The Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster is a case in point. The disaster started with an explosion that nobody was ready for, although explosions sometimes do happen in the drilling business. Then the oil companies (BP and Transatlantic) discovered that they had absolutely “NO PLANS’ to handle the unfolding disaster; they had to think things up as they went along. They had only one shut off station in one location, and that malfunctioned!

Why didn’t they have other shut off valves along the pipe line? They probably didn’t because it would cost too much (you can’t cut into profits too deeply). But there is no excuse for not being ready for this oil spill because since 1909 there have been almost one hundred major oil spills worldwide. So, there is absolutely no excuse for them not being ready for it.

Then as the oil well was spilling a million gallons a day into the Gulf of Mexico, they were fooling around with one gizmo after another. First they tried a 100 ton cap that didn’t work, then they tried a smaller cap that also didn’t work, they they tried a so called “Top Kill” technique; which was a small pipe in a big pipe that pumped mud into it, but that didn’t work either.

But the most anguishing question remains, “Why didn’t they have a back-up plan?” Things happen in the ocean – hurricanes, sinking ships, equipment breakdowns, Murphy’s Law etc. Why didn’t they have plans for these possible disasters?

Having plans means looking at the long history of oil spills and just making plans, it’s just that simple, but they didn’t do it.  For example, they could have prepared for it by placing a pipe of similar size on the ocean bottom at the depth they are drilling at and could have pumped harmless sea water through it to simulate an accident with a leaking pipe; then tried different ways to stop the leak. A portable shut-off valve could have been designed and tested this way. This would be similar to what fire fighters do by setting an abandoned house on fire an practicing different ways to fight the fire. I guess BP either couldn’t think of this (brain dead) or they didn’t want to spend the money to build such a portable shut-off valve just to have it sit around taking up space and maintenance money and not be used for anything. Completely useless, like a life boat on the Titanic!

Since many techniques have been tried to cap the well and all failed, except the latest Top Cap that’s only partly effective, and since the so-called experts are telling us that drilling a relief well is the best way to stop a run away leaking oil well; we may have to establish a law that requires that a relief well be drilled along side every major producing well.

But just to look at a worse case scenario (since BP doesn’t want to do this), what if a sinking ship hit an oil well just where it comes out of the sea floor, currently this may be the disaster that just may not have a solution. So, requiring that relief wells be drilled along side all producing wells may be required; these relief wells should be deep enough and far enough away from the leak with a sunk ship on top of it so that it will still be possible to cap it. This sort of thinking must be applied to the drilling business even if this means developing the technology to remove a damaged ship and still be able to cap the leaking well involved. We have to develop effective technology to quickly cap a run away leaking oil well regardless of how severe the accident is, before any more offshore drilling is allowed. The oil companies will certainly not like this because this will certainly be very expensive and damage profits, but the working lives of people who use the sea for a living must be protected.

But then again, the very least that should be done is to improve the existing blow-out preventer ram press valve that the Deepwater Horizon had but failed to close the well. If this valve can be improved to make it more reliable and if a portable back-up valve can also be developed this just may solve the problem. But then again the oil giant BP is not even thinking about this. Their thinking about the ”Small People”and about how the ”Small People” need their oil no matter what they do.

As things now stand, all the people who had a great life of freedom on the open Gulf of Mexico, are just going to be more bodies on the unemployment lines. The restaurant owners and workers and fishing equipment suppliers will also join them on the unemployment line. They had a great life on the sea, but it’s over now.

All that can be done now is to establish a museum of the life and times of the mariners who lived on the Gulf so that future generations can remember.

But now is the time for Americans to take a hard look at what we’ve done by establishing this corporate culture that we now have, with its limited liability and quick, cheap and dirty way of doing things. The modern corporation as we know it started in 1855 with the “Limited Liability Act” passed in England, then similar laws were passed in America starting with the ” Delaware General Corporation Law” in 1899. Soon after that the stock market crashed in 1929. Then there was the Saving and Loan scandal, the Current Sub-Prime mess and Bernie Madoff. Is there a connection with the Limited Liability Act of 1855? Maybe. But notice that corporations came about in the second half of Americas history when the stock market crashed and a host of other scandals started; corporations really didn’t exist when America was founded or in the first half of American history, you know the part of our history that made us a great nation. Granted there were some small financial problems in the first half, but nothing like the second half of our history. Do you see a connection here.

