Health Care, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid All Need Reform

America’s Social Safety Net Has Some Holes And They Are Getting Bigger By The Decade

By Melvin J. Howard

Central to understanding the dilemma we now find ourselves in is understanding what it means for the government to write an IOU to itself. But first I want to take all matter of politics out of this whole situation. It is time for people to start facing some serious facts no matter what political stripe. As I discussed in an early post, a US government IOU is the lowest risk asset, but the government being able to come good on this obligation ultimately depends on its ability to collect taxes in the future to pay-off all these IOUs. In reality what really happens with Social Security funding is that the current base of taxpayers always fund the benefits for the current set of retirees. Social Security and Medicare are funded on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. This means that the obligations to be met this year will be funded by revenues collected this same year - there is no pre-funding of benefits, and there cannot be, as we have just argued. When it comes to being the Government, there is nothing safer to invest in than itself, and this is equivalent to depending on future tax revenues to meet all future expenses, which means you fund everything on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is, taxes collected from current workers always pay for the benefits of current retirees.

In reality the Trust Funds provide a mechanism whereby future general income tax revenues of the government can be legally transferred to meet social security obligations in excess of Social Security taxes if and when needed. It is a legal mechanism to facilitate possible future flow of funds and nothing more.

But there is no guarantee on benefits and the law of the land of the day always sets current benefits. But now we get to the problem of the liability being with the government - that is, of course, that the government sets the law of the land! And so the government can change the laws that specify benefits if it so decides. Since the Lock Box (or Trust Funds), are stuffed full of government promises to itself, it becomes a little more than a legal technically that doesn't get at the real issues of funding Social Security and Medicare, it should not be the focal point of discussion. However, unfortunately that’s how some of the leaders in Treasury and Capital Hill are framing the discussion around the Trust Funds.

The real problem that worries the government, and it's not the funding shortfalls in the coming 2030s, 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s! What really worries the government is that within the next few years Social Security and Medicare Costs will start competing for funds that would otherwise be spent by the government on other things (like, military or other things), rather than supplying extra funds to these things (as they have since the Reagan Era). The real issue of Social Security and Medicare funding dilemma is this. How do you fund the medical and retirement costs of an aging society and still keep being the Great Super Power as we are?

As noted, in a pay-as-you-go system the current base of workers fund the retirees and the sick. Translated into real goods and services this means that the current base of workers produce all the good and services, not only for themselves, but also for an increasing proportion of non-producers.

The demographic trends driving an increasing ratio of non-workers needing support to supporting workers are:

* Medical advances that mean people live longer, are retired longer and have higher medical expenses,

* Lower fertility rates keeping down the supply of new workers, and

* Impending retirement of the large baby boomers generation.

In the coming years, more and more of society's resources will be going towards supporting retirees and increasing medical expenses for society as a whole (both workers and non-workers as we've already discussed). This will be true whether benefits are funded in the public sector or the private sector, or both. Thus, Private Savings accounts and privatizing Social Security cannot solve the problem and discussion of these as a solution should also not be allowed to distract debate from the real issues. In fact, putting current contributions into private accounts will make the current funding situation worse, because these funds are now used to pay for current retirees and not "saving" for future retirees.

This increasing demand on society's resources creates great pressure on funds that might otherwise go towards the empire building of the United States in addition to the maintenance of (military and infrastructure), and will likely lead to much slower economic growth. This is perhaps the real dilemma that’s keeping the Governors of States and their Federal counter parts up at night.

Since many necessary maintenance and building expenditures originate in the public sector there is a very real danger that a good chunk of the publicly funded safety net could be cut in the coming decades as we are witnessing now. The reason we now have protests in Wisconsin and now in Ohio should have been expected. Economic risks are thus passed back to those who can least afford them. There is a very real concern that increasing total medical and pension costs will lead to an even worse situation of services provided on an ability-to-pay, rather than a needs basis.

While it is true that both labor force productivity gains and further government borrowing from outside the government could serve to meet some of these increasing obligations, it is not clear that these could be sufficient to solve the problem and both can come with nasty side effects. The point to be made here is that people need to be aware of what the real trade-offs are and that public discussion should be about the real issues and not about the Lock Box (or Trust Fund for the future).

