It's Superbowl time and the air is full of talk of sports.
I was just reading an article about the orgins of football and the first players who were largely driven by the love of the game (and the love of life).
Those first pioneers who developed football and baseball were great.
They really went out on a limb to pursue an activity that they loved. They are worthy of admiration.
Speaking of the Superbowl ... Have you ever wanted to own your own professional sports franchise?
Do you think it would be fun to participate in a weekend activity where you will burn some calaries while getting a bunch of inbound links to your web site or blog?
Are you in Utah, Colorado, Arizona (or perhaps San Diego)?
I am working on a new social networking sport called Juggleball.com.
Yes, it is a sport that involves social networking and physical activity! It is a participatory sport. In football, only a few people play. Most sit idly and watch. In juggleball, everybody who wants to play gets to play.
The game works as follows: When you join the game, you get numbered balls. You engage in a number of juggle relays. This involves running with the balls between bases (such as in a baseball diamond).
If you are unable to run, you can just stay at a base.
The winner of each game is the person who is best at completing the relays.
In most sports, the goal is to vanquish an enemy. In Juggleball, you compete in your ability to cooperate with others.
At the end of the game you will have a different set of balls than you started with. The scorekeeper will record the number of the balls and enter this information on juggleball.com. The balls bouncing around from player to play will form an interesting social network.
The first people who play the game will get the lowest numbered balls. The first scorekeepers will be lauded as the pioneers of the sport. They will get thousands of inbound links and there will be songs, sonets and museums praising their forthrightness and fortitude for centuries to come.
To get the ball rolling. I need brave souls to step up as scorekeepers ... the scorekeepers work for a franchise.
To own a juggleball franchise you will need access to a computer, the ability to secure a playing field and to get a dozen or so people to show up at a field for a game.
The franchise can be part of another business. For example, if you own a business or store; you can add the franchise as part of your existing lines of business.
A franchise is likely to be selling things, and might need a sales tax id.
I will reserve the first 1234 numbers for people who contact me and show interest in owning a franchise and becoming scorekeepers.
At this moment, I am especially interested in contacting people from places I can easily travel to. I live in Salt Lake City. I hope to be traveling to Arizona at the end of the month and possibly to San Diego.
I am especially interested in people who live in or can travel to Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada (Las Vegas), Utah, Wyoming or possibly San Diego. Small towns are as good as big ones in my book.
Of course, you can contact me from anywhere (including outside the US). I will put you on a mailing list.
As you watch the Superbowl, think about how fun it would be to own your own professional sports franchise. The cost to join is minimal, the limited opportunity to get in for free will pass you by if you fail to contact me.
The best way to contact me is to register for a free Community Color you can do this securely on irivers.com/register.html then use the secure contact form https://irivers.com/contact.html?to=kevind .
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Friday, February 03, 2012
Please Don't Kill the Freedom Movement
In the 1990s, I truly felt that the liberty movement was making inroads.
During the Clinton Administration, we had seen successful welfare reform, some deregulation and a decrease in deficit spending.
Personally, I think the famous "balanced budget" was more of lucky combination of circumstance than political skill. At the height of the dotcom boom, the economy grew faster than the CBO had predicted. Balancing a budget during an economic boom is not a monumental challenge.
If you had an expected ten percent bonus from work, would your budget be balanced for the month?
I had felt confident that the freedom movement had made its point and I was happy to see the Republicans take full control of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2000.
The suddenly the Republican establishment turned on the freedom movement and silenced it. Bush dramatically increased healthcare spending. He started no-child left behind, and issued a tax cut without corresponding spending cuts.
It was sheer insanity.
The president is the head of the party. During Bush's rule, he put a kibosh on the free marketeers, and the freedom movement lost all of the momentum of the 1990s.
In the 2012 election, we are being told by the Republican establishment that we must vote in a progressive candidate to have a chance to beat Obama.
As I look back on 2000, I realize that the momentum of the Tea Party will be lost if Republicans fall for that line again and vote in a progressive.
Wake up America!