It has to be admitted that shady deals always existed throughout human history, but if you remove personal liability (like corporation law does) this can only increase shady deals and this is not good. It lowers morality and a sense of justice that has effects through out our society.

Some people said that corporation laws will expand business and create jobs and so be good for the economy, but this is just not so, deals were being made as far back as ancient Rome, the real boost for business was the industrial revolution and modern banking that provided financing; not limited liability laws. If anything, limited liability laws are hurting business because people are afraid of con-artists that will rob them.

Today there are many people who believe that products are not made as good as they used to be. An example of this is an old refrigerator that I had in my old apartment, around the year 1980, it just stopped working and so I decided to get a new one. Then my landlord told me that it was 30 years old which ment that it was made about 1950. Today you will not have a refrigerator that lasts 3o years, your lucky if it lasts 10 years, the same can be said for water heaters and other products. Can this low service life of todays products be the result of the corporate mentality for quick and dirty products and fast profits that are only filling up land-fills and wasting natural resources. I can think of no other reason for this, but you have to make up your mind about this.

The basic reason for the establishment of corporations is that the people who operate corporations convinced the politicians that nobody will take on the responsibility of operating a corporation with the threat of  lawsuits they would face (actually, they just wanted to avoid lawsuits). So, it was decided to establish corporations in such a way that the people who operate corporations can not be sued for wrong doing, only the corporation (a legal non-person) can face lawsuits and pay for them, while the executives still get their contractually guaranteed multi-million dollar pensions and walk happily away from any catastrophes they created. This is why president Obama was only talking to the BP executives, legally that’s all he can do, he can not take legal action against them and he knows it. The president was talking tough just to look good for the cameras; he is after all just another politician. But maybe it’s time we stop this insanity (just look at the Gulf of Mexico) and make corporate executives personally legally responsible for what they do; maybe then they will set-up the emergency procedures needed for disasters like the Gulf Oil Spill.

As for a motive for establishing a big business, instead of freedom from lawsuits, maybe we should try something we haven’t tried for a long time, it’s called:

“The Profit Motive”

It made America the great nation it is (or was). It was the dream of making the big score, getting rich and having it all. That’s the dream people had at the beginning of America that made them take the chance and earn a success that was a living dream. Today’s corporate executives have a cake walk and they know it, so why should they take extra precautions and spend money unnecessarily when their covered from liability and they know that no matter what happens, they still will have that multi-million dollar pension waiting for them.

Did you notice that when the BP executives were talking in front of a camera about the “Small People” and the oil spill in the Gulf at the beginning of the disaster, they didn’t look excited or worried (neither did the president) they know they will not be personally responsible for it; they’re covered and they know it. Although as the disaster dragged on, I think their public relations people told them to look a little more concerned about it (they might hurt profits) then they sort of had a concerned look about them. But it still seems they are taking their time about this as millions of gallons of oil pour into the Gulf, 350 million gallons so far.

As for the president, so far he said NO to 13 foreign nations that offered help with oil skimmer ships. The Feds also said NO to some of the governors of the Gulf who wanted to build sand berms to block oil coming in. The government also took some oil skimming barges of the Gulf to check for life jackets and stuff like that. Also, a Taiwanese skimmer (a converted oil tanker) called “A Whale” that can skim 21 million gallons of oil a day arrived in the Gulf and was immediately tied up at dock by the Feds for “Testing”. Who’s side is the government is on is certainly open to question now.

What congress is doing is getting old and annoying and their wrecking America in the process. Big time changes are certainly needed and I don’t mean just getting rid of them (that’s coming this November). The American people have to stop voting for a smiling face on a poster and really find out who these people are and what they are going to do in congress before they vote for them.This business of voting because of a photo opp or sound bite has just got to stop and we have to figure out how to get some good people in congress. We need people who can think things through, look ahead, maybe even plan for a disaster. The American people have to take charge of the government and re-establish the Constitution before it’s too late and the next disaster strikes. Or maybe the people should establish and electronic democracy to get directly involved in government. I think the founders of America would have done this if they had our modern mass communication technology.