Furthermore, an even more dire situation awaits us than the Social Security dilemma. It is the increasing share of national expenditure devoted to healthcare, as I alluded to earlier. This effects all of Medicare funding, Medicaid funding, private medical funding and the ability of society to come up with a solution to the uninsured problem in the midst of exploding health costs everywhere else.

Add to that the riskiest of national output, or GDP itself, with more and more of it being conceptual and abstract services and thus able to disappear from the economy like poof just like the Lehman Brothers disintegration. I caution about the risks of the components of GDP becoming increasing "conceptual" i.e. we don’t make anything anymore. And the final caution to everybody is this if people are content with the projected increase in healthcare and retirement to eat into the building and maintenance expenses of America then of course the United States of America itself is at risk.

And when America is at risk, so is the whole economic and financial system through which these benefits are paid anyway. So there are no easy answers but not answering them is not an option. Meaning that if don’t fix this problem there will be nothing to debate!

Health, Water and the Environment

Warning this water is unfit for human consumption

By Melvin J. Howard

I knew an attractive young lady that would not and could not drink from her tap. She carried a water bottle with her everywhere she went. I would tease her constantly she had water jugs placed in strategic locations in her car, her gym bag, brief case etc. I thought if Armageddon happens today I know where I am getting my drinking water. That was then this is now. I would no longer tease her about her concerns for her health when it comes to her drinking water. Most people take their drinking water for granted just go to the tap presto a nice cool drink of water. But do you know what you are really drinking you might be surprised and disgusted at the same time. People all over the world are getting sick because of their drinking water. So it begs the question are market solutions as efficient as Mother Nature's way of managing and distributing water? I think not because there is obvious waste in these market solutions. For example in order to clean water that has been polluted by human activities some electricity is needed, and this is extra energy that is simply not needed in the natural process. Not only is extra energy needed but there are waste products produced by the human processes, such as extra water treatment chemicals, that cannot be readily absorbed by natural processes and so create waste. Add to this the fact that human alteration of land has increased flood risk and drought risk that then gets adjusted for by all these human constructions - holding ponds, gutters and so forth - adding more and more energy input into the water cycle, that is in turn further disturbing the water cycle through channelling flows, which causes stream bank erosion and the list goes on and on. Surely it would be hard to argue that markets can run the water cycle - that cycle responsible for the stuff of every life we so depend on - more efficiently than Mother Nature can. Nature has had the opportunity to develop a most energy efficient water cycle millions more years than the humans have, and we are after all, creatures of nature ourselves.

Especially since land alteration pressures lie right at the heart and foundation of our mainstream monetary system. Unfortunately this approach only sees everything through profit and money tinted glasses. Industrial global concerns think of environmental problems in terms of dollar cost and often think of solutions in terms of getting more profits in monetary terms. Thus, much work in the field of sustainable economics often gets reduced to converting all natural processes into monetary equivalents. Continuation of this practice could very well lead to a situation where economic sustainability looks great on paper in terms of long term sustainable profits but completely misses the prediction of, say, catastrophic alteration to the water-cycle - increasing flood, drought and contamination risks of human and industrial waste which as already happening worldwide. As a country we must move from contemporary economics, which has historically ignored natural destruction, and to a more ecologically sensitive "Ecological Economics" we must move away from the practice of converting anything and everything to dollars terms in order to analyze them.

The necessity for this can be seen in the observation that money is an abstract human invention that doesn't obey natural laws, but Nature does! For example, when it comes to water, the primary measure for analysis should be water indicators - say probability of flood, drought, and contamination - NOT money. We can also use energy itself as an indicator, since distribution of energy is so much of what our markets are about.

After such analysis, and given that nature is the most efficient user of energy shouldn't we use natural solutions (preservation, conservation) to complement and mitigate the effects of human development, rather than energy intensive human mitigation efforts. Having established the right balance between human development and natural land features based on purely ENVIRONMENTAL indicators we can then bring money into the picture based on ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS and not the other way around, as it happens today. This approach finally would constrain the monetary system to recognizing the Laws of Nature, which it has never done before. Finally money would begin to respect the Entropy Law, the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

In summary, this would result in fundamental changes to the monetary system itself right at the point of money origination - a much more radical approach than proposed by any of the finance industry dominated groups such as the UNEP Finance Initiatives group. But it is an approach that seems necessary. For years manufacturing plants and gas exploration companies dumped its waste products into several landfills and waterways of the world. Often times leaving PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), dioxins (the killer chemical in Agent Orange) and many other chemical cocktails behind that I can’t even pronounce these reminders are a cause for concern. Because not only is clean drinking water become a problem in North America it is become a worldwide epidemic.

