Anomie and you

anomie
n 1: personal state of isolation and anxiety resulting from a lack of social control and regulation
2: lack of moral standards in a society
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

Or

anomie
an·o·mie [an-uh-mee]
noun Sociology.
a state or condition of individuals or society characterized by a breakdown or absence of social norms and values, as in the case of uprooted people.
Source: Dictionary.com

This concept of anomie is one that is targeted at individuals who are the basis for society. Social isolation, societal removal of norms, and the result of them create a more isolated set of individuals that no longer work as a cohesive society. This trend pre-dates the internet and was worrying sociologists for decades long before you ever get to Facebook, Myspace or 'social media'. One of the causes for concern in those days was the concept of 'media' being an isolation system that left the individual with few tools to reach out on the problems of society. The telephone is person-to-person, the television, radio and film are one-to-many and neither of these offered the capacity to actually get mass interaction amongst individuals. What these shared were an isolating interposition of technology turning individuals into passive viewers of information or at least being able to deal with a single other person from the comfort of your kitchen or bedroom while talking.

Movies, while seen together in a theater, were only a 'social' event if you actually were able to socialize with others afterwards, and that was limited to art house venues or similar small venues that gathered like-minded viewers together and then had a post-viewing experience to actually share the experience and find out what others thought about that shared experience. Big Box Multiplexes, the multi-screen venue, and even the large and ostentatious theaters of the 1920's and 1930's, while having lovely settings, did not offer the ability to interact and even discouraged it by having the ushering of audiences out so the next one could then see the film.

Media, be it newspaper, radio, television, film, or any other process of presentation of information to a mass audience lacked the ability to bring individuals together to actually discuss topics: media is anomic to the individual by definition as it only presents information in a relatively static way and even the interaction with a known other on a telephone is not the same as being together physically.

Being INTP

INTP is a personality type derived from using the descriptive Myers-Briggs test(s) and is one of the earliest attempts to do this to help individuals understand just why they act, think and feel in the way that they do, and there is The Myers & Briggs Foundation dedicated to this task and resources to help you find out about what your personality type actually is. Actually there are lots and lots of MBPT tests out there, from quick and easy to the multi-session ones that take a few days. What you get are Type Indicators (MBTI) for your personality, which are rough outlines of what the basis for your personality actually is. This does not mean you adhere to it in all instances, in fact no one does because personality has many different modes of expression because of individuation, so that you have a unique personality type that is individual to you. While identical twins will often have many of the same personality characteristics, because they are individuated they will have slightly different responses via their personality that are distinct to them, even when having a high degree of similarity.

The rough basis of the MBTI is based upon dichotomies of personality preferences as expressed by individuals (that is not only expressed as in 'taking the test' but as how traits drive certain responses) that serve as the basic four letter encapsulation of one's personality. There are refinements to the test, yes, but they are refinements to the rough outline of one's MBTI. They are as follows:

Extraversion/Introversion (E/I) – Extraversion is outward turning, while Introversion are inward turning personality types. This set is first and primary and helps to determine the main social outlook of individuals via the MBTI.

Sensing/Intuition (S/N) – How do you perceive the world and gather information about it? The Sensing (S) person takes in what is around them via their senses and trusts that as this data has meaning in a concrete way. The Intuition (N) person takes in data and then abstract it and associate it with other information to find out how current information fits into a larger scale of information.

Thinking/Feeling (T/F) – These are judgmental functions of personality. Thinking for judgment allows for decisions to be made based on the rational factors presented by such data utilizing an understanding of interactions between events by rules such as causation and consistency within a given framework of known information. Feeling for judgment utilize empathy and internal weighting to attempt to get a harmonization of what has happened and consider such things within the framework of how it affects other people.

Judging/Perception (J/P) – These two are lifestyle determinates and they serve in reference to the other functions. Judging personality determinates have a preference to settle matters and for Extraverts can be the dominant mode of personality, while for Introverts it is an auxiliary to their personality to seek conclusion only after introspection. Perceptive types utilize the framework of keeping options open and that what is set today may not be the best way to do things. Again the driver for Extraverts with Perceptive is that openness to keep understanding open as a dominant function, while for Introverts it is an auxiliary function. For Introverts either of these can become a driver, but only when the internally understood worldview is unsettled by them.

As an INTP, then, these modes put the Introversion thinking as dominant to the Extraverted type, utilized a dominant Intuition perception over the inferior Sensing type, have a Thinking dominant and Feeling auxiliary judgmental type, and utilize Perception over Judging as an auxiliary to my Introversion personality type. I have a flexible world view that must have not just hard data, but have conformity between such data and known frameworks via abstraction of data for a coherent world structure.

Or, as one of the books looking at how often personality types put it, the INTP appears in less than 5% of the population and appears to be a space alien to everyone else.

Anomie and Personality

The vast majority of the population is of basic Extraversion type: gregarious, able to get along with each other, socially needing other people and generally those having a better time working with people than working alone.

Our media enforces just the opposite of that. As I see it (P) that is not in accordance with social norms (T) which creates a disassociation amongst individuals who are not temperamentally suited to such activities (N) and no good for anyone in such a situation (I). That is a worldview expression based on the information and derived abstraction of it utilizing observations of society and individuals to derive an end view that is open to change but serves as a foundational piece for then putting forth that something is horribly out of whack.

No good shall come of that.

The G.O.D. Theorem

The G.O.D. Theorem (as I call it, there are other names for it) is pretty simple: everything was better in the Good Old Days. If you watch any of Bill O'Reilly raging against the machines, you know exactly what I'm talking about, and his tirades against the use of modern technology is both deplorable and comedic, simultaneously. All this technology is killing society, is the short of the BOR rant, and it has been heard for ages about pool halls, pinball arcades, that decadent artwork that actually put perspective into paintings and the Waltz. All of that has been driving the morally upright society downhill, forever and this modern technology will be the end of us all.

Hey! I'm the guy who just said that no good will come of technology, right?

Yes, yes I am, but I am telling you in a bit more refined mode than BOR and NOT telling you pithy little tips of the day nor bemoaning about the harmful crudities of society caught on YouTube, not fit for children, save the teasers which show the worst of it and aren't fit for children, but you don't tell anyone about those. That is a bit on the hypocritical side utilized to build audiences. Building an audience that sits isolated in their homes, watching the program... on a machine... which is evil in the BOR mindset. Don't ask me how that works, I am clueless.

No, what I am pointing out is from my prior bit on the media as a dissociative factor as it is meant for passive or at most response only interaction. Both of these put individuals in isolation and passive response, very much like the educational system that emphasizes 'learning' (passive intake of information) instead of critical thinking (analyzing information to put it into a contextual framework). That dates back to the 1920's and the Progressive movement's March Through the Institutions where Progressive thought would be pushed out at every venue available to disrupt the coherent society and reform it into a passive edifice under hierarchical control. The modern schooling movement of the late 19th and early 20th century helped to foster this as did the Dewey Decimal system which attempted to order information and teaching along strict 'scientific' lines (that is to say lines that Progressives liked, instead of lines towards creative analytical thought).

The main institution for this societal change would be via politics and that meant having to break up the old internal party structure and put in a Boss (top-down) based system. This would be utilized to slowly remove the easy association of individuals to their local party system and seek to support apparatchiks over true representatives at all times in all political venues in each political party. By utilizing governmental power granted to it by the people, government would then begin remolding the people and society to the ends of those who controlled government, who saw themselves as 'enlightened' and you as ignorant. These were the idea put forward by Edward Bernays via the conceptualization of Propaganda which he gained from his advertising background. If you want the man to blame for getting women to smoke, it is Mr. Bernays.

Edward Bernays saw that the subversion of choice preferences for goods could be translated into politics. In politics advertising would be utilized to 'shape' opinion and form it within society to the benefit of those benevolent know-it-alls that should be the ones ruling over you and making decisions for you. He worked with Woodrow Wilson and others and only came to realize what he had actually created after WWII and the explicit use of internal Propaganda by the Nazi Party to have passive social distancing of society from the death camps be put in place after years of advertising against Jews as a whole. And yet that end is not out of the normal course of events when society has individuals get a feeling of isolation, powerlessness and a morally perverted sense pushed at them as 'normal'.

That is anomie.

And it is pushed by the passivity of the educational system, the power structure of the political parties and sustained by socially anomic media that discourages physical interaction save for the most base sort of sexual distraction. This enforced isolation and lack of external social contacts in a real, physical way leaves those using Extraversion with few outlets and those that are left are the most base sort and encourage no thinking whatsoever.

If you have a personality type with an E at the beginning, then you are the target and you are not temperamentally suited by your personality to handle enforced Introversion. This is done with malice aforethought since the late 19th century and the goal is to reshape society but its actual outcome is to liquidate society and remove moral and firmly rooted concepts for the basis of society from individual support. You are isolated and taught to be docile, to have an imposed exterior mental framework of pre-decided moral relativism fed to you, to have any moral standard run down, to no longer invite critical thinking about societies and their relative value but to put forward that all societies (even those that encourage infanticide) as being 'equal' and that you are powerless and should only entertain the most base thoughts towards your fellow man.

I am an Introvert and know how to handle my own internal world domain and situation. Self-imposed isolation and having few friends is not a problem to me and gives me leeway to decide just who is and isn't a friend and doesn't leave me grasping at any 'Friend' in the cyber-way as a means to uphold my personality needs for Extraversion. Because I have a firm reference basis built up of observation and yet one that is flexible to all of mankind, I can utilize my auxiliary traits to understand just what the goal and object of such things are. I can then utilize an understanding of history and tell you that enslavement is the BEST end scenario for individuals at the end of this and the total decay and collapse of modern civilization the WORST end for this scenario. And I can reference at least 3 'Dark Ages' (pre-Ming Dynasty China after the takeover by non-Chinese creating social isolation, Late Bronze Age with Egypt, the Hittites, Achaean Greeks and arguably all those effected by the Sea People, and the end of the Roman Empire) to demonstrate that enforced isolation (social or physical) means that individuals are ill-prepared for what comes when their world is reshaped by external events.