But just for the record, other potential disasters waiting are: a super volcano in Yellowstone National Park that can take out the whole American West if it explodes, but there are NO PLANS for it. If an astroid like in the movie Armageddon heads towards Earth there some theories about what to do about it, but there are NO PLANS for it. If a Tsunami wave comes towards the West Coast or the East Coast, there are NO PLANS for it.

If you can sleep tight after reading this essay, good for you; but for the rest of your time you better get involved in government

Jose Lugo, email- lugo@ddtv.org

Most Americans are unaware but a Constitutional Crisis of immense proportions looms in our near future, and the early shots have already been fired. No, I’m not referring to the Obama birth certificate controversy; I’m referring to the fundamental battle for freedom and liberty based on the uniquely American experiment of federalism. Federalism is the sharing of power between a federal government and the various state governments, and this foundation is at the very heart of the battle. Through recent actions, the federal government has demonstrated that absolute power is its sole desire. They have ignored the message delivered through Tea Parties and have now directly engaged in political battles with state governments empowered by their citezenry. If “We The People” lose these battles, ALL power will centralize in Washington D.C. and the dynamics of our free country will rapidly change from a government that serves the people to a government that dictates to the people. The crisis ultimately revolves around the question:

“Who decides the Constitutionality of a federal law?”

The most visible battle centers around the unconstitutional health care bill passed in March 2010. But as this one proceeds, there are other Constitutional battles cueing up in the pipeline. Many states where the population embraces freedom have begun to draft legislation that challenges federal authority on matters that the federal government has already overstepped their authority; and, proactive states are preparing legislation in preparation for future offenses. Some examples of these battles:

*Federal Health Care legislation designed to redustribute wealth and make states and people massively dependent on the federal government.

*Federal Cap and Trade legislation designed to foster more state dependence of federal funds by making them insolvent through excessive taxation.

*Federal Amnesty legislation designed to increase the voter base for federal level redistribution schemes.

*Federal Financial Reform legislation designed to acquire more economic power at the federal level to use coercive tools against states and the people.

*State Firearm Legislation that denies federal authority over firearms produced within states; this is designed to proactively challenge the federal governments grasp on firearm laws by eliminating the “Commerce Clause” agrument. Each one of these battles between states and federal governments will test the very foundation of federalism upon which jour great country has prospered in  relative political, economic, and individual freedom. If the pillar of Federalism is to fall, the entire house of cards of the American experiment will fall with it, and a centralized authority will be formed. Your children’s future will be sealed as servants to corrupt politicians in Washington D.C.

Will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?

The first question that must be resolved is “will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?” Almost half of the state governments are participating in a lawsuit claiming that he Health Care bill is unconstitutional. One of the multiple points of contention has to do with the federal governments new power to force a private citizen, under penalty of law, to purchase a product; clearly unconstitutional and something that has never been demanded by federal law before.

This is the federal court’s chance to clearly reassert the state’s constitutionally empowered jurisdiction and put the federal government back under the chains of federalism as defined by the Constitution. If they are willing and able to do this in no uncertain terms, we may still avoid a full constitutional crisis. If, on the other hand, the federal court sides with the federal legislators, then they will have missed the golden opportunity to restore stability and liberty to this country and will have placed us on a road to a government of absolute power.

Past rulings indicate that judges are, as Jefferson warned, simply people too; with political ambitions and a willingness to apply arbitrary opinions over rule-of-law. In fact, Supreme Court justice Sotomayor, the most recent Supreme Court appointee, publicly argued the merits of rulings based on “Social Justice” over “Rule-of-law”. Can an idea be any more dangerous to liberty than that?

In the 1942 case Wikard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat, on his own property, for his own consumption, is subject to federal laws. The ruling was based on a laughable commerce clause interpretation that claimed that since the farmer was NOT participating in interstate commerce then the farmer affected interstate commerce. This kind of circular thinking was used to steal the freedom and liverty from this farmer so that federal power might be increased, It was an impossible step of logic, but rulings like this are used as a precedent for incredible interpretations of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

What precedent is set if the health care legislation is deemed constitutional and the federal government immediately acquires “Constitutional” power to mandate private citizens purchases? No doubt, this precedent will be used to force you to purchase all kinds of products that “partner” corporations might offer. What warped definition of “Liberty” encompasses this concept?