Written by the Sierra Club:

Toxic Tar Sands Oil

An Assault on American Water, Air, Health and Jobs

On July 26, 2010 an Enbridge tar sands pipeline ruptured in Michigan, spilling one million gallons of toxic crude into the Kalamazoo River, a major tributary of Lake Michigan. The crude oil contaminated more than 30 miles of river and forced evacuations for dozens of families. The lasting damage to the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan watershed may take years to resolve. This spill, the worst in Midwest history, is only the latest in a string of ongoing environmental disasters stemming from the production and distribution of the world's dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands.

Tar sands oil is an environmental and health nightmare. Stripmined in the boreal forests of northern Alberta, it is the most toxic form of oil on Earth. Tar sands oil is laden with sulfur, arsenic and heavy metals, and contaminates vast amounts of fresh water in processing. Mining and refining tar sands crude produces up to three times as much greenhouse gas per barrel as conventional crude oil. America currently consumes 1.35 million barrels of tar sands oil each day. Planned expansions will nearly triple our reliance on this toxic fuel.[1]

The safe life span of the average oil pipeline is only fifteen years, and most pipelines in the U.S. are much older. The Enbridge pipeline that burst in Michigan is 41 years old, and has no plans for retirement. Unfortunately pipelines are not always reliable even within the first fifteen years, and even the newest pipelines have already reported leaks.

A planned expansion of tar sands pipelines and refineries in the United States poses a grave threat to our farmland, water, and communities--not just from massive spills like the one in Michigan, but from toxic pollution known to lead to health problems like cancer and emphysema.

Tar Sands Oil Poisons Our Air

Processing tar sands oil releases pollutants directly linked to asthma, emphysema and birth defects into American communities. Because tar sands oil is a heavy, low-quality form of crude, it requires extensive 'upgrading' to be transformed into fuel. Refining tar sands crude creates far more air pollution in American communities that are already burdened with cancer and poor air quality as a result of oil industry activities. Tar sands oil contains, among other toxic metals, 11 times more sulfur and nickel, six times more nitrogen, and five times more lead than conventional crude oil.

Heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons released in tar sands refining have been linked to pre-natal brain damage. Nitrogen oxides, along with volatile organic compounds released in tar sands refining are the principle causes of smog and ground-level ozone. Exposure to nitrogen oxides is a direct cause of asthma, emphysema and other lung diseases.

With plans to triple refining and transportation of tar sands by 2015, there is no question that air pollution--and health problems--in communities from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast will increase.

Tar Sands Oil Contaminates Our Clean Water

Tar sands production wa stes and contaminates tremendous amounts of water. Every barrel of oil produced requires four barrels of water. In this process, water is pumped into toxic waste reservoirs large enough to be seen from space. The mercury, lead and arsenic in tar sands waste threaten human health, even at small levels of exposure. Already, communities downstream from tar sands mines in Canada report 500 times more incidents of rare bile duct cancer than those who do not live near the tar sands. Expanded reliance on this dirty oil would put important American water sources at risk. Canadian pipeline companies currently operate 1,900 miles of oil pipelines in and around the Great Lakes watershed, which supplies 25 million people with drinking water.

Tar sands oil contains elevated levels of many known carcinogens and toxins. In a recent study, tar sands wastewater 'tailings' from extracting oil were found to contain ammonia, benzene, cyanide, phenols, toluene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, copper, sulphate, and chloride[6]. Many of these chemicals are highly toxic and known to cause cancer, and regularly leach into groundwater from the massive lakes used to store tailings. These chemicals are present in tar sands oil before and after processing, and will end up in American groundwater when pipelines leak.

From Montana to Texas: American Communities at Risk

The Keystone XL Pipeline: A Threat to America's Heartland

The largest proposed tar sands pipeline expansion, the Keystone XL, will slice through six states, including Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.