Do you even remember the Tea Party of 2010?
Don't you see how it has all but disappeared in one short year?
Just as the freedom movement was pushed underground under Bush, the Republican establishment will stifle it under Romney.
PS: I actually care more about the people than I do about the candidate. My primary concern in the election is the effect candidates will have on the public debate.
I actually like Bush as a person. I like Obama as a person and Romney as a person.
Anyway, before voting in the primary, I ask that people put the candidate's personality aside for a moment as ask what effect the candidacy will have on the people.
I love the Tea Party, the Campaign for Liberty and Health Freedom movement. These are the things I care about.
The president's organization will control the party for the next eight years. I see this organization putting the iron boot down on all the parts of the freedom movement that I cherish if we make the mistake of putting a progressive Republican in power.
During the Clinton Administration, we had seen successful welfare reform, some deregulation and a decrease in deficit spending.
Personally, I think the famous "balanced budget" was more of lucky combination of circumstance than political skill. At the height of the dotcom boom, the economy grew faster than the CBO had predicted. Balancing a budget during an economic boom is not a monumental challenge.
If you had an expected ten percent bonus from work, would your budget be balanced for the month?
I had felt confident that the freedom movement had made its point and I was happy to see the Republicans take full control of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2000.
The suddenly the Republican establishment turned on the freedom movement and silenced it. Bush dramatically increased healthcare spending. He started no-child left behind, and issued a tax cut without corresponding spending cuts.
It was sheer insanity.
The president is the head of the party. During Bush's rule, he put a kibosh on the free marketeers, and the freedom movement lost all of the momentum of the 1990s.
In the 2012 election, we are being told by the Republican establishment that we must vote in a progressive candidate to have a chance to beat Obama.
As I look back on 2000, I realize that the momentum of the Tea Party will be lost if Republicans fall for that line again and vote in a progressive.
Wake up America!
Do you even remember the Tea Party of 2010?
Don't you see how it has all but disappeared in one short year?
Just as the freedom movement was pushed underground under Bush, the Republican establishment will stifle it under Romney.
PS: I actually care more about the people than I do about the candidate. My primary concern in the election is the effect candidates will have on the public debate.
I actually like Bush as a person. I like Obama as a person and Romney as a person.
Anyway, before voting in the primary, I ask that people put the candidate's personality aside for a moment as ask what effect the candidacy will have on the people.
I love the Tea Party, the Campaign for Liberty and Health Freedom movement. These are the things I care about.
The president's organization will control the party for the next eight years. I see this organization putting the iron boot down on all the parts of the freedom movement that I cherish if we make the mistake of putting a progressive Republican in power.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Corrupt Generations
Tom Brokaw called the generation that grew up in hardships of the Depression to win a war against Nazi Germany "The Generation."
They were followed by a corrupt generation that create the current economic and social mess.
I contend that the same pattern happened at the birth of our nation.
The Founders were part of a great generation that rose against a corrupt monarchy and established a Constitutional Union.
The US founders were not able to resolve the problem of slavery, and hoped their children would.
The generations that followed the founders was an intellectually corrupt group that brought more harm into the world than good.
The intellectuals of the Founders generation were typified by Adam Smith, who showed that a free society will out produce an enslaved one, and Benjamin Franklin who advanced multiple disciplines.
The generation that followed was typified by Hegel who brought forth an ugly new dialectics based on paradox and conflict.
The generation that followed the Founders brought us the partisan divide that continues to dominate politics.
The corrupt intellectuals of the day not only failed to address slavery. They came up with lame ideologies to justify slavery.
The thinking of this corrupt generation is typified by the German philosopher Hegel (1770-1831), who created a new dialectics that used the reflexive paradox to claim freedom was slavery and slavery freedom.
Hegelian dialectics used a device called historicism in which a pseudo intellectual presents a fantastical view of history driven by thesis anti-thesis conflicts. The intellectual then claims to be able to deduce the future from the conflicts.
The papers of the 1820s were filled with fantastical histories and pseudo science to justify the prejudices and partisanship of the day.