Note that this is Perception talking not Judging: the interior framework of world understanding that I have must have a high degree of correlation to the exterior world so that I can survive. I am willing to do the hard work, hunt down sources no one is even willing to talk about to find answers and I share them with you and encourage you to seek them out, read them, and then examine your own internal worldview to see if where we are in the modern world can come to ANY good end. What I do that is more than BOR is to hand you alternatives, outlets and other means to deal with things, although I also encourage you to get out to coffee shops, go out to see real, physical friends and to really think long and hard about your social valuation structure.

Family, Friends, Associates

My basic structure for social needs and interaction on a personal level are simple and stated above.

Family, first – these are the closest associates you have and biology is only a part of it, as this also includes those others that you have mutual agreement with to share the most personal aspects of your life. If Marriage is the basis for the Nation, then Family is the first social structure of the Nation we make. You can't help the family you were born into, but you can help who it is you pull in close to you in your life. If you value your online 'Friends' that you have never met, that you have never physically associated with, that you have not shook hands with face to face, then, not in a Judging way but in a Perceiving way, you have a problem. I am not here to Judge you, I am here to say that you social structure and Extraverted nature is being used to isolate you and this will cause you to be dependent on the first thing offered to you. It is intentional, malicious and means no good end for you... that is the framework and pattern you get when you passively allow these things to happen to you. You are in extreme danger, personally, and by not being an active part of the physical society, you are part of the destructive Progressive methodology to control even you cyber 'Friends'. I'm sorry if I'm the one that has to break this to you. There is good in having such 'Friends', but only if you actually invest time, effort and real physical location displacement to meet them and understand them directly, physically, as individuals.

Friends, second – the real thing, the ones where you get in a horrible accident, the family is on vacation and have just one or two people to turn to for help. The person who will get to the hospital to see you. The person that will bail you out of jail, give you a ride home, and tell you that you don't have to pay them, just do your duty to show up and they will stand by your side. That person is a FRIEND. And as someone who has gone friendless most of his life, I can tell you that such a person isn't to be passed off lightly. If you ignore this person (or if damned lucky a handful of them) for your cyber 'Friends' you are asking for a world of hurt even if you are interacting with these people as cyber 'Friends' because only the physical bonds of common projects sustain friendship. Trust me on that if you can't figure it out for yourself. Because I am Introverted and self-reliant, I damn well do my best to avoid such situations: you can't. Being basically friendless by choice is one thing, disdaining that person that will get to the hospital to make sure you are OK is lethal. If you lose that person, you have lost your back-up and if you aren't thinking ahead of time to get other back-up in place, then you will be dead in that crisis. Physically spend time with your friends, especially those close friends as an Extravert you need it and deserve it and so do they. Even those Introverts who are your friends... especially them as they are more likely to show up when NO ONE ELSE WILL. Just let them know they are your back-up, OK?

Associates, third – The people you meet up with in your life on a relatively frequent basis at work or at school. You have little choice but to have such associates unless you are: an author, run a sole proprietor business, or are in a cave living off of investment income. Authors who work alone get much say in how their works get distributed, and thus have the ability to choose who they will work with to a great extent. Running your own business and being your own boss and employee means you do have work contacts, yes, but they tend to be commerce related and not a daily recurring physical meeting situation. Then there is Ted Kaczinski, Howard Hughes and the totally bugged out that are self-sufficient and are rarely seen. If you aren't any of those, and do have daily contacts in business or school, then you have associates: those people you associate with frequently. This also includes church organizations, charitable work, helping to run a scout troop, and a whole host of activities from sports to games to reading circles and everything in between that you do for a social life. Your co-workers are those people you may go out and blow off steam after work, fulfilling a good social function and decompressing from the day to be sociable in the rest of your life. These also tend to be cyber 'Friends' that you may interact with via video, instant messaging or text messaging with or without images. This is by no means an unimportant category of people in your life, but they are in that next shell out and the least tied to you even when you physically meet up on a regular basis.

All of these people, plus the casual acquaintances, are a necessary and vital part of staving off anomie in one's life and help to gain some social grounding for you in this life. And while you may be in the situation where you have no choice but to spend time with Associates as a majority of your time, they in no way make up for Family and Friends. All three are critical to all humans, save the Kaczinski types, of course, but everyone needs them in different amounts and spending too much time with groups of people can even be stress inducing to Introverts, who tend to take the rest of humanity in smaller and measured doses. As humans grew up and got acculturated to each other through history, from pre-historic times to present, there are strong bonds that all people form to emotionally sustain them and give them moral and ethical roots in society. I stress physical meeting because there is no substitute for them: actually being in someone's direct presence has physical, psychological and emotional feedback into your psyche that is, generally, positive.

Just don't save up negative feelings for Thanskgiving and Christmas time with your family. Having positive time together as a family with friends is one of the most important things that can be done: let the preachers do the preaching that everyone wants to hear, not what you need to get off your chest or pontificate about. You are better than that. If you have bothered to learn self-restraint, that is.

The Body Politic

You participate in the Body Politic even if you haven't registered to vote, disdain the political system, and generally decry it at all turns. You are a member of society and are to be considered part of the Body Politic no matter how little you want to have to do with it.

Using the G.O.D. Theorem, I can state that there used to be a different era of politics that were not centered on elections, not centered on candidates, and were centered on the positive social impact of being in a political party that met up as smaller units for social gatherings. There are very, very, very few positives in growing up in a socialist leaning family, let me tell you that right off. In fact the only great aspect was seeing how the traditional, old-line socialists actually ran their political lives together at party meetings. Party meetings were things like: barbecues, a day at the beach, spending a day to celebrate one of the respected people in the party chapter on their birthday, stuff like that. Maybe 3 meetings a year, tops. The total time spent on politics at a typical 5-7 hour meeting was 1 hour or less, usually with a speech or two. You have to give the old line socialists credit for continuing on a tradition that had been lost in the late 1960's and early 1970's by the mainstream parties. But then the old-line, First International Socialist types had speeches on actual political outlook, dogma and not about plans or policy, by and large. Really, what sane person would attend a nice day at the beach to talk about the intricacies of tax policy or which programs are actually doing any good? Those get shuffled off to meeting rooms, run by party apparatchiks... and that is in the mainstream political parties as well as the old line socialists. No one wants to see how political sausage is made, these days.

With the shift in party power in the mainstream parties from wards, precincts and districts to the higher level offices until the National offices came to run the party, also came the distancing of people from actually discussing politics as a moral, ethical and popular matter. Political parties used to be about ideals and moral viewpoints, not about getting a slice of the power pie. The Body Politic only works well when there is a healthy discourse and intercourse amongst individuals and parties based on ideology, dogma, and arguing the basics of each to see how viewpoints that differ lead to different conclusions. It is society that creates the requirement for government by having a commonality of understood law amongst all members of society, and Nations are formed to differentiate societies due to the ideological, ethnic, religious and moral differences between them.

To unmoor individuals from this connection, those connections must be devalued, slowly removed and the ability of individuals to have say over the Body Politic and the organ of society we call 'government' must also be distanced. This is generally not a fast process and takes much time to degrade and demoralize society via other organs of education, church and the law. Government is created not to think for society, but to be a Punisher and ensure that those that would attack society are punished. It is given power to do those things, but they are safeguarding powers, not productive powers. For all the great edifices put up by government, they come at the expense of human liberty and freedom and the larger the edifice the greater the expenditure in lost productivity to gain it. Necessary infrastructure is to be created and safeguarded as directed by society through government for the benefit of all members of society and the welfare of society as a whole. This requires active participation in the political process to ensure that government only safeguards society and does not think that it is the determinative organ of society.

When government assumes that latter role we have various names for it: tyrannical, authoritarian, and imperial. Those individuals that wish to remove differences across all society are putting forward an imperial dogma as the ones doing the pushing are also the ones doing the deciding on what, really, you need in the way of liberty and freedom. Similarly those trying to liquidate national boundaries are trying to homogenize mankind to end its differences and reduce mankind to the lowest common moral denominator which, when done across cultures, is called savagery. The very worst components of all cultures, taken as the base of all human culture, is a savage thing and it is the conscious effort to move away from infanticide, slavery and so on, that gives a higher moral standing to those who eliminate such things in their own society. Yet this is diminished in 'moral relativism' that says that all good things are only good on a sliding scale and not a positive good in and of themselves.

This end is reached by starting to alienate individual from government by utilizing government's punitive powers against individuals of a certain group or class. Income tax was put into place on a class basis to 'tax the rich' and would 'never go above 7%'. Yet within 7 years it went to 70%, and still the insatiable appetite of government was not assuaged. Also demonized were the 'fat cat' tycoons of the trusts: Carnegie, Rockefeller, and those who sought to purchase corrupt politicians to their cause. While the anti-trust act was passed to break up the large trusts, the large banks counter-attacked because of the problem government had in funding itself. JP Morgan floated loans to the US government and prior to WWI the largest bankers in the US got together to put together legislation to put a Federal Reserve run by them into legal form, via the Progressive banner. The very types of trusts Progressives decried in industry, were most amenable to them in banking and their reach, to this day, is much larger than any or all of the tycoons in business combined. But you will not hear their modern day counterparts talking about breaking such an establishment or member banks up as they are 'too big to fail'. If the public had gotten any word of this legislation, at the time, it would not have passed. The public was not consulted, however, because the new Progressives didn't want the public to know of the deal that went down. Really, parties are only for passing legislation, not representing people, right?