This massive pipeline is nearly 2,000 miles long. It threatens hundreds of acres of wetlands and 91 streams that support large recreational and commercial fisheries, in addition to thousands of smaller streams and waterways. Worse, the pipeline jeopardizes one of the most important agricultural aquifers in the nation, the Ogallala aquifer. Equal in volume to Lake Huron, the Ogallala aquifer supplies the breadbasket of America with fresh water. Onethird of all irrigated American farmland relies on water from this single aquifer, supporting one-fifth of all cattle, wheat, and corn grown in the United States.

To make matters worse, TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, has proposed using cheaper steel for the pipeline, needlessly exposing American communities along much of its route to risk of spills.

Nebraska

In addition to the Ogallala aquifer, the Keystone XL pipeline will traverse some of Nebraska's most important rivers and fisheries, including the Niobrara River, the Elkhorn River, Cedar River, Loup River, and the West Fork of the Big Blue River. Even the oil industry admits it can't prevent pipeline spills. Despite their continued assurances of safety, pipeline companies know their products are inherently unsafe. A spill in this area of Nebraska would be disastrous for the Ogallala and major Nebraska Rivers. The Niobrara River area is of particular concern, since it flows above shale deposits that are highly prone to fracturing and sinking, making underground pipes especially risky.

These important rivers are home to a vast array of birds and aquatic life, as well as large recreational fisheries, which are particularly vulnerable to oil contamination.

Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, the Keystone XL pipeline will cut through the Okmulgee State Park and Deep Fork Wildlife Management Area. The Deep Fork Wildlife area is one of the only public hunting areas in Oklahoma. The Canadian River, Red River, and six other sensitive and protected waterways in Oklahoma will be exposed to threats from tar sands contamination in construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline.

In addition to thousands of Oklahoma farmers who rely on fresh water from the Ogallala aquifer, anglers and residents living near these waterways will be hit hard by a pipeline spill.

Montana

In Montana, the Keystone XL pipeline will cut through historic sites near the confluence of the Milk and Missouri Rivers--sites so important that they are under consideration for Montana State Park designation. The pipeline will also cross some of the state's largest and most vital rivers, including the Missouri and the Yellowstone.

The Missouri is the second-largest tributary of the Mississippi River, and the longest river in the country. The Yellowstone River is the longest undammed river in the lower 48 states. These massive rivers serve as major sources of fresh water to Montana's arid regions. Spills in these rivers would prove disastrous for the state.

The Keystone XL pipeline will also cross nearby tributaries of Lake Fort Peck. This lake is among the largest in eastern Montana, supporting a large fishing and boating community and tourism industry. The Keystone XL pipeline would threaten Montana residents and visitors who count on clean water and fresh fish from Lake Fort Peck.

Texas

In Texas, the Keystone XL pipeline will traverse sixteen large rivers. It will crisscross several rivers that are listed as sensitive and protected, including Big Sandy Creek, Angelina River, Neches River, and the Pine Island Bayou.

These rivers and drainages feed 21 lakes and municipal reservoirs, including the Pat Mayse Lake, Lake Tyler, and Lake Cypress Springs,[10] supporting robust fishing and tourism industries. As the BP disaster in the Gulf showed, oil spills can be devastating to tourism. It's not worth putting these major Texas lakes at risk from a toxic pipeline disaster.

Water contamination isn't the only concern, however. Ninety percent of the increased refining capacity accompanying the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will likely occur in Port Arthur and Houston, an area already plagued with poor air quality. In fact, a Rice University study found that levels of cancer-causing chemicals produced in oil refining are already much higher in Houston than in any other city--in some cases, twenty times higher.[12] If the Keystone XL expansion is built, Houston residents can expect to see an increase in the kind of air pollution that leads to these serious health problems.

Tar Sands Expansion: Putting the Great Lakes Region at Risk

The Great Lakes region is already home to the largest overland pipeline network on the planet, Enbridge's Lakehead system, and one of the highest concentrations of pipeline leaks and breakages in North America.

Up to seventeen major tar sands refinery expansions are in the works or already developed in and around the Great Lakes, threatening to bring air pollution and health problems to residents in the region.

