ObamaCare hits milestone - or does it?

.

By the end of March the Obamacare website had registered 7.1 million people, which was the initial goal of the roll out.  However, in order to be successful there has to be a minimum number of  young people to achieve actuarial solvency, the new members cannot be on Medicare or Medicaid since they were already eligible for existing programs, and we have to get the 48.6 million Americans with no health insurance (Census Bureau est. 2009) put on insurance.

So early estimates are that the youth factor failed to reach the Obama goals, meaning, if true, next year the rate base will have to be readjusted by potentially substantial health insurance premium rate increases for everyone.

It seems new members for Medicare and Medicaid would be easy to report so the only reason for not telling us the total new members in those entitlement programs, which the Administration and Lame Street media failed to do, then the real numbers must make the program look bad.

In light of the possibility of the previously discussed adjustments, it is not unreasonable to assume maybe 3-5 million of the 7.1 million need to be accounted for which brings up the next adjustment.  How many enrollees were people who lost their health insurance when ObamaCare was implemented and were buying replacement policies?

Finally we get to the people expected by the Obama Administration to benefit the most, the 48.6 million uninsured Americans.  How many of the 7.1 million enrollees came from the group the bill was passed to serve?

If we deduct the Baby Boomer enrollees sent to Medicare and Medicaid, say 2 million but it could be a lot more, then deduct those who lost their insurance because of ObamaCare, we might have 2-3 million who actually did not have insurance and do now.  Of course that assumes all the new enrollees also paid for their new insurance.

So perhaps if all went well we now have 2-3 million people insured who were not insured before.

 

To listen to the Main Street media react to the news you might think reaching 7.1 million enrollees was the greatest event in the history of our fledgling nation.  Greater than almost anything else because it vindicated President Obama and his socialist ways.

Of course they didn't release any numbers, which they do have, which seems pretty strange if the numbers do what he said they do.

Think about it.

Obama and the Democrat politicians pass ObamaCare with NO Republican support.

ObamaCare is to extend health insurance to 48.6 million uninsured.

After spending around a billion dollars to launch the new program, about the cost of one Obama political campaign, maybe 3 million uninsured are now insured.

I think that means after three years and billions of dollars we have lowered the number of  uninsured by one half of one percent.  At this pace we might eliminate the uninsured by the year 2114.

Of course how many more uninsured are there since over 10 million American workers still can't find jobs and have given up looking?  There could be millions of more uninsured since Obama took office which means we might have lost ground thus extending my projected solution date for eliminating the uninsured to closer to 2500.

In basketball terms, which the Administration surely understands, not only are we not scoring points, but we are making shots in the other team's basket giving them the points.

Progressive socialism is most certainly a peculiar concept.

.     

Wake Up America - Our Government has been Hijacked!

.

 

The Enemy Within - The Two Party System

My premise is simple.  No where in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence does it say the Democrat or Republican party control America.  No where is the Democrat or Republican party even mentioned in those sacred documents.

 

 

I don't care what party you support, there is nothing that says only the members of the Democrat or Republican parties can decide our future, yet here we stand on the brink of fiscal collapse and only the Democrats or Republicans are part of the process to solve our problems.

 

Neither party can solve the problem, they are the problem.  The American system of individual freedom and democracy has been hijacked by the two party system and the special interests that control every single element of both parties from the radical left to the radical right.

 

 

Pure and simple, MONEY is the dominant force in politics and the obsession with money by both parties has caused this temporary breakdown in the American system.  Whose to blame?

 

 

Our Executive branch is controlled by the Democrats with Obama in the White House as their flag bearer.  Our Legislative branch is split with the House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats.

 

Now where I come from that gives the Obama Democrats control of two thirds of our government process, the White House and Senate, and the Republicans one third.

 

 

If you listen to the news media you are told the Republicans are holding the government hostage.  But the media never mentions that the two party system is the culprit.

 

How could they, the bottom line profit of all America's cherished fourth estate comes from the political campaign expenses from the Democrat and Republican candidates, political parties, political action committees and private donors.