With the Anti-Trust Acts, Federal Reserve and Income Tax, the Progressives had already changed the basis of government to exclude popular oversight and distance government from the Body Politic and society as a whole. It was an intentional set of acts to start creating anomie and isolate the individual by class, by economic status and to then punitively utilize the tax code to further isolate those that politicians didn't like. The media played its role as purveyor of information from government, but rarely, if ever, serves as a feedback instrument past that era of partisan newspapers that populated all sides of the political spectrum. By choosing who is and is not worthy to propagate information, government chooses the propagandists who then change their tune to better suit what government wants purveyed. You have little to no say in this, it is taken from your hands intentionally and you are no longer taught about your right to publish as part of your freedom of speech. It is implied that the freedom of the press is held by the press, not by the people, and yet it is the people who set up the organs that create the press, not the other way around.

The goal of this agenda, started over a century ago, is to install a small group of Elites as those who will dictate your life to you via government. If you depend on government for 'retirement', medical care, and even something like surviving a disaster, then you are no longer doing the basics necessary to secure your own life and survival. Such programs are sold as one thing, that is being a positive good, but they come at a cost of productivity, lost investment opportunity and having you as a thinking, vital member of society. Instead the individual becomes a mere cluster of group overlaps where any single group might be demonized to distract from the work and lacks of the Elites. When you group together to 'protest' against 'banksters' you are no longer holding government to account for it NOT allowing the process of justice work its ends on them. A bailed out company is one that is inefficient, poorly run and no matter how big it is, deserves to go through hard and deep restructuring of all of its elements just to survive. When allowed to tell people what energy is good and what energy is bad, then the most efficient and economical forms of energy can be marginalized so as to jack up the cost of actually having a modern life until the economy grinds to a halt and the dissociative media can soothe you by letting you know that this was the fault of this or that evil company, not your fault for helping to foster such government which wishes to impoverish you after driving you apart from your fellow man and making you dependent upon an authoritarian government that changes how you learn, what you learn and diminishes the ability to think critically.

As an individual I do not sit in judgment of you but tell you of what I perceive and the changes in the course of the world due to the structure of how society works and what part in it you play or do not play. When you hand over government by not even participating in its functioning, then you are giving the assent of apathy to have your life dictated to you by others. You could have a say, you could create a vibrant society that is rich in thought and discussion, and you could hold government to account to yourself and your fellow citizens by actually being a citizen and doing the job of a citizen. That job requires thinking and not just superficially but the deep and profound thinking of what it actually means to be you beyond distractions from media and seeking an easy life of doing what you are told by a set of Elites you do not elect but assent to by being passive. This passivity creates a frail society, a weak society and one that then gains fewer and less robust points of failure, until only a few are left that have no back-up, no capacity to respond to any failure because they all must do those things which you no longer do. And then there is a failure that cascades and your world disappears as the complex systems have gained simplistic governance that has a reach that is vast and a grasp of very little at all. That governance will seek to vilify and displace blame from itself so that you will be angry at anything, anyone, any group but those who have claimed so much and now can perform nothing and fail.

In anomie the individual becomes dependent, all moral decisions including that of which to sustain, life or death, becomes equal as all morals are rendered to have no value. That cannot sustain a society. That cannot sustain a government of any sort as you no longer self-govern. And those who fostered this have forgotten that they sit atop this set of vast and complex systems and for all they say they do not understand that complexity one whit better than those they are trying to control. When such vast societies fail they fail for the rich and poor alike, and while the rich might gain a cushion from their wealth, their very lives have the exact, same value as the very poorest who bear the brunt of their decisions. Soon there are fewer wealthy, fewer poor, and society is reduced by fire and iron to base survival where those who think and can plan are left to pick up the pieces to try and create a better world out of ruins. That is how such plans end as raw power is not competent in anything, save savagery. In that it excels because it is loosed from the bounds of having to weigh and judge towards civilized ends and is no longer held in check by citizens, but is used over mere subjects who are just subject to power, forgetting that they are its very author.

You cannot forget what you have not been taught. Sadly the Elites suffer this as badly in their quest for power. Once your life becomes all about you, then you are the absent author of power, the absent creator of society and the present instigator of your impoverishment by doing nothing to stop it on your own behalf. One cannot be sustained without work and without fear of outcomes: these two things do not go together and allow survival of society.

I prepare and plan for the failure of my fellow man writ large.

I do my part in warning and in letting you know that thinking, while difficult, is worth it as it is the creative process necessary to have a society that upholds your right to think. I see the destructive ends of anomie applied to my fellow man and what its effects are over time and point them out. That is my duty as a citizen to my fellow countrymen and as someone who loves his fellow man globally. I can still do that even with what I see happening around me because judgment is open-ended, adaptable and what is as it is can change. If you believe that being civilized is easy, then I ask that you look at where such ease ends and point out that those ends are savagery. I will, however, not step on the path of savagery with my fellow man and must point out the better, harder, tougher, nastier and yet more fulfilling way that allows you to be the great author in the hardest work of all: civilization.

You have been lied to not just as an individual, but your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents as well. Fed a belief that is destructive to self and society for generations, we are now near the end of that anomie that it has fostered. You have not been taught the basics and, instead, learn only to be dependent upon power held by the Punisher which is authored by us all, and it is base and raw in every instance, at every turn, and in every way. Power is a slavering beast inside us and manifests in that one organ of society that must process the rough and harsh people who forget what it means to be civilized. That is not the brain of society, but that most base organ that is yet so essential to the health of society. It grows cancerous through inattention, spreads its cancer when unchecked and when it claims to be the author of itself, then its true author is reduced to subjugation to it. Thus are the Elites turned into the savages they so desire you to become. That takes work to stop with your fellow man, and it cannot be done without you. For you are also the author of Hope. Unfortunately she got stuck at the bottom of the box and someone has to reach in and help her out after all the demons of savagery have been loosed upon the world and this task cannot be done alone. You must change to get hope, not ask for hope and change inverted for it does not and cannot work that way.

Hope is not bestowed, it is reached for.

Hope does not arrive upon a litter borne up by vast multitudes, but alone, unclothed and shivering when she must be helped up from the box of terrors.

Hope is not released but must be set free by those who change their viewpoint and will to no longer indulge themselves but to offer a hand of kindness to her with their fellow man.

Hope is many things.


Hope is not a strategy.

Hope is not delivered it is built.

Hope is not the product of government, but its dearest enemy for she offers to hold it accountable for its deeds.


You are the author of Hope.

I hold my hand out to you to help you out of the box of terrors.

There is a better way and you are the light of your own life and of our own world once out of that box of horrors and to love those around you and not demonize them for not being you.

I say that not in judgment of you but for the simple fact that it is true.

It takes effort to step out of that warm, dark, and lethal box and a lifetime of work to stay out of it as it is so warm, so dark, so cozy, and if you stay too long the horrors then put the top back on the box and then you are dead and Hope extinguished.

I ask you unleash the power of Hope in yourself, to hold the Hope enslavers to their deeds, to free yourself from the shackles of dark comfort and ill ends and to transform the world together by holding a hand out to the oppressed and a shield against the savage.

You cannot fail me.

You can only fail yourself.

And in my deepest love of you I do not want to see that happen.

Demographics are destiny

There is a problem with the 'entitlement' programs that go beyond the loss of liberty by exchanging what should be a citizen's concern, that is caring for the elderly, sick and poor, for a government program.  That is bad enough, to put your personal citizen's responsibility into the hands of government and expect one of the least efficient actors in any Nation (that is government) to provide the care of the most efficient (that is charity).  Even beyond the degrading aspects of pushing those who are old or ill into the welcoming hands of red tape bearing bureaucrats is something even more fundamental that has been a problem with these programs for decades.

The problem?

Demographics.

When I speak of demographics, I go beyond just the easy to identify 'Baby Boom' generation that is a budget buster in all regards to 'entitlements'.  That is simple calculation to see how many will survive to get those 'entitlements' and then look at the workforce to support them.  As bad as this generations long Ponzi Scheme is, and it is horrific beyond all counts, it is based on a concept of a set age for receiving benefits.  That age has now been adjusted for SSA once, and the proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan and others would seek to move it even higher.  And yet that flies in the face of demographics.  Which part of demographics, in particular?  Life Expectancy.

In a previous review of this topic in Insurance, assurance and prosperity, I examined the underlying demographic trends of the 20th century prior to SSA and then past its enactment.  When looking at the capability of SSA or other entitlements to be 'sustainable' it must be acknowledged that there is an active worker to recipient ratio that changes due to the number of people in each category.  Life expectancy, if it remains stable, then allows for a determination of the average age of death for an individual citizen, so that half the population reaches that age and 'entitlements' are only provided for the remaining half (this concept works for all the 'entitlements' that are age dependent).

Thus if there is an increase in life expectancy, the 'expected' ratio of those utilizing an age-based entitlement will expand as more people live beyond the set age limit.  This was a phenomena not unknown even in the 1930's and the 20th century had seen only one serious time when life expectancy dropped globally, and that was due not to war but the Spanish Flu outbreak post-WWI.  Here are two graphs encompassing that data:

US Life Expectancy

Source: CJ Seymour, The Coming Great Depression

Global Life Expectancy

Source: Working Paper on Inequality and Mortality: Long-Run Evidence from a Panel of Countries
By Andrew Leigh and Christopher Jencks
Harvard University

Creating any system based on providing money or services to an elderly population then must take into account the change in the number of elderly over time.  Will it be steady, decrease or increase over time?

Progressive politics sells itself on 'steady-state' analysis in which nothing changes in underlying particulars.  Thus when doing a forecast of taxation increases Progressives do not look at how behavior will change to avoid such taxes, which is a part of human nature.  Income from increased taxes never reach expected amounts and, quite contrarily, often go down per percentage point added in comparison to previous tax percentages.  On 'entitlements' the feel good idea of there always being a set number of elderly misses the point that there is no set number of elderly in a growing, thriving society, and that to keep a demographic balance requires there to be no social, medical or family-type changes, so as to maintain the set ratios of the enactment of the 'entitlement'.

