as evil.
When one holds that evil is a perversion of good, one is likely to see introspection as the first step in the battle against evil, for if one becomes evil in the fight for good, then the fight is for naught.
One can see evil as the opposite of good, or one can see evil as the perversion of good.
When one holds that evil is the opposite of good, one develops the idea that fighting evil is a matter of fighting those labeled as evil.
When one holds that evil is a perversion of good, one is likely to see introspection as the first step in the battle against evil, for if one becomes evil in the fight for good, then the fight is for naught.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Defining the Exception Before the Rule
The Sutherland Institute wrote a pamphlet on the importance of Charitable Care. The article laments that their suggest fell on deaf ears.
I am not a "stakeholder." I was dissatisfied with the article because I believe that the article started at the wrong point.
It is true that charity is an important element in a free society. Through charity, free people express their most cherished values. In health care, a well honed system of charity provides care for the people who are underserved by the primary medical system.
Charity is important, but charity is the exceptions and not the rule.
Because the Sutherland Institute sought to address the exception before the rule, the institute ended up penning a proposal that does not resonate with either the "stakeholders" or the public.
The Sutherland plan creates a new state-owned charity called the "Community Health Foundation" that runs free clinics and coordinates charitable care. The program assumes doctors will line up to volunteer time at a state run clinic, and that people are super eager to donate to state agencies.
To me, the CHF appears to be just another top heavy political structure in a world dominated by top heavy political solutions for health care. The "stakeholders" in health care probably just see the CHF as another player in the grub for power.
I believe Sutherland would have better success in promoting free market health care if they start with the rule before trying to define the exception.
This is the approach of the The Medical Savings and Loan.
The mantra of the Medical Savings and Loan is "Those who can pay for their health care should pay for their health care."
The MS&L creates a structured savings program to help people self fund their care. The program records in minute detail a person's health care spending, income and overall wealth.
When a person has abnormally high medical expenses or abnormally low income then they need charitable assistance.
Because the Medical Savings and Loan records people's care, we can identity those who need additional assistance.
Conversely, when a person has abnormally good health or abnormally high income, the MS&L points this out and encourages the lucky ones to donate to the unfortunate.
A well crafted tool that helps people self-fund their care will identify those who cannot.
As such, The Medical Savings and Loan will work elegantly with charitable and public health efforts. Were we to adopt the paradigm of the medical savings and loan for health care, we would find that can provide generous grants without a top heavy structure like the CHF.
While the Medical Savings and Loan works elegantly with public health agencies, insurance does not.
As insurance companies are eager to dump sick people onto the public health system, insurance makes public health care problematic.
Were the Sutherland Institute to look at the rule and not the exception, they would realize that we need to change the primary mechanism for funding health care from an insurance model to the Medical Savings and Loan Model.
"Once again, the call for input fell on deaf ears – none of
Utah’s health care stakeholders seriously considered the request."
I am not a "stakeholder." I was dissatisfied with the article because I believe that the article started at the wrong point.
It is true that charity is an important element in a free society. Through charity, free people express their most cherished values. In health care, a well honed system of charity provides care for the people who are underserved by the primary medical system.
Charity is important, but charity is the exceptions and not the rule.
Because the Sutherland Institute sought to address the exception before the rule, the institute ended up penning a proposal that does not resonate with either the "stakeholders" or the public.
The Sutherland plan creates a new state-owned charity called the "Community Health Foundation" that runs free clinics and coordinates charitable care. The program assumes doctors will line up to volunteer time at a state run clinic, and that people are super eager to donate to state agencies.
To me, the CHF appears to be just another top heavy political structure in a world dominated by top heavy political solutions for health care. The "stakeholders" in health care probably just see the CHF as another player in the grub for power.
I believe Sutherland would have better success in promoting free market health care if they start with the rule before trying to define the exception.
This is the approach of the The Medical Savings and Loan.
The mantra of the Medical Savings and Loan is "Those who can pay for their health care should pay for their health care."
The MS&L creates a structured savings program to help people self fund their care. The program records in minute detail a person's health care spending, income and overall wealth.
When a person has abnormally high medical expenses or abnormally low income then they need charitable assistance.
Because the Medical Savings and Loan records people's care, we can identity those who need additional assistance.
Conversely, when a person has abnormally good health or abnormally high income, the MS&L points this out and encourages the lucky ones to donate to the unfortunate.
A well crafted tool that helps people self-fund their care will identify those who cannot.
As such, The Medical Savings and Loan will work elegantly with charitable and public health efforts. Were we to adopt the paradigm of the medical savings and loan for health care, we would find that can provide generous grants without a top heavy structure like the CHF.