 

 

Media companies are totally dependent on advertising purchases from the candidates and the supporters of the candidates for survival and reporters are equally dependent on them for their paychecks so they better kiss the butt of the party they favor the most.

 

The largest corrupting influence in politics, business, health care, housing, defense contracting, government policy and government regulation is the God Almighty dollar and the way it is used to control people and manipulate systems.

 

 

Obamacare was never about reducing health care costs, healing people, or even making it more comfortable to die.  That would not make financial sense to the "Shadow" force behind the government.

 

It was always about maintaining the health care system we have and expanding it to all those without health insurance.  So what is the health care we have and want to expand to everyone?

 

 

Let's see...

 

Basic health care means a Chris Craft and Mercedes for every doctor and dentist.  It means a limo and house in the Hamptons for investors and brokers in health care.  It means a yacht and European villa for every pharmaceutical executive.

 

Well the truth is we don't have a health care system, we have an addiction for a cash cow called health care whether we need it or not and whether it heals us or not.

 

 

As long as there is an open spigot with billions of dollars flowing to our politicians through our two party system there will never be a free America.  Ban all political contributions and strip the two party system of control of our government and America can get back to the business of being the shining light of democracy, individual freedom and equality the world so sorely needs.

.

America's Biggest Social Issue - Social Media - Facing the Facebook Psychology

.

When is a Social Issue a Social Issue?  When the media says so!

I've always been intrigued by the public perception of social issues.  What makes something a social issue in your eyes?  Why does a social issue become political?  Is it possible to ever solve a social Issue?

There are many social issues in America covering the entire spectrum of possibilities.  They range from child and female abuse to abortion, legalizing marijuana to poverty, gun control to contraceptives.

It is not often they come to the forefront of political campaigns but this year seems to be an exception.  The Republican primary and President Obama's White House have both raised social issues when they saw a political opportunity to exploit them, and that is rather common in politics.

How can social issues push the recession and economic recovery off the font pages?  Why are social issues dominating our national debate?  What makes health care reform more important than foreign aid or defense spending?

I believe it is the proliferation of social media like Facebook that drives the debate over social issues.  With social media everyone in American can comment on just about anything.  We no longer need to know what we are talking about or even back up what with say with facts.

Truth has been destroyed by unethical and predatory practices of the Internet masters who create all kinds of vehicles for expression but care less about the accuracy or validity of what is discussed.  These avenues of expression, free expression if you really want to buy the bull, are nothing more than ways to increase the ability of Internet service companies to bill clients for clicks.  I believe the driving force behind Internet use is greed, not good, profits, not progress and hits, clicks and cash.

Math & Methodology

But first of all let me qualify my interest.  Back during the Great Society days of President Lyndon Johnson I did some work for the US Census and the US Department of Labor.  Both dealt with statistical analysis and methodology.  Sound boring?  It wasn't.

At DOL I worked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop a methodology for identifying high pockets of unemployment within urban areas.  We found an acceptable solution and the problem was solved.  At the time in the late 1960's this was a big social issue.

At the Census Bureau I was involved in computerizing the Address Coding Guide for Americans which collected the information needed on a national basis that could be converted to block by block data.  The ability to instantly sort data for 250 million people all the way down to a block by block level changed forever the way problems like poverty, unemployment, health and education were identified.

Political Polling

Later I worked in 32 political campaigns at the local (mayor and city council), state (both governors and state senators), and federal (presidential, senate and house races).  Working with all three levels of government gave me the opportunity to understand the inter-relationship and inter-dependence of each level from the executive branch, legislative branch and judiciary which exist at every level.

Beyond that, involvement in the campaign allowed me to play with more statistics as I then had access to polling information.  Once I got into the development of newer and more accurate ways to measure for political purposes I was in heaven.

It was amazing to measure how people reacted to polls, how to make the polls totally objective and representative of the diversity of the public, and how to interpret the results.  A real pollster does not try and confirm anything, but measures the true thoughts of the voter.

Over the decades social issues were almost always an integral element of the polling activity and measuring the true public feeling for an issue could help win elections, especially in limited geographic areas like Congressional Districts.

Through this experience it was always the intent of the polling to maintain absolute integrity over the results.  In other words, the intent of the poll was never to influence people but to understand people.