Another factor when looking at increased life expectancy is the change in the amount of time each person spends in the labor market to provide work to pay taxes to 'sustain' the entitlement.  Here I will take a paragraph from my previous work:

Clearly this is not 'insurance' but some sort of 'assurance' by the government. Insurance is payment to plans that will pay out if something happens: you are paying in the bet that something will happen to you, and the insurer takes such payments in the bet that they will not. Those that live in the modern, industrialized United States have some great expectation that they will live to see 'retirement age' and then live for a decade or even two after that. If one lives to be 85 or so, 20 years can be expected at the end of not doing much in the way of work. Add that to the 18 years or so of education to get to High School level, and nearly 40 years of one's life is spent not working at a job, about 45%. Compare that to the 20 years spent (approx.) and retiring at age 63 and that is only 20 years or 31% of one's life spent in learning and 'retirement'. At this point in time, via SSN, the Federal Government is mandating that an individual, to be eligible for payout from the system, is to spend 14% more of their life in leisure than their grandparents. Great work if you can get it, which you can in the US.

Currently it is not as bad as 85 years, but only 78 years (via the CDC using 2007 figures).  So the 'adjustment' to put in place circa 2030 of 70 years of age for SSA doesn't even match the original program's matching of life expectancy back in 1937.  Thus demographics will kill SSA even with a slow change to a 70 year old use system as there will be a large percentage of the population living past 70 that will overburden the system.

Here there is an additional factor to consider in and that is the delta change in life expectancy over time.  Which is to say: how many years does it take to up the life expectancy on average by 1 year?

If you answered that as 6, then you are looking at the beginning of the 20th century, and if you answered 4, then you are looking at the end of the 20th century.  The delta change, that is the change to the rate of change, is increasing over time.  So a static analysis applied today using a 4:1 ratio means that by 2030, a mere 19 years away, we will have added 4 years and change on to the life expectancy.  Thus the average life expectancy will be about 82 in 2030, and broken out by sex that will put women in their mid-80's and men in their late 70's, unless that break-out changes over time, as well, with improved health care for men.

Politicians hate demographics because it impacts population based programs in a major way over time.  Yet all projections are done either using static analysis or set change rate analysis, and none are done with behavioral changes or dynamically increasing change rates over time.  Thus no matter how much anyone 'wants' government to 'help' on 'social security' it will fail not due to the meanness of any political party or due to the lack of competence in running such programs, but due to the pure population dynamics reflected in demographics.

Part of the adjustment to living longer and having a better chance of surviving child birth and a child surviving past age 5 is to have a smaller family size.  That part of demographics begins to reduce the expected increase in overall population size as fewer children are born due to their high survival rates.  All the way into the late 19th and even early 20th century it was a common occurrence for a child to die at birth or before reaching age 5.  After the introduction of large scale sewer systems, public health systems to clean up water supplies and antibiotics (plus treatment of childhood diseases) that began to change and was remarkable throughout the 20th century that contrary to the population boom expectations and dire consequences, the demographic lines for population expansion globally were starting to plateau out. 

Here the entrance of India to becoming a modernized economy and China modernizing and instituting a 'one child policy' started the shift from youngster oriented world demographics to middle-age demographics with Europe and Japan shifting to old-age demographic types.  Family sizes in Europe plummeted from highs of 5 children in the poorer countries early in the century to lows of barely 2 children in those same countries by the end of the century.  The more 'developed' parts of Europe were seen as slowly losing their native populations starting in the early 21st century.  In the US this changed from a 3.2 children per family to 2.6 children per family, which is enough to maintain and even marginally increase population size over time, but not enough to get back to the early century's 4-5 children per family in the US.  That latter was the era which SSA was cast, so by post-WWII the demographics to sustain the program were already in jeopardy.

Thus there are two vectors at work which are not amenable to politics save in a negative way, which is to say destroying the public health infrastructure and forcing large families via edict, that are only indirectly related to economics but drive the economics of programs like nobody's business.  Increasing life expectancy happens when general health conditions for a population improves and this is more due to public health initiatives (clean water, sewage treatment and vaccinations) which are relatively low cost and easy to do.  The upshot of those initiatives, however, is a better understanding of diseases, how they change and spread, thus leading to better treatments of them.  That gets you a more capable medical system, overall, which is somewhat higher cost but able to extend life past the onslaught of early childhood diseases and then geared towards the diseases of the elderly.  Due to these factors and grand-parents living much, much longer lives, the breakup of the 'nuclear family' happened not so much due to 'liberation' movements but due to the grand-parents able to live longer, healthier lives and care for themselves better, longer. 

In theory these should be the relatively rich segment of the population, able to better prepare through their mid-adult life with a smaller family and increase marginal savings so as to grow their investments over time.  That is the case with many elderly, but with SSA as an 'entitlement' that they 'paid into', savings started to actually decrease over time.  The government forcing a 'retirement age' (and that is only upon the non-wealthy who can retire whenever they want or NEVER as the case may be) and then put 'means testing' on getting medical 'entitlements' meant that a system of gutting the savings of seniors to get 'entitlements' started via enforced 'retirement' when many were still able to contribute in meaningful jobs up to their last day before 'retirement'.  Plus the idea was that they had an extra decade or more of life still ahead of them... supported by younger, poorer working families.

This brings up some salient questions:

1) Is there any way to actually have such an 'entitlement' system at all?  Not one that depends on age as a determining factor, especially old age, no.  At some point early in this century we will pass the 3:1 ratio for adding an additional year on to life expectancy and after that it will be 2:1.  Thus for every two years of time you get an added year of life expectancy.  When that ratio reaches 1:1 you have near immortality.  Barring a total collapse of civilization or even a partial collapse of the Nation State system and impoverishment of the wealthy, this isn't changing any time soon.  Either of those events would set humanity back a couple of generations and see a massive decline in global life expectancy as the technical infrastructure to address public health and diseases go into decline or collapse.

2) Is the concept of 'retirement' even valid given the trends?  No.  Gerontocracies, that is governments run by the aged for the aged, is a trend in parts of Europe (Germany, France, parts of Scandinavia) and a force in Japan and Russia.  These countries are facing a greater than 1:1 worker to elderly ratio, and anything that raises the number of elderly as a proportion of society then obviates any 'retirement' concept: there are too many non-working people to sustain society and the economy.  That is a broad over-generalization, of course, but even when factoring in automation and productivity increases, the consuming of high productivity items will also tend to keep pace with output per person, and the number on the old age side then factor in as a major consumer of all goods in the economy.

3) Is the concept of 'old age' viable any more?  To a degree, yes, so long as the keys to stopping the degradation of DNA in cells isn't found, it will continue to be a generally viable concept.  What is interesting is the amount of work going into that 'Holy Grail' of generalized ageing, and our understanding of ageing as a 'disease' is slowly taking root.  If the government can keep from ruining the economic system, it is possible to see a 'cure' for this 'disease' within the span between now and 2030.  As a disease ageing is generalized, wide-spread and pandemic: everyone gets it.  Thus there must be keys to it that are, strangely enough, easier than going against an auto-immune disorder like MS or Type I Diabetes or Lupus.  As ageing was not seriously approached as a 'disease' in the 20th century, the early discoveries in the 21st that do see it as a 'disease' hold much promise.  And that 1:1 ratio is not all that far off, even for the middle-aged in our modern times.  Until that 'cure' is found, the general degradation of an individual's body can be put off (that is life extended) by working on secondary problems and maintaining a generally healthy life, longer.  Better diet assuredly played a major role in the change rate of change for life expectancy.

4) How can we address the cost of health care that is ever spiraling?  The cost of health care, that is the physical addressing of needs, office space and even most medications have remained affordable for decades in the US.  What has changed is the health care 'system' with the intervention of the government in the 1960's with Medicare and Medicaid.  These two systems do not pay off to the cost of procedures and medications.  The 'discount' that seniors get is a cost-shifting via government to practitioners and hospitals which then must raise costs elsewhere.  Even more interesting is that each time this question is posed it can be compared to treatments available in 1970-72 and, adjusting for inflation, the medications of that era are very cheap and the procedures once rare, then (like open heart surgery) are now widely available and relatively cheap.  The cost is in the provisioning system for these items, not in the skills or equipment to do them, or even the cost of medication production for that era-specific suite of medications.  Of course better, faster and even cheaper ways to do heart surgery have arrived, as well as medications that could not even be dreamt of in the 1970's.  You are, today, getting more effective and, thusly, more cost effective medications and procedures today, than your counter-parts did in the 1970's either as inflation adjusted costs or real costs.  The delta in health care is the provisioning via 'insurance' and from the government, both of which add on overhead, accounting costs and burden to the system in order to get 'discounts' that then get cost-shifted through the entire system, raising costs.  To remove the inflator of overhead and accounting, it is necessary to remove the middle-men who add cost but no value to the system.  In this the pure 'outpatient, seen on demand clinic' is now appearing at a very low cost per visit to address this need that government and insurers cannot meet.