Indiana

In Whiting, Indiana, a refinery owned by BP is expanding to handle thick tar sands crude oil. Because it lies in a densely populated area just outside Chicago, at the corner of Lake Michigan, this expansion will impact air quality for millions of residents across three states. Studies estimate emissions of particulate matter may increase 21 percent with the expansion.[15]The BP Whiting refinery already discharges forty five toxic compounds into Lake Michigan, including benzene, toluene, mercury, lead, nickel and vanadium.[16] The refinery is the top industrial source of lead, nickel and ammonia, and one of only two industrial polluters that still dumps mercury directly into Lake Michigan.

In Fact, the BP Whiting refinery is also the number one source of mercury in Lake Michigan.[18] A permit loophole has allowed the refinery to release an average of 671.5 pounds of mercury into Lake Michigan every year.

Michigan

We've already seen the impacts of a pipeline spill in Michigan. Now, tar sands refinery expansions threaten the state's air. The Marathon refinery in Detroit recently approved plans for a massive expansion to process tar sands crude, in the heart of Michigan's Oakwood Heights neighborhood. The neighborhood, which sits adjacent to the Marathon tar sands refinery, has the highest rate of pollution in Michigan, according to the University of Michigan and Karmanos Cancer Center. Thirteen of Detroit's twenty-seven polluting industries operate in the Oakwood Heights area. Bringing toxic tar sands to this area would increase health threats in a community that is already unfairly burdened by pollution.

Tar Sands Oil:

A Barrier to America's Clean Energy Future

Tar sands oil has no place in America's clean energy future. America's addiction to oil has created a growing threat to our national security, and importing toxic tar sands oil will make it worse. Canadian oil companies stand to make windfall profits from our addiction, and industry front groups for major tar sands developers are waging a massive lobbying and legal campaign against policies to reduce our dependence on oil, like California's low carbon fuel standard.

While measures to reduce global warming pollution and oil dependence--like a national Low Carbon Fuel Standard--would spur development of cleaner fuels and American jobs, tar sands companies are spending millions lobbying Congress to block them.

We already send over one billion dollars a day to foreign countries in exchange for oil, bolstering their economies instead of making clean energy at home. In 2010 tar sands became the number one oil import in the United States, and we are projected to spend $47.4 billion on Canadian crude this year. Instead of exporting billions of dollars and putting American farmland and water at risk with foreign crude pipelines, we could be investing in self-sufficiency and clean, homegrown American energy. Every dollar we spend importing oil is a dollar taken away from growing green, clean jobs at home.

Clean energy is already a thriving business in the United States. The number of clean energy jobs in the United States grew 9.1 percent between 1997 and 2008, while jobs overall only grew by 3.7 percent.

In just one example, Michigan, the site of the massive Enbridge pipeline disaster, has seen sixteen new electric vehicle technology plants open in the past year alone, creating new jobs in the wake of a crashing auto market. These plants are projected to create 62,000 new jobs over the next decade. What's more, American wind energy continued its pattern of growth in 2009, despite the recession.

Efficiency measures alone can save more oil than the tar sands can provide, and will save billions in American dollars--money that could be invested in domestic clean energy jobs.

Expansion of tar sands pipelines and refineries will only bring health problems, air pollution, water contamination, and a constant risk of oil spills. The only way to make our nation more secure, healthy and prosperous is to reduce our dependence on oil by building a 21st century transportation system and investing in clean energy like wind and solar power.

The Keystone XL pipeline will deepen our reliance on foreign, dirty fuels and undermine American clean energy jobs. A massive tar sands expansion stands in the way of our clean energy future, threatens our most precious agricultural and water resources, and puts American health at risk.

Start With The Man In The Mirror Make A Change

Social Security And Medicare How Is It Funded

And Will It Still Be Around For The Next Generation?

By Melvin J. Howard

If you look at your pay-stub you will see two deductions for FICA taxes. Ever wondered what it means? Well FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act and covers two basic benefits for retirees and disabled persons:

Social Security:

Labeled as FICA-OASDI or Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance. This provides pension benefits to retirees, survivors and disabled persons.

Medicare:

Labeled as FICA-HI or Health Insurance. This provides medical insurance for retirees, survivors and disabled persons.

Some of you may be aware that the amount of money the government collects from employees and employers as the FICA taxes has exceeded the government's obligations in Social Security and Medicare payments for the past three decades. This has been true since FICA taxes were increased under the Reagan administration in 1983, at a time when other Federal Income Taxes were reduced. Then the question is "What has the government done with that excess money?" Its all been spent on other things. About $2.2 Trillion of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses - all spent elsewhere by the US Treasury. Lets see why this is. Many people are upset because they think the government should have "saved the money" for the future and often they are misled to believe this through the existence of what are called the Social Security and Medicare Trusts, or sometimes know as the Lock Boxes. In what form could the government save the money?