Focus groups, a key element of comprehensive polling and analysis, became a world of fascinating human reactions and emotions and led us into human response monitoring, an electrical monitoring method of verifying emotional response to any issue, word, phrase, image or color.

I offer this overview to show I've been aware and involved in polling and measuring public response to public issues, often social issues, for over four decades.

Becoming a Social Issue

I believe the point a concern becomes a "social issue" as defined by the media and political parties, is when there is sufficient public interest in any issue to create a reservoir of support for and against the issue.  In other words, when the interest becomes a "special" interest to those for and against something, you have a "social issue".

We searched for a "radical fringe", both for and against an issue, and when it was discovered suddenly the issue could cause polarization.  It was a science to predict the impact on the voting public of a politician taking a side for or against that issue.  There was much research exhausted to find this formula.

In the end you really couldn't, there were simply too many valid variables.  Many consultants tried to capitalize on their version of the truth but trying to manage reaction to social issues is a political time bomb and fraught with dangerous consequences.  There were always exceptions to a rule.

Ronald Reagan could take almost any side of any issue and people still supported him because they trusted him to look out for our overall good.  Reagan never wavered on his patriotism and never wavered on doing what was best for all Americans, not just those who agreed with him.  Few politicians have the trust of people, especially those from all political parties and independents.

Measuring the Importance of Social Issues

This changes from neighborhood to neighborhood, even block to block in some areas.  A strong local church can generate interest in issues that might otherwise never see the light of day.  Urban areas differ from suburbs, cities from farming areas.

In the end there are always two key considerations.  First, the person you represent, the politician you are trying to get or keep elected, better have a clear standing on the issue in the minds of the voters.  And second, if you open Pandora's Box by introducing the social issue to a campaign, you better make sure your opponent thinks the opposite so a clear distinction can be drawn.

Can the social issue ever be solved?

If the wounds of polarization and the emotional pain associated with it are an indication of the consequence of failing to resolve the issue then we better make it a priority.  We were put here to help and serve, not hate and kill.  There can be no higher purpose for mankind.

So we must get beyond the social issues that inspire anger and hatred.  In truth, many social issues have their grounding in religious belief and teachings.  Yet most social issues involve judgment, a function most religions agree is left to God in whatever form you recognize the Deity.

Government cannot legislate God's Law nor take God's place.  Free will, a gift to us from God in most religions, gives us a choice and makes judgment between God and us, not big government and us.  Freedom of religion must be protected, but religion cannot be legislated.

According to the King James Bible, Cambridge Edition, in Mark 12:17, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him."

Well judging spiritual morality is God's work, not ours.

We must make the laws of man clear, concise and unmistakable in their intent.  But we must not usurp the laws of God.

Social issues, a liberal term for matters of religion, are compromised when they are codified into man's law.  When we try to legislate gay marriage, contraception, abortion and similar issues under our law there is conflict, disagreement and polarization.  There is the conflict between socialism which wants to controls religion and democracy which respects individual rights and freedom.

Man's law can accommodate both sides of most issues if used to achieve fairness and freedom for all.

For example, civil marriage need not specify sex, leave that to the participants.  But marriage in the church, any church, should conform to the dogma of that church.  If you don't agree with the civil law get married in the church where a marriage between man and woman can be required.

Contraception is similar.  The government can make it available but it cannot make it mandatory for those religions that oppose it.  Much is said about the Roman Catholic stand on contraception.  The church is opposed.  Yet many Catholics in America support the use in spite of the efforts of the Bishops to encourage church dogma.

In the end, that is a matter between the individual Catholic and God come Judgment Day.  The individual has the right to use free will and can decide either way.  If they are wrong on their decision, a just God will let them know and pass judgment.

What is the truth about contraceptive use in America?

Here is a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute that attempts to document contraceptive use.

Facts on Contraceptive Use in the United States

June 2010

WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?

• There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44).

 • Seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.

• The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.

WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?

• Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.

• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using a method.

• Almost one-third (31%) of these 62 million women do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.

• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.

• Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.

WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN USE?