So, while the work of the Founders laid the foundation for a free market and constitutional republic; the generations that followed spewed forth with corrupt ideologies and fantastical histories that spun historical events in really ugly ways.
This model of a great generation followed by a corrupt one is important to remember because our current understanding of the Founders is very much influenced by the spinning and the filters of the generations that followed.
The early 1800s were an intellectually corrupt time rife with partisanship that culimated in the Civil War and laid the intellectual foundation for the totalitarian regimes that caused so much destruction in the following century.
This intellectually corrupt and partisan generation that followed the founders is the group that wrote the history of the Founders. They are the ones that laid the foundation for all of the messes that we are in today.
Everything we see in the world is filtered. So, in our pursuit of truth, we must understand that indiviual views of history are always adversely affected by these filters.
They were followed by a corrupt generation that create the current economic and social mess.
I contend that the same pattern happened at the birth of our nation.
The Founders were part of a great generation that rose against a corrupt monarchy and established a Constitutional Union.
The US founders were not able to resolve the problem of slavery, and hoped their children would.
The generations that followed the founders was an intellectually corrupt group that brought more harm into the world than good.
The intellectuals of the Founders generation were typified by Adam Smith, who showed that a free society will out produce an enslaved one, and Benjamin Franklin who advanced multiple disciplines.
The generation that followed was typified by Hegel who brought forth an ugly new dialectics based on paradox and conflict.
The generation that followed the Founders brought us the partisan divide that continues to dominate politics.
The corrupt intellectuals of the day not only failed to address slavery. They came up with lame ideologies to justify slavery.
The thinking of this corrupt generation is typified by the German philosopher Hegel (1770-1831), who created a new dialectics that used the reflexive paradox to claim freedom was slavery and slavery freedom.
Hegelian dialectics used a device called historicism in which a pseudo intellectual presents a fantastical view of history driven by thesis anti-thesis conflicts. The intellectual then claims to be able to deduce the future from the conflicts.
The papers of the 1820s were filled with fantastical histories and pseudo science to justify the prejudices and partisanship of the day.
So, while the work of the Founders laid the foundation for a free market and constitutional republic; the generations that followed spewed forth with corrupt ideologies and fantastical histories that spun historical events in really ugly ways.
This model of a great generation followed by a corrupt one is important to remember because our current understanding of the Founders is very much influenced by the spinning and the filters of the generations that followed.
The early 1800s were an intellectually corrupt time rife with partisanship that culimated in the Civil War and laid the intellectual foundation for the totalitarian regimes that caused so much destruction in the following century.
This intellectually corrupt and partisan generation that followed the founders is the group that wrote the history of the Founders. They are the ones that laid the foundation for all of the messes that we are in today.
Everything we see in the world is filtered. So, in our pursuit of truth, we must understand that indiviual views of history are always adversely affected by these filters.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Laptop Batteries
Everytime I reboot my computer, I get a warning message that my laptop battery is failing.
I used to upgrade computers about every five years.
My 2003 Dell Inspiron is the first laptop I've owned that's outlasted the battery! I don't anticipate upgrading any of the computers in the household for another two to three years.
The company Premium Laptop Batteries of Cheyenne manufactures replacement batteries and adapters for top brands of computers. I looked up my computer model (e1505) and the replacement battery (with free shipping) was just $60.
I suspect that it is now common for laptop batteries to fail before the computer becomes obsolete. This is one of the few tech companies that will do well in our unending recession.
I used to upgrade computers about every five years.
My 2003 Dell Inspiron is the first laptop I've owned that's outlasted the battery! I don't anticipate upgrading any of the computers in the household for another two to three years.
The company Premium Laptop Batteries of Cheyenne manufactures replacement batteries and adapters for top brands of computers. I looked up my computer model (e1505) and the replacement battery (with free shipping) was just $60.
I suspect that it is now common for laptop batteries to fail before the computer becomes obsolete. This is one of the few tech companies that will do well in our unending recession.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
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.
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 dozenvictims 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.
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
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.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)