5) What happens to the 'social safety net' in this new age of increased life expectancy?  It vanishes.  When your effective 'old age' passes 80, you are no longer in any real need of a 'social safety net' as you should be spending your adult life learning how to work and to adjust to ever changing working conditions.  This means that concepts that have been cherished as part of the Progressive agenda, like a minimum wage, become unsustainable as one cannot put any real 'floor' on wages when a person is expecting to work for decades.  Upwards achievement at some aspect of work related life, given 5-6 decades of working life, means that there is no floor that is meaningful to an individual: we will all be seeing that life is long and that no one can extend your childhood for decades at a time.  This is not a mean-spirit concept, one that seeks to impoverish the young as we are already doing that via the 'social safety net' and set-age systems that don't work, which then cost-shift debt from the old to the young.  Once the ceiling is removed, that is 'old age' becomes a concept that is not very related to life expectancy, then there is no reason for a 'floor' economically: very few people are so incompetent as to have NO viable work skill that will allow them even a modest advancement throughout life.  Even so, for those there is this thing known as 'charity', which is fellow citizens helping each other with the lowest of possible overhead cost, directly.  Only those who are mean of spirit and hard of heart say that they cannot trust their fellow citizens in times of need.  Look at Japan's recent earthquake and tsunami and ask yourself: would you help your fellow man at such times?  If so then why on Earth are you not doing so NOW?  It is not your fellow man that is hard of heart, but you who ask such a question and contribute nothing to charity and doubt the good will of your fellow citizens at every turn.

 

In summary the concepts of demographics are vital moving forces in society, as they effect more than just population size or even cohort size and type, but extend deeply across time to change the nature and outlook of individuals within society.  Semi-valid concepts from the late 19th century cannot cope with modern, dynamic analysis of demographic changes, and even those that came to be in the 20th century that did not address demographic changes, are now put seriously at peril by them.  Japan went from a young, vibrant but militaristic culture in the beginning of the 20th century to a pacifistic, ageing culture in the late 20th century: their entire nature as a society had changed in profound ways that influenced their demographics.  Such changes in society also play parts in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and everywhere technology helps to improve public health even modestly.  The basics of clean water, sanitation, vaccination and wholesome food are huge movers in demographic profiles: in Ancient Rome the demographics changed significantly when these public works were put in and the Nation went from a Republic to an Empire.

Some ideas we have from the past of old age are in rapid flux, and yet our governmental systems are lagging and badly, unable to adjust to the changes even in a single decade, not to speak of five or six of them.  The ideas that came with old age, that of some 'retirement' are more a product of politics than any reality: in the past people before the Progressive era made their own retirement whenever they could, and that was not dictated to by government.  Today the original employees of Microsoft made millions, often billions, of dollars and many retired... only to find retirement dull and that they wanted to make new careers and businesses for themselves.  The rich can retire whenever they want, which is why we have the 'idle rich' as a fantasy.  In reality the rich go from business to business, or simply re-invest their money in new companies, new ways of doing things, and into our society by doing that.  Yet, today, a car is car, no matter what the cost, and the value of a roof over one's head is stable, no matter how impoverished or rich the trappings are.  You can only live in one house at a time, drive one car at a time, and only take in so much entertainment at one sitting: the rich have more options, but are not necessarily leading richer lives for all those options.  And many of the 'rich' are small business owners, taking little pay for themselves so they can support their company.  Yet their 'income' via the business makes them 'rich', even though they have a modest house and car, they may employ tens, hundreds, thousands or more people.  It is the rich, investing in companies large and small, that created the tools and means necessary to bring us an affordable, decent life.  They are only villains when they use their power to gain favor to no longer be treated equally by government: those companies must go as they are predators on the body politic and society, no matter what 'good' they do they erode the moral character of the economy by their ends.

And when your life is extended past 80 years of age, and an 80 that is well kept and vibrant, who is to say that you won't be amongst the 'rich'?

Why ask government to punish you through taxes when you can build society via charity and providing jobs and actually doing something worthwhile with your life?  You will still have weekends for the golf course.

The simple self-evident

The following is a pure opinion piece.

Yesterday was the last day for complaints.

You have been warned.

There are a variety of the 'self-evident' truths that we learn in our life that tell us much about the nature of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  These are not 'rights' nor 'freedoms' but the consequences of actions that we all must understand and live with.  Most of them are cliches as they are well known and used as 'rule of thumb' or something we can readily identify with when looking at a problem.  Yet few actually apply these to their daily lives and overall outlook in life, even though they are self-evident truths.

What sort of truths are these?  Here are a few that one can live their life by:

- Neither a borrower nor a lender be.  Biblical but a good rule of thumb for life as when you are in debt you are in sorrow, and when others owe you then you are constantly wondering if they will ever pay you back.  Do without the heartache on both sides and you will live a better life and be happier with the results of what you do.  That does mean buying fewer things, in life, and not going into debt.  And there is a simple truth for that and easily learned.

- Outgo must be lower than income by a wide margin for you to survive.  It is a corollary to the first truth, but a vital part of understanding what the role of debt is in your life.  If your debt burden is more than you can pay off, you will be forever indebted to others and they will call much of the tune in your life.  In all instances paying your debt burden down and off is a first priority after food, shelter and a means of income.  Pay off on the principle of loans early, and you will lower the length of the loan and, thusly, pay it off faster.  Wherever possible use the funds you have stored from not being a borrower nor lender to purchase big ticket items with cash on the barrel-head.  You will not be a part owner and partially in debt, but the full owner and the burden of ownership rests with you, solely: it is your responsibility.

- Idle hands are the Devil's workshop.  Today the devilishness is in the games and frivolity with which we can populate our lives.  Yet for all of the fun of killing the Boss on Level 39, you have accomplished little with your time, save to have some transient and somewhat addictive fun.  Avocations are those things of interest that require you to do and think about them so as to gain information, improve your skills and otherwise better yourself and those around you with what you can do.  If you can do for yourself, you need not ask others to do for you, and that means you cut expenses and live a better and richer life.  The feeling of accomplishment from doing for yourself something that is vital is enduring: you can look and say that you are self-supporting.

- If you want something done right, do it yourself.  This is a corollary to the previous self-evident truth, but is far more subtle.  It is a subtle mis-statement of the actual meaning and should more rightly say - Do it yourself and you will work to be satisfied for yourself.  This means it is done right in your estimation, even if half-assed by that of an 'expert' that does not matter as you are the one with the accomplishment of achievement to your own satisfaction.

- You are your own worst critic.  You had better be or you will not live long.  Those who are always satisfied with not striving to achieve more and better never do achieve either and become a burden to themselves and those around them.  Thus your self-criticism is one of the highest and hardest things to deal with in life as when you fail yourself, there is no one there to forgive you but yourself.  Those who cannot do that never improve their lot in life and soon come to expect others to do for them, because they hold no value in themselves of what they do.  That is why we praise the efforts of others, even when they do not achieve great results: their effort will be re-doubled with modest praise as they know it is earned and that they can see the flaws in what they did.  Those who criticize harshly, continually, without ever giving praise have a mean spirit towards themselves and their fellow man and seek to demean and belittle others without ever, not once, attempting to make a better world through their own work.  It is easy to be a critic.  It is much harder to strive to build a better life for yourself and others, and the ever-mean critics only seek to destroy your efforts.

- Stop to smell the roses.  Then get back on the path and keep walking.  We appreciate nature for its natural beauty, given to us as a bounty of creation.  We invest time to preserve it as best we can while doing better for ourselves, and lingering to afford too much praise on what is free in life can warp our perspective of what is of great value given naturally and what is of value for our investment of time in it.  Your time with the rose will not make it a better rose, and if all you do is praise the rose, then you are becoming lesser for such praise, not more in life.

- There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  From Robert A. Heinlein and a self-evident truth.  Someone pays for that lunch in the time and effort to get it there, and your attendance to it is by no means free as it depends on someone else.  When you come to expect that which is free from another, then you are indebted to them and no longer thinking of how you can get it for yourself without someone else providing for you.  You are not entitled to the generosity of others, you are expected to earn it by making yourself a better person while your body is sustained.  That free lunch is there for a reason: to keep you alive to find a way so you don't need it.  That gift is a great burden to you to give back once you do achieve a better life as that is a burden we must all share.  When you are given a fish to eat, it is time to take fishing lessons or you will soon be enthralled to the provider of the 'free' fish.

- If you cannot live with yourself as you are, no one else will.  Except for those seeking to 'change' you to fit their role in life for you.  Self-love is far harder than loving God or, indeed, loving any other person as you must live with yourself on a continual basis.  The easy self-love makes you a narcissist as you come to see perfection in all you are, the never given love makes you miserable as you never allow yourself to see your good side: it is only the love in moderation with the fair assessment of what you do achieve and understanding that it is not up to your best but is still good that gives you the strength and courage to admire others without fawning.  Once fair to yourself, harsh at times but fair in that harshness, how can you not help but be generous to others who have better skills than you and see those seeking to better themselves as on a worthy path?

- Life is for the living.  Failure is an option and a pre-requisite of life.  What you are not good at teaches you humility and the necessary lesson that to achieve in that realm you have failed in will take much, much, much hard work on your part.  No one succeeds in all things thus be wary of those of who it is claimed otherwise.  Your experience at achievement and failure is the teacher of wisdom for you, if you can but accept that the lesson is good even when you do not achieve your goals.  When you fail you are put to the test to see if you can fairly evaluate yourself, your skills, your outlook and then pick yourself up from such failure to be a better person in understanding your limits.  And failure first time is not a guarantee of permanent failure as you may not have all the necessary skills and abilities to do what you wish to do.  Even the very best, those with the pinnacle of human skills will have bad days, off hours and poor judgment in those areas of expertise, especially when they advance beyond what they can easily do.  To achieve in life you must be able to accept life's lessons, fairly evaluate them for yourself and then figure out your path from failure and success.