• Sixty-three percent of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use nonpermanent methods, including hormonal methods (such as the pill, patch, implant, injectable and vaginal ring), the IUD and condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.

• Contraceptive choices vary markedly with age. For women younger than 30, the pill is the leading method. Among women aged 30 and older, more rely on sterilization.

• The pill and female sterilization have been the two leading contraceptive methods in the United States since 1982. However, sterilization is the most common method among black and Hispanic women, while white women mostly commonly choose the pill.

• Female sterilization is most commonly relied on by women who are aged 35 or older, women who are currently or have previously been married, women with two or more children, women below 150% of the federal poverty level and women with less than a college education.

• Half of all women aged 40–44 who practice contraception have been sterilized, and another 20% have a partner who has had a vasectomy.

• The pill is the method most widely used by women who are in their teens and 20s, women who are cohabiting, women with no children and women with at least a college degree.

• Some 6.2 million women rely on the male condom. Condom use is especially common among teens and women in their 20s, women with one or no children and women with at least a college education.

• Dual methods (most often the condom combined with another method) are used by 13.5% of contraceptive users. The proportions using more than one method are greatest among teenagers and never-married women.

TEEN CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Teenagers (aged 15–19) who do not use a contraceptive at first sex are twice as likely to become teen mothers as are teenagers who use a method.

• Twenty-three percent of teenage women using contraceptives choose condoms as their primary method. Condom use is higher among women aged 20–24 and is lower among older and married women.

• Of the 2.9 million teenage women who use contraceptives, 54%—more than 1.5 million women—rely on the pill.

TRENDS IN CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• The proportion of women aged 15–44 currently using a contraceptive method increased from 56% in 1982 to 64% in 1995, and then declined slightly to 62% in 2002 and 2006–2008.

• Among all women, 7% were at risk of unwanted pregnancy but not using a method in 2006–2008, an increase from 5% in 1995.

• Among just those women who are sexually active and able to become pregnant but do not want to become pregnant, 11% are not using contraceptives. That number is much higher among teens aged 15–19 (19%) and lower among older women aged 40–44 (8%).

• The proportion of women using contraceptives who rely on condoms decreased between 1995 and 2006–2008 from 20% to 16%. However, use was still higher in 2006–2008 than it was in 1988.

• Between 1995 and 2002, the share of users relying on the pill increased slightly, from 27% to 31%, but it declined slightly, to 28%, in 2006–2008.

• In 2006–2008, 27% of contraceptive users relied on female sterilization, compared with 23% in 1982.[funded family planning clinic.

• The proportion of all users relying on the IUD has increased substantially, from less than 1% in 1995, to 2% in 2002, to 5.5% in 2006–2008.

Data Sources

• The information in this fact sheet is the most current available. All of the data are from research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the National Center for Health Statistics or from Contraceptive Technology.
• U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 2: annual estimates of the resident population by sex and selected age groups for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008, no date, , accessed May 25, 2010.
• Mosher WD and Jones J, Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 29.
• The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics, New York: AGI, 2000.
• Piccinino LJ and Mosher WD, Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982–1995, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):4–10 & 46.
• Frost JJ, Trends in US women’s use of sexual and reproductive health care services, 1995–2002, American Journal of Public Health, 2008, 98(10):1814–1817.
• Dailard C, Contraceptive coverage: a 10-year retrospective, Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2004, 7(2):6–9.
• Sonfield A et al., U.S. insurance coverage of contraceptives and the impact of contraceptive coverage mandates, 2002, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2004, 36(2):72–79.
• Guttmacher Institute, Insurance coverage contraceptives, State Policies In Brief (as of May 2010), 2010, , accessed May 25, 2010.

Go to Guttmacher Institute website for more information.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

.

Now what America? What the election means to our future

.

Now that the dust has settled, the political pundits have responded, and the world has watched in wonder at our strange democratic system of government, where do we go from here? As for me, I don't believe the politicians from either party nor the national news media and their preoccupation with generating revenue.

The Republicans didn't win, and the Democrats didn't lose. Obama might have been stung by the results and the Tea party certainly did rock the Obama agenda to it's core. Yet as the couple of hundred newly elected officials take office, what does the scorecard show?