We can hope the federal courts make the correct ruling here, but this one is simply out of our hands.

Who has the final say on the constitutionality of federal laws?

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the federal government and deems an obviously unconstitutional law to be constitutional then tensions between the states and the federal government will increase significantly. At that point, the Constitutional crisis will expose it’s head for all to see, and the fundamental question at the heart of it all is:

“Who decides the constitutionality of a federal law?”

The Constitution does not answer this question. The precedent is that the Supreme Court rules on these. But, what happens when “We The People” judge the Supreme Court to be part of the problem?

First, consider that the common idea is that the Supreme Court offers the final say on constitutional issues. This is partially true given past history and other Supreme Court rulings. But take notice that historically the Supreme Court assumed this power of itself; it was not allocated through the Constitution. This power of final authority was first considered with Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and accrued through other cases presided over by Supreme Court Justice Marshal, a well-known champion of centralized power. It’s easy to see the conflict of interest when a federal judicial branch deems itself to hold absolute authority over the constitutionality of federal laws and federal executive actions. Over time a federal court will become more and more emboldened to ignore the states and “We The People” and rule in favor of more centralized federal power.

It is important to realize that he Constitution is silent on this and does not provide the answer. This was intentional, because on all matters “We The People” are the final authority. Giving the federal judicial branch the supreme power of determination institutionalizes an obvious danger to freedom and liberty. This danger was describbed by Jefferson:

“…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional question is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the dispotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are  in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots…”

In 1798, Jefferson and Madison authored the Virginian and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition  acts. The resolution argued that unconstitutional federal bills that became federal law were null and void and of no effect. According to Jefferson and Madison, states were to be the ultimate arbiter on which laws were constitutional and which were not. By nullifying unconstitutional laws state governments need not ask permission of  federal courts to govern their sovereign states.

The Crisis Resolved.

So, what’s it going to be?

Freedom through decentralized government in which the people and the states determine the constitutionality of federal laws. With this choice, federalism is restored and sovereign states each govern themselves locally through rule-of-law.

Or, servitude to a centralized government in which all three federal branches work together to pass laws, enforce laws, and judge their own laws constitutional, With this choice, the Constitution and federalism are destroyed, absolute power is centralized and rule-of-men will dominate law.

This question is ultimately answered by the will of the people. We will decide and it will have immeasurable impact on our country’s future.

Copyright(c) 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

 A.I.G. then gave its top executives $165 million dollars in “Bonus” pay. All the news outlets are talking about this with the appropriate amount of Hollywood Outrage; but considering what has been going on in corporate culture I don’t see how anybody can be surprised by this, anymore that they can be surprised by the car company executives flying in private jets to Washington to ask for taxpayer bailout money.

What we’re talking about here is arrogance created by “immunity from responsibility”. The executives of corporations have spent years building defensive walls around them to protect them from legal prosecution of any kind. It’s gotten to the point that the average private citizen can’t touch them if the corporation commits a wrong against them.

The basic structure of a corporation insures that a citizen can sue the coproration for damages, but the executives can not be sued for any wrong doing. As outrageous as this is, it’s not enough for the executives. They have built ever more defenses to protect them from liability. A good one is “indemnification”; what this means is that if you sued a corporation, you have to pay for your attorney AND the attorney from the coproration. This by itself makes filing a lawsuit against a corporation just too expensive for the average citizen. Imagine if you go to court to have your case presented and the only thing you hear is the corporate lawyer ask for a postponemnt that will cost you $10,000 dollars in legal fees to have nothing done; the average guy just can not afford this.

If you sign a contract with a corporation, it most likely will have a clause something like this “the corporation can change the terms of this agreement at any time”; what this means is that you have made yourself a “slave” subject to the will of the corporation. They can now make you responsible for anything they want. They can say that if you want to sue them, you have to go to a court house on the other side of the country. They can say they want you to pay them $1,000  a day for any reason they can think of, or require you to mow their lawn or paint the corporate headquarters. Anthing. This sort of “open contract” is clearly bad for you, but great for the corporation.