While the Medical Savings and Loan works elegantly with public health agencies, insurance does not.
As insurance companies are eager to dump sick people onto the public health system, insurance makes public health care problematic.
Were the Sutherland Institute to look at the rule and not the exception, they would realize that we need to change the primary mechanism for funding health care from an insurance model to the Medical Savings and Loan Model.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Deregulating the Regulators
One cannot "deregulate" financial tools designed to regulate the economy.
When one tries to deregulate regulatory tools, one introduces chaotic elements and systemic faults into the financial markets.
The financial tools at the heart of the financial collapse were designed to regulate the economy. Things like the Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are quasi government entities that serve regulatory purposes.
Our financial system is top heavy with regulatory structures.
Mortgages were designed to regulate the housing market. The idea behind the mortgage system is that people pay regular payments to banks which make regular predictable profits. Government backed re-insurance was added to mortgages to regulate this regulatory tool. Mortgage Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps were also designed to provide additional insurance and stability for these regulatory tools.
Insurance, for that matter, is a regulatory tool. The idea behind insurance is that people would pay regular premiums into a pool to cover irregular expenses.
Insurance exists to regulate! When people demand insurance regulation, they are demanding regulation of a regulatory instrument.
Hedge Funds are investment tools designed to leverage and hedge investments. Hedge funds are not simply to investment funds. They exist to regulate, and use formulas that came from the regulatory mindset.
Short selling is a regulatory tool. With short selling, a trader sells a phantom share of a stock with a promise to buy the stock back in the future. It is an inherently anti-market device. Short sellers justify this anti-market device with the claim that it "provides liquidity."
The claim is absurd. Short selling increases in economic downturns and effectively decrease liquidity. Short sellers are the scum of the earth. The fact that they lie is no surprise.
The banking system is flush with regulation. The Federal Reserve and the system of fractional lending were designed from the ground up to regulate the economy.
This system of regulations built upon other regulations is inherently instable. It is a house of cards doused in flammable liquid. Nobody, not even someone as smart as Tim Geithner, knows what to do with the regulations stacked upon other regulations.
During the Clinton Administration, our financial elite deluded themselves into thinking that they could simply let go the reigns of their regulatory tools and the market would sort things out. The Bush Administration lacked the intellectual acuity to realize the dangers of the experiment of deregulating regulatory tools.
One cannot restore the free market by letting Wall Street run roughshod with a toxic mix of anti-market tools.
To restore the free market, we need to replace the anti-market tools like insurance and short selling with pro-market ideas such as the Medical Savings and Loan and Real Time Exchange.
Trying to deregulate regulatory tools will continue to lead to disaster and economic decline.
When one tries to deregulate regulatory tools, one introduces chaotic elements and systemic faults into the financial markets.
The financial tools at the heart of the financial collapse were designed to regulate the economy. Things like the Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are quasi government entities that serve regulatory purposes.
Our financial system is top heavy with regulatory structures.
Mortgages were designed to regulate the housing market. The idea behind the mortgage system is that people pay regular payments to banks which make regular predictable profits. Government backed re-insurance was added to mortgages to regulate this regulatory tool. Mortgage Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps were also designed to provide additional insurance and stability for these regulatory tools.
Insurance, for that matter, is a regulatory tool. The idea behind insurance is that people would pay regular premiums into a pool to cover irregular expenses.
Insurance exists to regulate! When people demand insurance regulation, they are demanding regulation of a regulatory instrument.
Hedge Funds are investment tools designed to leverage and hedge investments. Hedge funds are not simply to investment funds. They exist to regulate, and use formulas that came from the regulatory mindset.
Short selling is a regulatory tool. With short selling, a trader sells a phantom share of a stock with a promise to buy the stock back in the future. It is an inherently anti-market device. Short sellers justify this anti-market device with the claim that it "provides liquidity."
The claim is absurd. Short selling increases in economic downturns and effectively decrease liquidity. Short sellers are the scum of the earth. The fact that they lie is no surprise.
The banking system is flush with regulation. The Federal Reserve and the system of fractional lending were designed from the ground up to regulate the economy.
This system of regulations built upon other regulations is inherently instable. It is a house of cards doused in flammable liquid. Nobody, not even someone as smart as Tim Geithner, knows what to do with the regulations stacked upon other regulations.
During the Clinton Administration, our financial elite deluded themselves into thinking that they could simply let go the reigns of their regulatory tools and the market would sort things out. The Bush Administration lacked the intellectual acuity to realize the dangers of the experiment of deregulating regulatory tools.