- The helping hand up cannot be forever expected.  If failure is a prerequisite to success and being a full person, then you cannot expect that you will always have someone or something to cushion the blow to you.  Parents guide children, help them understand that failure is not a personal, moral fault but one of skills, ability and fortitude.  Those necessary lessons in learning and play become fewer as a child grows up and when the child learns the larger lesson of self-reliance and the ability to shake the dust off of themselves after a failure, they are then operating in the realm of adults.  Adults must learn that there is no 'safety net' for them that does not come at great expense to others and that when this expense is not given freely you then feel entitled to always be a failure.  A culture of entitlement is anathema to adults as it does not allow individuals to grow and become functioning members of society.  The responsibility to those who fall rests upon each of us, not all of us, and it is our charitable heart that up-lifts the fallen with a hand up to a better life, not the hand out due to a serf.  We do not denigrate our fellow man with a hand out, but offer the friendly hand up and offer to help them so they can succeed in life.  Those without a charitable heart are the most evil on this Earth, save those wishing to coerce others to cover their responsibilities for them:  forced 'charity' is not charity at all, but pure and utter evil as it takes from those who would give freely to their own causes and forces them to endorse causes in which they have no choice.  Every tyranny coerces in the name of 'charity', and beware all those who say that charity does not begin at home but in your wallet for they care not about your home but only about your wallet: of you they care little, and it is your works of liberty they seek without your input.

- Anything too good to be true usually is and anything promised to always be there and never end, won't.  Every scam that offers something for nothing pulls in the gullible, those known as the target of the scam: The Mark.  To those wishing to defraud, everyone else is The Mark.  In a large scam the last person to realize they are The Mark of the scam, is The Mark.  As we all know, everything has its season, its time, its beginning and its ending, including our universe.  Thus nothing lasts forever, no fiscal system is guaranteed to produce always good results, and anything that requires the next generation of a scam to pay for the previous generation of it will fail.  Thus the promise of a 'social safety net' that requires an 'inter-generational agreement' fails by demographic movements known for decades.  Attempts to 'help' the system are merely attempts to make it last just long enough to get pay outs to those currently paying in.  If forced giving to a 'safety net' is evil due to its coerced nature, it is made deeply so by the false nature of it as the point where it can be sustained reaches a maximum and then fails, catastrophically.  And The Mark are those paying in who can see that this will not work for them and that there is no way it ever will.  The promises were false, the nature of the scam evident since it was started, and the idea of you actually getting some 'retirement' funded by everyone else is too good to be true.  Like all good scams The Plants who claim it will work are in on the scam: they are seeking to make it last long enough to get them into a payout position.

These are self-evident truths we know, in our hearts, as we see them in every day life.  You cannot force someone to do good, only restrict them in doing harm to their fellow man and society.  The necessary evil of restricting those seeking to harm the innocent is still an evil and the very best we can seek is equality of protection and the administration of blind justice to all citizens regardless of income, class, status, skin color, religion or any other thing.  As it was said of our Nation before it was a Nation, when we were under the Unwritten Constitution, government is only a Punisher and that is its role for us.  It can only do 'good' by inflicting harm upon others: financial, moral and physical harm each, in turn, has been justified to make all outcomes in life 'fair'.  Yet life is, itself, very fair, as no one can thwart death and it is equal to all mankind without favor nor fervor, visiting each in their turn.  There are no permanent fortunes as there is no permanent life, and any financial empire will, through mismanagement and greed, fall on its own or be pushed by competitors who can out-compete it.  That is the nature of all things built by man.

Our quest to a more perfect Union is one that is ever forming anew, and there is no permanence to society as the necessary good of one generation may be seen as an evil by the next.  Of the few truths we hold self-evident, we are each born with the blessings of Our Creator to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and they are inalienable to our very being.  We accept that the pursuit of happiness is a quest, not an end-state, and that to our dying breath if we are very lucky then we will still be in pursuit of happiness, even if that means a horrible death in a far off corner of our world to protect our fellow citizens from harm.  Far better that death than the to be a peasant and slave to government only wishing for a next meal and then cursing government when it does not provide it as you have forgotten that you are to provide for yourself.  Freedom and liberty for our fellow citizens is worth dying for in its defense, which is why tyrannical regimes have such poor armies and always lead to cruel and bitter ends... no matter the victories it gains, it has lost the soul of its people and there is no glory in that at all. 

To live free or die means you must do for yourself and are willing to live with your works and yourself.  It is the hardest way to lead a life.  Yet it is the only way that creates a life worth leading full of freedom, liberty and the responsibilities you gladly accept to help your fellow man so as to create the greatest good of a better society for all, with malice towards none.  Those who viciously deride and attack any segment of a civil society deserve to be shunned, disdained and to rant to their dying breath about the injustice of the world that they only want to make worse to their own ends. 

Into your care is given the heart of liberty. 

Only you can protect it from tyrants.

These two go hand-in-hand.

Grand Bargain

Americans are, without a doubt, the most generous people on the planet.  For our own citizens we wish equality under the law, long life and prosperity.  For those abroad we wish no animus, to have good relations with all Nations, and to ensure that we are a brother within the family of Nations seeking lawful conduct amongst Nations to the benefit of all mankind.  To protect the former from the latter we institute governments amongst men, and those governments are to look after the welfare of their own Nations and peoples.  Without the orderly conduct amongst Nations we can have no security nor prosperity at home, and when our equality at home is at doubt we find ourselves unable to work with our fellow Nations to reach order as our biases drive us to ill-conceived conclusions about the equality of all mankind.

Government is not our savior, not our personal security blanket and we recognize that the law must be equal for rich and poor, young and old, sick and healthy, and favor none so that we may all be assured of the regularity of process, procedure and acknowledge that unequal outcomes are ever the result of the institutions of man as our given equality through life is not the same as equality of talent, ability, will or skill.  No law can make us equal in those things, that is the nature of Nature, not just of man.  Thus it is incumbent upon each of us, as individuals, to ensure the fairness of our deeds and lend the helping hand to our fellow citizens either directly or through our charitable institutions so that as individuals we may falter, but as a Nation we may succeed.  We expect our fellow man to give as he can, not through the coercion of government, but through the great boon of giving directly of his or her own time and wealth, which are the benefits of liberty, freedom and equality.  None are denigrated for working, all are praised for thrift, and we adore those who give to charity to benefit the poor, needy, sick, and elderly for that is the upholding of ourselves and our society in so doing.  We cannot promise that all will end their lives equally, save that, once dead, they all shall be equal once more.  In life the measure of a man or woman is not wealth, nor fame, nor ownership of goods or property, but how much they can give to their fellow man without fear, without recrimination and without force applied to them.  This applies to all citizens of all stature and none are to feel the coercion of others, but only of their own good will and conscience.

These things are not the venue of government and government is ill-suited to do these things for us.  It is a tool of statecraft, of management of National and regional affairs where the needs of society, not of men, are to be addressed.  Their good is to ensure the safety of all from predators of all types, to address those that would harm us, to upkeep our common lands, and to serve as the punisher for those who cross our common good.  Thus it is given the power to utilize our personal negative liberties to the benefit of all, through the oversight of society and to be kept within bounds so as not to impoverish the people, as a whole, by trying to uplift them in parts.  When government can uplift the elderly and not the children or middle-aged, we are impoverished as it steps into our lives to remove our liberty to do good on our own and replaces it with the expectation of provisioning with the strings of government attached.  The only strings that come with charity are those that we place upon ourselves, those that come with government come with the strings of the punisher attached.  Disagree to the strings and you are punished.  That is not either good nor evil, it is the nature of government at all times, in all places, in all States of mankind.  Find the loving State and you find the servile people obedient to the will of the few.  No matter how sweet and good the help of government sounds, when it is only applied to the few, it divides society and makes it the plaything of our common government, which is a poor end for all involved.

As Americans we are not a perfect people, but we have a perfect calling.  That calling is to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via the happenstance of our life and our abilities.  We can admit to mistakes, admit to failure, and admit to ourselves that no matter how good a service is, that when it is directed by government to the few so as to indenture them to government to support those inside government, then we, as a people, have our liberty and pursuit of happiness put at peril by the powers of government to take our funds via taxation, restrict our liberty via law and put in place an unequal distribution of wealth so the well off are made poor and the poor have their liberty impoverished by the helping hand and ready boot of government. 

When in poverty, in pain, when in need our first recourse is not to government, not to the State nor Nation, but to our fellow citizens and the institutions we make to help each other.  Some are too prideful to take such help, it is admitted, and they are showing the extreme strength of character to never admit defeat, never admit the turn of fortune and we must respect them that as it is the greatest statement they can make: they will never be a drain upon our common reserves or love, but will only seek to contribute to it until their dying day even if that be in wretched health and poverty.  To those who admit that changes in fortune, in health, in circumstances are beyond them, we open our doors, our wallets and found great places where we can donate our very time and life to helping them.  Always and ever that greatest of institutions is that which allows us to make Nations and is our first recourse: our families.  When in hard times our families pull together, open doors to family members to give shelter, aid and loving care, while helping them to find means to sustain themselves once more.  From there we go to religious organizations who open their doors to the wretched of the earth needing to breathe free and gain sustenance of spirit as well as body.  We, as a people, found charitable hospitals, schools, and reach out into the community to seek help as well as give it, so that volunteer firemen and rescue squads stand at the ready from those who have other work now putting their lives at risk for all in the community.  There is always good work to be had, paid and unpaid, and while all may not lead to happiness directly, their circumstances may give the happenstance in which one's liberty may allow them to prosper.

Thus the ills we have created over the past 100 years and more come home to roost in government now feeling it can dictate good sense to the people, ignore its duties given to it, and impoverish us all to meet well wishing ends of equality of outcome.  Our parents and grandparents did not listen to good sense, did not exercise vigilance over government and did not see their fellow citizens as worthwhile agents of society and came to believe that government represented a way to achieve loving ends through bureaucratic means.  Burdening the future with debt to meet their over-appetite for good ends, we now come to the end of the good ends and find the bill mounting daily.  America was not debt free when it was born, as a Nation, and we repaid our debts to France and other supporters so as to be free of it.  That happened under President Jackson and lasted not long at all.  That original debt put our Nation at peril, caused the government under the Articles of Confederation to become shaky and find a way to reconstitute a better government that would either change it or replace it.  Even with the latter the debt was retained, and paid off.  We shall do so this time and admit to our wrongs while agreeing to work off our debt gathered through ill-conceived notions of what government can do and what it should do,  and recognize that the latter cannot make itself into the former no matter how much we wish it so.