Then there is the cozy relationship the corporations have with the government that they use through their lobbyists  to get favors. The average  citizen doesn’t have such a relationship with the government, they only get to vote every two to four years or by sending letters that are ignored, but the corporation lobbyists are there every day in smoke filled back rooms (Democracy anyone). This is why when the corporations got angry at the Unions for raising the cost of labor to a living wage, they were able to use their government contacts to allow them to use cheap foreign labor to make products to sell in the higher priced American market. They have the best of two worlds, cheap foreign labor and the high priced American market got the corporations some really big profit margins; this is why they have a dozen homes, 500 foot yachts and private jets. A million dollar bonus is chump change to them.

NOW, they have even more than immunity from prosecution, tax breaks and favored treatment from the government in laws that are passed, NOW they have immunity from having to do anything at all. They can fail completely in the job they are supposed to do and still get multi-million dollar bonuses! Isn’t socialism wonderful!

Corporate culture has to change, they have to be made accountable for their actions. But then again, isn’t “Change” what Barack H. Obama was talking about.–I’m waiting.

Jose Lugo

lugo@ddtv.org

Democrats appear to be suffering from delusions brought about by high pitch fever spending that’s so intense that they do not see the voter rage that’s throwing elected Democtats out of office at a fever pitch. Three states so far have replaced Democrats with Republicans; including the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy that is now held by a Republican, Scott Brown. Other Democrats (about eight so far) have refused to run for re-election and are going into retirement instead. Few surviving Democrats seem to see that their jobs have poor chances of survival and are still pushing the disease ridden Health Care Bill. The February 25 summit achieved nothing.

Republicans have stated that they have other ideas, but in fact they have have only two. One is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines (I thought this was allowed in the Constitution, but the congress seems to know nothing about the Constitution) and this competion in itself just might solve a great deal of the problems with health care, but the Democrats do not  what to hear anything about this.

The other idea the Republicans have is “Tort Reform”. This is sort of like Chemo Therapy, it’s a poison that if given in small doses may or may not cure the problem, but the patient (America) will most likely die anyway from overspending induced bankruptcy.

You see, “Tort Reform” is a cover-up word used to disguise the phrase “denying the American people the right to sue in court for wrongs inflicted on them”. Republicans think this way because they are cozy with the financial industry, rich people and corporations from which they get most of their campaign funding and these people do not want to loose profits by law suits. In other words, it’s the corporation mentality that says “use all the gimmicks you can to stay out of court because we don’t care about justice, we only care about profits”. The Republicans want to expand this corporate mentality to the medical profession to produce doctors that are not responsible for what they do to their patients. This will not do anything to lower the cost of health care, doctors will still charge what they are charging now, but will be less responsible for what they do.

Doctors without responsibility to their patients; like corporations that are immune to lawsuits. Think about it.

So instead of the health care reform bill extending health care to 30 million people, what it will do is give more expensive but substandard health care to all Americans, because it’s questionable if America has the resources to do what the Democrats want. Add to this what the Republicans want and what we’ll get is rationed health care from doctors who are not responsible for their work. The Ulitmate Poison Pill.

I don’t want to talk about Medicare, it’s dead. Cause of death, “Health Care Reform”. I mean, it only reimburses doctors about 20% of the cost of care and the President wants to reduce funding even more. So, like I said, it’s dead, move on.

It seems that the health care reform disease has spread from Europe to Canada and is now spreading south to America, leaving a trail of bankruptcy behind it. I don’t know what to do, maybe I can get some health care now before Health Care Reform creeps in, or maybe I can escape to Mexico, but I don’t know if Mexican hospitals will accept illegals from America.

J. Lugo

The current climate remains one where the Right Wing is angry because they believe that government funding for millions of more people in the health care system can not be provided without bankrupting America because we’re already facing record debt, the most since World War II. The Left Wing is angry because they believe racism is the reason for not passing health care reform, because it’s 47 million poor people who do not have adequate medical care, and the current bill before congress will not cover all of them.

But what none of them is talking about is to take a cost effective approach to health care in America.