On the domestic front

We still have the unfunded Obama agenda with up to $3 trillion in unanticipated cost

The deficit is still $1.4 trillion a year

The debt ceiling will pass $14 trillion this year and $15 trillion next year

The housing and foreclosure crisis remains untouched and unresolved

Financial reform forgot to crack down on hedge funds that brought about the economic collapse

Campaign reform is forgotten as record campaign costs passed $2.5 billion in 2010

Our aging infrastructure needs about $2 trillion to fix what is broken

Health care and insurance premiums continue to spiral up in costs

The more we spend on education the dumber our kids get

We still have no energy independence or alternative energy policy

In foreign affairs

The world economy continues to struggle because of US dominance

In Iraq 50,000 troops can't stop the bloodshed

The new Iraq government was influenced more by Iran than the USA

Sanctions did not stop Iran's nuclear program

Afghanistan remains loyal to Iran in spite of over 100,000 troops and billions a week cost

Obama embraced India while shunning Pakistan our other ally

The Federal Reserve infuriated the world with the $1 trillion "quantitative easing" policy

Germany, UK and France all condemned the Obama backed Fed policy

With the Fed driving down the value of the dollar, America gains at everyone else's expense

Israel and the Palestinians are light years from peace

Israel continues to build settlements

Over 2 million American troops remain overseas but only 150,000 are fighting

China and America remain at odds over currency valuations

America can't even get a trade agreement with our strongest ally in Asia, South Korea

Mexico lost 30,000 lives to America's drug war

South America feels more ignored than ever by the USA

As you see, we have a huge and largely unfulfilled agenda and where action was taken the result was not what we sought. However, you will never be informed of the true problems we face if you do not understand the issues and if you rely on the media and their news in a nutshell attitude. The problems we face require a lot more than 30 second sound bites to solve.

In the days ahead I will review the pros and cons of these issues. Where I can I will offer solutions to the problems or attempt to identify the path to success. If we do not embrace this agenda we will never be the shining light to the world we should be and that the world so desperately needs to survive.
.

There's a New Dawn Over America - The People Spoke

.

Yesterday the people of America spoke and their message was loud and clear. If the politicians in both political parties were listening that message should chill them to the bone. America said we are a nation of people, not parties, and the foundation of America is built on principles, not partisan agendas.

To make their point emphatic they dealt the Republicans near fatal losses in 2006 and 2008, and now have decimated the incredible base Obama thought was a mandate by tossing the Democrats out just two years later.

On the surface it was a Republican landslide of historic proportions. The GOP won 65 House seats from the Democrats and 8 Senate seats. In the Senate the Obama margin of 60-40 has now shrunk to just 50-48 with 2 Independents. Three of the most powerful Democrat chairmen were sent into retirement and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saw the most losses to a Majority party since the Great Depression of the 1930's.

But that does not even tell half the story. You see in America our government flows from the people through the state governments to the federal government. Of 38 governors races last night the Republicans won an astounding 27 including sweeping victories throughout the Great Lakes, Midwest, South and Southwest and even recapturing some statehouses in New England. Of course this landslide started a year ago when New Jersey and Virginia governors offices went GOP along with Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts.

At the state government level the change may even be greater as Republicans swept into control in state legislatures from Maine to Minnesota including most of the Obama states from Pennsylvania to Montana. It was one of the most memorable shifting in the balance of power the past century.

But it was not just a Republican victory, it was a statement by the people that they want moderation in the agenda along with conservatism in our spending and debt. Both parties failed the people on these counts the last decade.

America is a right tilting nation in the middle. It is neither far right nor far left. Obama moved too far left in a rather selfish attempt to fix his place in the history books rather than fix the nation. It failed badly and his crown as conquering hero has been firmly knocked off his head. Now it is up to him to choose to lead down the middle of the political spectrum or lose in 2012.

Politicians forgot they serve the people. The people sent them a wake up call wrapped in a 100 foot tsunami. There was an old joke, a conservative is a liberal who got hit in the head by reality. Perhaps there is more truth than we thought in that joke.

So now the people spoke. Did the politicians listen? Stay tuned.

.