Perhaps:

* Keep it as US dollars or deposit it in a bank,

* Invest in the private sector, or

* Buy government bonds. I.e. write IOUs to oneself.

Let's look at the first possibility. If the government keeps the money as US dollars this is tantamount to the Treasury intervening in monetary policy, which is the job of the Federal Reserve. The Treasury would be essentially holding large sums of money out of the economy for many years, which would not make sense at all. The Treasury could instead decide to deposit the savings in a bank thereby making the funds available for use in the economy and draw on its deposits later as benefits fall due. But the banking system is backed up by the government itself, so the promises of the bank to make good on depositors funds is ultimately the promise of the government to itself. So why bother with all the banking fees?

It makes more sense for the government just to write a note to itself - "I owe to my self $x trillions of dollars", which is essentially what happens. A similar argument applies to investing the funds in the non-government guaranteed private sector. The private sector depends for its success on the stability and financial security of the State. If the State collapses so does the private enterprise defined by the rules of the State. If certain private enterprises collapse it shouldn't affect the State, except if there is massive widespread collapse like the recent banking crisis and then the State would step in to provide as many guarantees as possible. So some ultimate risks are still born by the State. The main point is that investing in the private sector carries with it higher risks than holding a government obligation. And the main point of Social Security is to pass risk from those that can least bear it over to those that can. Private investing without government guarantees completely removes this risk transfer feature of Social Security and places private sector investment risks onto those who can least afford it.

Therefore, as nonsensical as it sounds, so long as there is a surplus collection, the most sensible thing to do is for the Social Security and Medicare funds to pass over the excess funds they collect each year to the Treasury for it to spend back into the economy. The Treasury then writes an IOU to the trust fund to pay back the amount it just spent on something else. Basically the Government is writing an IOU to itself. Then they put the IOU in a box, lock it up and call it a safe "lock box" or trust fund. Whether intentional or not, what effectively happened to the Social Security and Medicare surpluses generated by the Reagan Era FICA tax increases and reductions in benefits, helped fund Reagan's big military build-up of the eighties. With a Federal Income Tax Cut, but an increase in FICA taxes, the tax burden was less progressive, and the loss in tax revenues in the general Treasury account was somewhat offset by Social Security Surpluses. This shifting of funds also enabled the government to replace borrowing from the private sector (the markets), which it cannot default on without dire consequences to the economy, with a promise to "pay back" the funds to Social Security and Medicare many years in the future when needed. This is a much less serious promise than issuing debt to the private sector because future governments may very well get away with reducing publicly funded social security benefits if they argue it effectively enough.

However the government cannot default on debt issued to the private sector else it will send the markets into a tailspin (since it is the most risk-free asset) and thus send the world's economy crashing. The Bush tax cuts and the recent extension of those cuts has compounded this trend of borrowing from Social Security and Medicare to make up for lower general revenues and thereby fund other government expenditures, and substitute borrowing from the markets with borrowing from Social Security/Medicare. Only time will tell if this was the right move or will promises be broken.

Health Care ,Politics and Money

Don’t play politics as usual with our health

By Melvin J. Howard

We have seen how money enables people to convince someone else to act in a certain way. It shifts their beliefs towards something you would like to have happen. But what else does money do? It also shifts your own beliefs – it convinces you that you have the power. But it is not the money that convinces you; it cannot possibly do that. You convince yourself, without a shred of doubt, that you have the ability! This teaches you two things: (1) you can convince yourself either way regardless of the money and the results happen regardless of the money and (2) you always, always, regardless of the money, have to convince yourself first of your ability so that you may use it.

There is much that has been hidden from most people for a very long time now; yet this does not mean it doesn’t exist. Things are not always what they appear to be. But you can always know them by their fruits. Welcome to the world of Health Care, Politics and Money.