One cannot restore the free market by letting Wall Street run roughshod with a toxic mix of anti-market tools.
To restore the free market, we need to replace the anti-market tools like insurance and short selling with pro-market ideas such as the Medical Savings and Loan and Real Time Exchange.
Trying to deregulate regulatory tools will continue to lead to disaster and economic decline.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Is World Trade Free Trade?
US-China Trade Conference from Salt Lake Chamber on Vimeo.
The folks at the Utah World Trade Center are beside themselves. They successfully hosted a governors' conference in concert with a US China Trade Conference connecting Chinese Governors with US Governors.
In this conference our glorious leaders negotiated business deals with glorious leaders from China. Four governors from Chinese provinces were given access to governors from throughout the United States.
This conference was really big news for the politically connected business leaders who have access to our ruling class.
Being a political outsider, I look at this top down structuring of the economy with dismay. The US Founders grew up in a world in which business was controlled by a corrupt distant monarchy. They created a new limited government.
Limiting the role of government in trade allowed businesses to freely trade among eachother.
This game where our governors negotiate business deals with Chinese governors is reconstructing the top-down business world that the US Founders rebelled against.
As the WTC Utah negotiates big trade deals that give world trade a competitive edge over small local business, our once free society diminishes.
Since people have a taste for the exotic, a truly free market will have a great deal of free trade.
However, world trade is not itself necessarily free trade. When governors from the US meet governors from China to discuss business deal, one ends up with a system of government controlled crony capitalism in which the people as a whole diminish in the shadows of government corruption.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
That Sense of Entitlement
Switching from insurance to the Medical Savings and Loan could help us break the sense of entitlement that has gripped our nation.
Insurance is a product built around entitlement. If you are a member of an insured group you are entitled, by contract, to the benefits defined in the contract. Since we perceive insurance as a perk, not as something earned, employer based insurance creates a full blown entitlement complex.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a structured savings plan for health care designed to replace employer based insurance. It has the same amount of money as insurance. It deposits most of the money into the savings account, but holds back a sizeable chunk of funds for those with excessive medical needs.
The key to this program is a structured savings program. Participants will meet frequently with a health care advocate who educates employees on future medical expenses and helps people prepare for these expenses. NOTE: Employees are likely to end up with several hundred thousand dollars in their savings account!!!!!!!
When people have unusual health care expenses, they will receive grants. As mentioned previously, the Medical Savings and Loan holds back a large amount of money for major medical expenses. A plan with 100,000 participants is likely to have a few billion dollars for grant.
Remember, the program has the same amount of money as the insurance plan it replaced.
The grants are there and will be dealt out accordingly. The key to this program is that people are not "entitled" to the grants. The grants are given.
The Medical Savings and Loan starts with the same amount of money as the insurance policy it replaces. The primary difference is that people are paying their health care expenses with money that they earned, while insurance has people consuming health care as if it were an entitlement.
People are likely to spend their health care dollars more wisely if they were spending their own dollars. Breaking the sense of entitlement is likely to create a paradigm where we get more money than what we get with the entitlement paradigm.
Insurance is a product built around entitlement. If you are a member of an insured group you are entitled, by contract, to the benefits defined in the contract. Since we perceive insurance as a perk, not as something earned, employer based insurance creates a full blown entitlement complex.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a structured savings plan for health care designed to replace employer based insurance. It has the same amount of money as insurance. It deposits most of the money into the savings account, but holds back a sizeable chunk of funds for those with excessive medical needs.
The key to this program is a structured savings program. Participants will meet frequently with a health care advocate who educates employees on future medical expenses and helps people prepare for these expenses. NOTE: Employees are likely to end up with several hundred thousand dollars in their savings account!!!!!!!
When people have unusual health care expenses, they will receive grants. As mentioned previously, the Medical Savings and Loan holds back a large amount of money for major medical expenses. A plan with 100,000 participants is likely to have a few billion dollars for grant.
Remember, the program has the same amount of money as the insurance plan it replaced.
The grants are there and will be dealt out accordingly. The key to this program is that people are not "entitled" to the grants. The grants are given.
The Medical Savings and Loan starts with the same amount of money as the insurance policy it replaces. The primary difference is that people are paying their health care expenses with money that they earned, while insurance has people consuming health care as if it were an entitlement.
People are likely to spend their health care dollars more wisely if they were spending their own dollars. Breaking the sense of entitlement is likely to create a paradigm where we get more money than what we get with the entitlement paradigm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)