In our bargain our goals to rid ourselves of what government can't do, retain what it must do, and differentiate between the two must be aimed not towards good ends but regularized means in which none benefit unfairly from government making unequal law.

The points are as follows:

1) One equal tax rate for all.  Those that are poor must pay something to our common good, even if it is a pittance compared to those above poverty.  No one gains the benefits of government without taxation and payment into it.  At the poverty line the full force of government taxation comes into effect regardless of race, creed, skin color, religion, locale or any other factor.  If you are a citizen making above that amount, you pay taxes at the rate all citizens pay them.  Income tax is a horrible way to collect taxes, and we would be better served by having the States collect our taxes through means more local to us.  To effect that permanently, Amendment XVI must be removed from the Constitution, and as we have seen Congress is not to be trusted with this power.  The only exemption in this is via the SSA payback, and when that is used up, the individual pays taxes on all funds they get through employment.  All other taxes are removed from collections (ex. Capital Gains Taxes, the 'Death Tax', and so on).

2) As Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid eat up all revenue to the federal government, and all other things including the servicing of existing debt is paid for by new debt, they must end.  Those getting SSA may continue to do so.  Those who are not will be given the opportunity to take off the supposed 'investment' in their retirement from their federal taxes.  In addition the FICA tax disappears.  Medicare and Medicaid are not suited to federal venues, thus the funds for these two programs should be added together, divided in half, apportioned via block grants to the States proportionally and then phased out over 5 years.  At the end of 5 years the federal government will no longer fund health care for any but our veterans.  As those taking SSA will dwindle in the century after enacting this, that burden decreases.  In the mean time individuals get the greatest tax cut ever seen in modern times with not only FICA no longer removed from pay, but the ability to utilize past payments to negate current taxes putting full paychecks into the hands of our fellow citizens.  As the burden of overhead for these systems vanishes from all companies, they, too, will gain from no longer having to collect and account for these funds and will no longer serve as the ersatz tax collectors of the government.

3) The first and second items require an extreme austerity budget.  Thus while the State Department is funded, no overseas moneys will be available for anything.  The Department of Defense, being a necessary part of our security, will remain, but have much of its civilian workforce cut.  All Senior Executive posts throughout the federal government are abolished and the civil service will need to find able executives via the existing workforce, and that will make the entire civil service structure accountable to the Executive and Legislative branches directly.  The areas of US Coast Guard, US Geological Survey and Parks Departments remain, all else at Dept. of Interior goes.  Those areas within the Commerce Department associated with the US Mint and tax collection remain, all else goes.  The following are privatized by putting one share of stock out to each US citizen: Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, Sallie Mae, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and any other corporation or organ created to serve as a funds intermediary or directing organization on the US economy.  This does not include the Departments of Energy, Agriculture or EPA which are abolished.  Indeed, anything not explicitly stated within the US Constitution as a necessary organ of government is abolished.  Thus the General Accounting Office is necessary for the oversight of lands and goods held by the federal government, and the US Printing Office is not and will go.  The list of what the federal government MUST do, like secure the borders, will no longer be confused with nice things it should do, like have a Small Business Administration: the necessary for enumerated functions is kept, that which is not, is removed.

4)  Sunsetting all laws, regulations, codes and federal actions on the final digit year they were enacted.  Thus a law put in on 1913 comes up for renewal on any year ending with a 3.  All existing laws must pass both Houses of Congress and be re-signed by the President, no exceptions.  The citizenry shall have at least 2 years notice and input into all these items, which INCLUDES those proposed above.  If, after 10 years without such agencies and organizations there is a compelling need to put them back in place, the citizenry can say so.

5)  As (4) nullifies the size of Congress set in 1911, which had nullified all previous size changes via proportion, the Maximum House comes into being the year after the year that ends with a 1 in it if no other action is taken.  That is the Constitutionally largest House of Representatives at 1 Representative per 30,000 citizens.  Be advised that this will create a House of over 9,000 members.  It is suggested that the problem with 'corruption' in Congress is not due to the amount of money, but too few representatives to chase after it.  As representation increases, the ability of money to sway elections and representatives decreases inversely to the size of the House.  Also at 1:30,000 all seats will see demographic changes between each census and, frequently, between elections and thus come to represent the ever changing and moving face of the American people.  There is much good that comes from 9,000 politicians at each others throats.

 

How would the US government look without an Dept. of Health and Human Services?  Without a Dept. of Agriculture?  Without an EPA?  Would businesses run wild? 

Examine all the supplemental laws at the State level that have been put in place to enforce similar federal mandates and then ask why we need two laws on the books when only one is suited by region and locality?  Many are the laws that we duplicate, which means that our States stand ever ready to protect the environment at the local and regional level and willing to work with other States for larger compacts.  Before the EPA that is how it was done, even if somewhat corruptly it was better to disperse corruption amongst competing States that must come to agreement rather than in the faceless federal bureaucracy which is an advocate only for itself.  And it has grown during good times and lean times, and we feel that expense especially during the lean when the bloat of government becomes a drain to all American citizens.

We have created structures that tried to ignore demographics, and now we are eaten alive by them in a fiscal manner and see our liberty draining with those funds to the government.

We can help the poor, the elderly, the sick, the infirm and those that have lost jobs.

That does not start at the federal government, the cause for such woes in many areas, but at home with the family.  Then to neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties and States.  We pay dearly for burdensome overhead when we cannot sustain it, and that ever happens when our good wishes for our fellow man are replaced with distrust of his charity and the unfounded belief that government can be charitable.  That is not the purpose nor function of it, and when put in that role it is the least, worst and most costly way to deal with any problem... strange we seek it out first, instead of appealing to our fellow man to help create something better amongst ourselves.

And that is the grandest part of the bargain.

Believing in each other as capable individuals, no matter our circumstances, and placing our faith in each other again, and back to our families, first.  Do not ask what government can do for you nor what you can do for government, but what you know is right to your fellow citizens to help and aid him, directly.

Your Faith will guide you.

Your Hope will sustain you.

Your Charity will build a better society.

Our greatest liberty is that FROM government, not TO government as that latter is the path to Tyranny.

Price vs value

"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892, Act III
Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900)

Visiting Megan McArdle's site (h/t Instapundit) where she writes about her writing about nationalized health care and how critics are trying to paint a very narrow window for criticism while the larger objective is to get nationalized health care is interesting.  What is more interesting is that a number of commentators speak about chronic diseases and their cost.

So, having a number of chronic conditions or conditions which can complicate chronic conditions or being treated with medication that treats chronic conditions that lead to further and worse fall out from chronic conditions... do you follow that?

One chronic condition can get complicating factors from other, possible, causes and medicating to lower the risk of those separate causes then lowers the risk of further complications to the main condition down the road.  Thus you treat the others at the first sign of problems or, due to the effects of medications for those conditions, you have the medication supplied BEFORE any of those other conditions show up as they help the main condition stave off further problems.

Got it now?

Good!

Now I've had type I diabetes (previously 'Juvenile Diabetes' but it now has been demonstrated to show up independent of age and other conditions, although may have some environmental factors associated with it as seen in the Scandinavian effect of more cases showing up in late fall and winter) since 1983.  Over 25 years with it and nearly 26.  As type I is not amenable to the medications for type II, and has different symptoms with it, and is the low percentage of all types of diabetes (~10%), it has some similar and some different risk factors with it although complications run about the same direction.

Starting in the early 80's and going to the early 90's I was on NPH insulin, one injection per day.  That had crept up with a resistance to it, but that (as it turns out) is not a permanent effect.  I was switched to Lantus (glargine) which lasts longer in the blood stream, but my use of it crept up, also.  Before all this I was and am prone to infections of the upper respiratory tract, and if you have ever experienced a dual ear infection, sinus infection, pleurisy and vomiting, I know EXACTLY what you have gone through.  All at the same time.  Without modern antibiotics of the 1970's I wouldn't be here, today.

Now this all changed when I volunteered for a trial study at NIH.

You know, National Institutes of Health?

I was, relatively, well at that point but a few of my cholesterol and other numbers needed to be 'baselined' so I was taken off of one statin that was causing me to gain weight and put on another.  That all squared away I was then put through a day or so of 'how to properly maintain your blood glucose level for this study' which turned out to be a primer on how to do this for your life.  It is not that complicated, and takes about a month to finally get all the proportions worked out right so you are balancing carbohydrate net intake per meal with the proper amount of insulin to counter it, per meal, and then do a test two hours later to ensure that your glucose levels are in the preferred range.

Thus my control of my condition went from 80's understanding relatively so-so to early 2004 understanding by the top researchers on the planet.

With poor control I was getting normal and expected complications due to how long I have had the disorder.  I had three bouts of laser surgery to cauterize areas at the back of my eyes that were seeping interstitial material.  I was getting some peripheral neuropathy, mostly in my feet, but still had and have decent sensation in them.  Basically, at 20 years onwards I was doing pretty well, all things considered.  And being a government employee and having chosen a health plan, all of the complication were picked up by the plan.

Now things changed in 2004-05 as one of the medications given to me to lower my cholesterol level had truly nasty and undesired side-effects that are not well publicized but horrific for anyone getting them.  Beyond memory loss I was having sudden lapses where I could not do anything with my body but was conscious.  Lethargy was omnipresent and my stamina plummeted to almost nothing.  Starting in DEC 2004 when these problems first started to appear, they were not correlated to the study medication and the best minds at NIH got a chance to try and figure out what was going on.  My personal physician also started work on it.  My endocrinologist identified the medication and the problem immediately... that was FEB 2005 and things were getting worse as the loss of body control was happening multiple times per day.  I was taken off the medication but the problems persisted and were not getting better.  By MAY 2005 I had my primary care physician fill out the paperwork to take me off the roads and I could no longer function at work.  From MAY-JUL 2005 I went to a neurologist who had a preliminary diagnosis in JUN 2005 (after an MRI) and final diagnosis after a PET scan (which I paid for out of pocket) as I wanted the condition nailed down.