You are about to see how you are playing a game within a structure that appears to be one thing but is actually another. You are playing a game with rules that are sometimes designed to stack the odds against you especially if you are not aware of them. You are playing a game you don’t even have to play, but you think that you do. You assume that the game you are playing in was designed for your benefit, and you fail to see that it may have been designed for someone else’s benefit but at your expense. Most of all, you are playing a game that has been altered to slowly erode your sense of self-reliance and self-determination. What you are about to see is that true democracy has not yet arrived on this planet – what we call democracy is not really democracy, and most of all very different from freedom. The founders of the United States put in place a constitution to bring in democracy, but somewhere along the way, it was hijacked, so to speak. What we now have is the exact same situation that has been going on in this planet for the last 10,000 years.

The ‘mighty’ ruling the ‘weak’ through simple means of deception. Each time the truth is known, the ‘weak’ realize that it is only their lack of information that is keeping them under, and things change. Usually, the ‘mighty’ adopt a new deception tactic which is used until that deception is reveled. That is the history of the world, a history that has repeated itself over and over, and it is not ridiculous to think that this has not stopped. Democracy by definition is the idea that the majority rule. Not minority, but majority. Now, even if democracy was happening perfectly and the majority did rule, that would still not amount to true freedom because the minority would be ‘forced’ to forgo their wishes and follow the majority. In other words, if 75% of the population believed the earth was flat, and 25% believed it was round, the 25% would be, in some areas of life, forced to live as if it was flat even when they could have lived according to their truth. So, democracy does not amount to true freedom that recognizes the sovereignty and divinity of every sentient being but that is another topic all together. Let us first look at the link between money and elections. What you will see is that elections are extremely predictable and follow a pattern that, once you learn to recognize it, can be used to have the outcome you want roughly 90 to 95% of the time.

The big corporations and the wealthy throw in large sums of money towards their candidate’s election. They do so because they know for sure it works. It is actually a race of who has the most money, in a sense. Interestingly, however, the general U.S. population is very non-participative. First, often only about 14% of Americans, on average, vote. The percentage that contributes any money to the proposed candidates (notice the use of the word ‘proposed’ instead of chosen, because the public often have nothing to do with choosing the proposed candidates) is even smaller. It is not only candidates that can collect donations for elections. Political parties also collect plenty of money every election cycle - from individuals, lobby groups and corporations. The founding fathers of the U.S. had a very high vision for humanity and freedom. Has that vision translated correctly or somehow became screwed along the way. The U.S. has two main political parties. The Democrats and the Republicans. The last time a U.S. president came from any other party except one of these two was in 1835. 1835 was the last year a non-Democrat and non-Republican sat in the White House. 1835. This means that, the way things are set up now, to have any chance of being president you must be a member of one of these two parties. Otherwise, your chances are next to zero. OK. Now, each of these two parties has its own set of core beliefs and the way it does things. Nothing much changes really. Within each party, there isn’t much argument on major philosophies of the party – only on details. So in essence, what you have is two parties representing two ideologies that both fit within the current system. I am using the U.S. as the examples here because it is the model on which most other democracies are founded. In the past there has been little chance for growth and change; maintenance of the current system i.e. status quo is what these two parties have maintained over decades.

I had mentioned earlier, about 14% of Americans vote and out of that only less than 1% of regular people contribute to the candidates (the vast bulk of the money comes from just a few hundred ultra-wealthy donors). The rest don’t participate at all in this democracy. The two main candidates are almost always financed by big business interest groups). The current system the way it is set up now binds these candidates to returning favors to those who financed them. That is just plain facts but this is not a political science lesson nor statement. It is about health care our health care and it should not be politics as usual. Our health care system was broken it was not sustainable in its current form and it needed to be fixed. Economically a quarter of the population is not covered which translate into our labor force. How can we compete globally if a major part of our work force is sick and can’t get the help they need. How can we show the rest of the world by example we are a compassionate Country. When we do not even show our own citizens compassion when it comes to their health care needs. The call to repeal the new health care law is an exercise in futility and has much more to do with political grandstanding then anything. Granted it is not a perfect health care law and parts of it need to be tweaked. But come on to throw the whole thing out. I have not seen a creditable alternative presented by the opposition just calls for repeal. If there is a creditable alternative please forwarded it over I am not above saying excuse me I was wrong your plan is much better. But until that happens please stop playing politics with our health care.

P.S. For people who say this health care law is socialist I invite them to live in a socialist country for a year. Upon your return to the USA in 6 months time………….get my point!