Basicaly, the process of being healed is killing us financially. Some people have tried to control costs by using insurance companies to control costs, but this just adds another layer of expense to an already expensive health care industry. The insurance companies have a profit margin of about 6% which is not bad, but they employ about one million people, and they have the usual costs of doing business of office space rental, payroll, office equipment etc. This adds nothing to the quality of health care and it certainly adds another layer of cost to health care. Dividends paid to investors also adds to the expense without adding any value to health care. Also, like most corporations, the insurance companies have to cut costs to stay in business, and the way health insurance companies control costs is to deny benefits to its customers. I myself have been denied breathing tests, have had the number of chiropractic visits reduced and had the doctor recommended number of allergy shots reduced by insurance companies, and I was never given a medical reason why, I was just told, “this is whats allowed by the insurance”.

Look at it this way. A doctor has to go to medical school and spend about $150,000 dollares in tuition costs – plus regular college and living costs as well while in school – so the average doctor before they start practicing medicine, could be in debt for about $250,000. Harvard Medical School can cost over $300,000 in tuition alone, so if you add regular college and living expenses – a Harvared educated doctor can be in debt for $400,000 to about $500,000 before they even start working!

Also, since America has about 300,000 doctors this means that about 7,500 retire every year and have to be replaced by new doctors (this is based on a 40 year working life. They like their work) and if you take the lower figure of $150,000 for tuition this means that about one billion dollars is spent by these people to become doctors. It also has to be realized that in the current system when doctors start practicing medicine while paying off their student loans with interest, they also have to start paying rent for office space, secretary pay, nurse pay, phone bills, heating/air conditioning bills, medical equipment and malpractice insurance that can cost between $10,000 and $100,000 per year, then on top of this add living expenses for the doctors. It’s no wonder medical bills are so high!

But if doctors are given a subsidy to help with thses expenses (the subsidy can be paid for by stopping payment of premiums to insurance companies and putting this money into the subsidy) this will lower their cost of practicing medicine and if free enterprise still works in America, with doctors having to advertise their cost of care, then the cost of health care will go down, so many people may decide they don’t need health insurance. This way medical decisions will be made between the doctor and the patient, without having insurance companies denying health care.

Some people will say this is subsidized medicine and they’re right, but look at other subsidized products the government provides, like farm subsidies. Some people object to this but this supplies a reliable and affordable food supply. Medical care is certainly a very important element in our society, but if people go bankrupt when using the health care system, then it becomes useless to society. The current system that insures most Americans is mostly paid for painlessly through payroll deductions, so if these payroll deductions go the subsidies for the health care industry instead of to insurance companies it will wind up costing less because insurance costs are out of this plan. Since insurance companies are out of this plan, they can not deny treatment to people who are paying for that treatment. An actual cost analyst must be done here.

Another cost cutting method may be for the government to establish a medical school on the internet that will be free to all internet users, this will cut the before mentioned one billion tuition bill deeply and make the cost to taxpayers even less. Granted, some courses like laboratory classes can not be given on the internet and certainly not for free, but if academic classes are free online the cost of medical school will be far less than it is now, and these savings can be passed on to the patients.

Then there is the cost of drugs. The drug companies are famous for price gouging, the cure for this is a government strong enough to stand up to them and stop taking campaign contributions from them and pass legislation to stop the price gouging.

Using these cost cutting methods on the other medical fields and some common sense instead of the current dogma from Washington will certainly make medical affordable to everybody. Using the other methods being discussed by Washington like insurnace provided health care or socialized medicine will cost more, be vulnerable to fraud, and ultimately will deny some health care to the patients.

It’s interesting to note how the media is handling this, for example, The New York Times had an article about Hawaii’s medical system where most people have full employer paid insurance with low co-pays, no deductibles and few out of pocket costs, their emergency rooms are 34% less used than on the mainland and the people in Hawaii are the most healthy in the nation with the longest life spans. Why they’re so healthy is not known, maybe it’s the low fat Asian food, maybe they’re very active (surfing, beach volley ball), maybe a secret ingredient in Poi does it, maybe they smoke less, maybe because they’re on an island in the middle of the windy Pacific Ocean that plows all the air pollution away, who knows. But what The New York Times does not mention is that since employers pay (by law) for their employees generous health insurance plans, the employers then pass the costs onto their customers thus making Hawaii one of the most expensive places to live with a gallon of milk costing $8.00 and a gallon of gas costing $3.60. So just like Europe with it’s 65% tax rate to pay for its socialized medicine, high health care costs is damaging the economy. So this attempt by the New York Times to make universal health care look workable just does not work when looked at with all economic factors included.

Having the government be the health care provider (socialized medicine) will not be cheaper, becuse countries with socialized medicine have tax rates of about 65% (as stated) and this high tax just stagnates the whole economey. And if the government provides health care we have to remember that it would be the same government that produced $500.00 hammers and $1,500.00 toilet seats; this really does not sound so good, does it. Also, think about how the government operates Amtrak, its been bankrupt since the government took it over. So, if taxpayers subsidze medical expenses and keep the government out of managing medical care we would be better off. Besides, doctors are better at managing health care than Washington or insurance agents.

Another real problem here is that the current administration is talking about making health insurance mandatory. This would be great for the insurance companies, but a disaster for the rest of us. Also, this would be clearly unconstitutional and against everything America stands for. This would be a giant step towards socialism, and lets not forget that socialism failed everywhere it was tried. It bankrupts the nation and gets millions of people killed.

Also, if medicare is eliminated and the elderly are included in the regular health care system with everybody else, it would eliminate duplicate paperwork and make care giving less expensive for everybody involved. But then again some seniors are living on fixed pensions and really do not have a lot of money for health care. These seniors should be given a subsidy to help them along, those seniors who are doing well financially will not need a subsidy. Keeping seniors in a separate system makes them vunerable to be separated into a substandard health care system. Our seniors deserve better, or at least the same health care as everybody else. With the current system, half of all doctors refuse to take medicare patients because of low payments and mountains of paper work to process claims and denied claims.

As far as medicaid is concerned, since it’s a program for poor people and since President Obama keeps talking about 47 million poor people without health insurance even though 83% of Americans have health plans they like (or at least tolerate) so, maybe he wants to change the whole system for the sole benefit of the poor, maybe he should just change the medicaid system. But to change it means to pour a lot of money into it, but that’s impossible because the President knows most Americans think poor people already have enough. So maybe president Obama is trying to pull a fast one on the American people by increasing health care for the poor, with the middle class getting a big tax hike to pay for it. If this is true, then the open government he promised comes into question.

Wealth re-distribution anybody?

It seems that our government is creating artificial jobs by creating duplicate paper work for our many different health care networks (medicare, medicaid, GHI,Blue Cross, Veterans), this keeps the cost of health care in the expensive mode it is now in. Also, it’s supporting an insurance based health care system that produces about one million jobs in the insurance industry. But if the government would just stop supporting a system that sends American jobs to other countries we would not need these artificial jobs. This can be done if we adopted a trade system that takes into account the worker pay difference in importing countries and our worker average pay and equalizes it by set currency exchange rates or by a system of tarriffs (set currency exchange rates are tricky because of speculators). For example, in China the average pay is only a dollar or two an hour, in America a worker needs to make $15 dollars an hour if they want to have a decent home and send their kids to college. If this is done, our manufacturing sector would creat more real useful jobs in a much more healthy economy. But then again, it would be nice if America would just become a normal country again with secure borders, effective crime control and a government that takes care on its own people before it takes care of people in other countries.

I know the word “Tariff” has become a dirty word, but we have to face the facts, America has lost millions of jobs to countries that subsidize their industries and give their workers low pay. America now exports mostly airplanes and farm products, not much else, our manufacturing sector has been hammered to death. It’s past time to revive it even if American business people that invested in factories in foreign countries will loose money, the American people need jobs and they need them now.

O.K. so I went a little off the subject by going from health care to economics, but everything is interrelated, you connot change one thing without affecting other sectors of the economy. This is why health care is so important, it’s 1/6 of the economy and when that changes, a lot of other things also change. The federal deficit is at record highs and to add more spending on top of these record deficits is very dangerous. Bankruptcy is a real danger with the current plans the government is thinking about.

It’s time to get smart about health care, so the politics and president Obama’s ego must be taken out of the health care debate.

But to get back to the topic here, subsidized health care is worth looking into. While socialized medicine or insurance supported medicine would be a disaster that raises the cost of American labor and make America less competive in the world market. Socialized medicine or insurance provided health care would be very expensive and deny health care to the very people it’s supposed to help.