From then, onwards, I have been dealing with a steadily improving condition via treatment with medications that we still don't know very much about even after they were invented in the mid-1970s.  Seems fitting as my genetic background has a predisposition to the condition that the prescription medication caused to become present.  That is no hard and firm diagnosis, but it does fit all the facts and will continue to be the best-fit explanation until a better one can come along.  Turns out my own endocrinologist was thinking of putting me on that medication, anyway, because of my underlying condition.

That period from DEC 2004 to JUL 2005 saw me taking more blood tests, getting imaged multiple ways, having my heart scanned in 3D (I was interested but my lack of energy and stamina kept that to a minimum), having pins inserted into my muscles to measure them and then have them artificially stimulated (it is not as unpleasant as it sounds, but isn't pleasant, either) and until I got a neurologist who could figure it out the next thing up was a spinal tap.

Mind you, this is with the VERY BEST researchers and clinicians I could get my hands on in the DC metro area...

To go through the disability paperwork I had to fill out a raft of forms from SSN.  That was necessary for my government disability, I expected nothing, zip, zilch from SSN because I was just debilitated to the point I couldn't drive, could walk around the block, and had problems staying awake most of the day.  My lady helped me and SHE was fine!  She had problems understanding the SSN paperwork which appears to be meant to defeat anyone who does not have their full cognitive abilities to their credit which was my case at the time.  Remember, this is FOR that exact, same sort of problem, so the paperwork is made in such a way as to stymie those needing help.

Gotta love that.

My diabetes, however, was in great control!

And I was put on two non-systemic medication to address cholesterol which runs relatively high in my family.

So, from that, and trying to avoid things like dialysis by keeping my blood vessels open NOW means a raft of medications, many that can have pretty nasty side effects and a tendency towards low blood pressure... I have had nurses at NIH look at me and ask if I was actually still conscious when they took my blood pressure.  Twice.  Two different machines.  Then come back in a half hour only to find that it hadn't increased.

So, what is my annual cost to keep going?  Well, I will round and ballpark some figures.

Insurance cost: $7,800 /year

Insulin - $120/year for one on co-pay, market price $370/year

$120/year for a second type co-pay, market price $480/year

$120/year for a third type co-pay, market price $480/year

$160/year for syringes co-pay, market price $160/year

$180/year for pen needles co-pay, market price $180/year

$200/year for test strips co-pay, market price $1,560/year (I kid you not)

$45/year for lancets co-pay, market price $75/year

Hypertension - $240/year co-pay, market price $240/year (now if I take the pet version my price plummets)

Cholesterol - $240/year co-pay for the first medication, market price $340/year

$240/year co-pay for the second medication, market price $2,700/year

Neurological condition - $240 year co-pay, $800/year

Cost of medical visits varies, but I have few of them per year at this point.  A hard guess is $60/year co-pay, $600/year market

Dental costs vary widely due to my conditions and my ability to actually be conscious in a dental chair.  If I was healthier I could give an estimate on that, but I can't... the price differential due to my plan only giving partial dental coverage is generally a wash.

When I add up the numbers I come to the total cost insured, with cost of insurance: $9,765/year

Total cost without insurance: $7,985/year

Why stick with insurance?

Since I get my lady covered under this plan her costs, added in, would tend to balance things a bit, making health insurance a bargain.  It would be even more of one if we could just get to single plans, but that is not to be in our lovely world.  Shocking, but true, we could knock nearly $2,000 off our total coverage costs if we had two single plans.  Yup, divorce and re-marry!  Hey what a way to 'preserve the family'!  Thank you to the two party system for making something simple so asinine.

Plus my conditions and possible complications.

I am NOT a relatively healthy individual.  And yet just about half my net income goes towards my health.

I really do love how people make the argument, to me, that 'this is for those who are very sick', not realizing that I am very sick.

If I had federal paperwork ON TOP of all the other paperwork INCLUDING the daft SSN paperwork, I would not be here.

What I did do was ascertain the shortened life expectancy of people with my condition, the cost of long term complications, and then started planning when I was younger to deal with these problems.  My personal precautions were about half-done when the second chronic disorder was visited upon me.  Yet planning, saving, and working out how to deal with these things with the ones I love meant that I would not be a burden on them, that I would not be in poverty and that I would not need charity.  I have looked into getting a price break on some of my medications, but I am just 'too rich' for that.  Yes, take what I pay out and multiply it by 2.  That is 'too rich' in the way of income.  I do have other sources of funds, yes, but the plans I made have served me well.  I have gotten unexpected support from others, but that is extra and I am damned and duly grateful for such gifts and am not too proud to accept them... because I know I am not in the best of shape.

My life plan had not included anyone else, and I had expected to live a life alone.  That plan was adapted with changed circumstances, but the basis of preparing early for one's future meant that I had to face the basics of my condition as it was, then, and not expect a damned insurance company to pick up the tab for my costs.  Plus I did not and do not expect a single penny from SSN as it is heading towards insolvent and draining cash out of the rest of the federal budget which will sink this government like a rock heading into the abyss.

 

What is my 'solution' for 'health care reform'?

 

If you read past this, don't complain.

 

First - tort reform - Any malpractice suits are limited to actual costs to fix what wasn't done right and, yes, pay for your upkeep if the problem is permanent.  NO 'pain and suffering' awards which have become an inflator and a lottery system for juries to hand out bundles of cash that insurers have to pay, that raise the cost of insurance.  And double damages on anyone bringing a frivolous suit in attempt to win a payout lottery.

Second - remove the subsidies - Remove all tax incentives for 'health insurance'.  Why?  Because subsidized goods and services get over-utilized in an uneconomic fashion, raising costs.  What do we see?  Raising costs of health insurance and health care?  Why?  It is subsidized.

Third - incentivize health care - What the hell is that?  Here is a two-fold deal: change 'health care' from an 'insurance' system to an 'investment' system.  Instead of paying for 'coverage' you pay for 'treatment' that you may or may not immediately use.  Your 'treatment' can then be cashed in at any future time at any set institution that you invested in.  The cost is set on purchase and can even be reduced if the group providing treatment doesn't expect you to need it any time soon.  What would a triple-bypass cost 20 years before you could reasonably expect to need it?  If you paid for it NOW via investing at an institution that will guarantee the procedure (backed up with proper insurance and bonding) then you have an ironclad guarantee of service for that treatment.  Going to move?  TRADE IT.  This is an investment, after all, but one for treatment.  So if you wanted to trade it for, say, similar coverage at a facility near where you are moving to and, maybe, 3 visits over 5 years for a top notch specialist in the area and can work that trade, then you have those in trade for your previous investment.  Like bonds, if an institution goes under you are first in line for the FULL COST of the treatment when the place goes under: you are a creditor.  That is part one of incentivizing health care so you pay, now, for procedures you may not need and can then trade for ones you DO need.

Fourth - health savings accounts redux - Allow a full roll-over of money in all HSAs just like IRAs.  Allow full investment in money earning vehicles in HSAs.  Do not tax money earned in HSAs so long as they are used for medical procedures, medications, office visits, durable equipment, etc.  Set no limit on how much can be put into such accounts.  Allow employers to put money into their employees accounts TAX FREE.  Thus the employee could manage these funds towards the good end of paying for their health care (be it with or without insurance).  When employers offer job packages they can offer HSA contributions in lieu of pay or in addition to health insurance but with a lower salary.  Good long term investments will yield larger accounts, over time, and will ease the worry of skyrocketing medical costs... particularly if people decide to invest IN those providing health care.  Are health care companies and pharmaceutical companies making gonzo bucks?  That is reflected in investment portfolios, is it not?  If you invest in a portfolio, then you gain the benefit of a growing industry that will help you pay for the costs of it due to it being the one you need services from.

Fifth - there is no such thing as a 'national market' for health care - This is why we have 50 States.  You see a better arrangement in another State?  MOVE THERE.  Or write to your State representatives to see if a State to State arrangement can be made to expand coverage.  Large companies providing coverage already do this, of course, but smaller ones need protection due to the fact they address more localized markets and are better adapted to them.  When localized health care companies go under to be taken over by larger ones, the market loses competition and that is a long term worry to the citizenry and should be to the Nation as only a dog-eat-dog system at the lowest level allows larger structures to be pulled apart by innovation.  As it is the larger companies gobble up the small, shut the small facilities and leave communities without the facilities or coverage that used to be available.  Small scale inefficiency that is adapted to the small scale may have other benefits outside of 'cost maintenance': like providing any care AT ALL to a small community or sub-community in a larger population center.  If we are supposed to have 'laboratories of liberty' in our 50 States then getting a 'national market' is the last thing anyone should want.  That concentrates too much power in the hands of too few groups and individuals.  This also removes the 'tragedy of the commons' in which no one really much cares about the larger market and it then starts to stagnate because no one has the power to actually make sure it is working well at the small scale.

Sixth - The grotesque thing about government run anything is the inefficiencies of government, itself.  The best run of government agencies at the federal level, and I worked at it, was 65% efficient at what it did.  Yes the government, via overhead, only wasted 35% of every dollar spent!  Private industry does a much better job at 20% inefficiency, on average.  Remember the average of industry is still better than the best of government.  But if you really want to drive costs DOWN and put COMPETITION into the market there is one area that can compete with industry.  That is charity.  There are organizations that rate the amount that charities spend on overhead, and it is typically in the 7-15% range.  That is the equivalent of waste for a charity.  There are some that try to get that down to 1% via volunteers and other organized form of help that doesn't need to be paid for.  Of these three groups, which is the most efficient at providing 'health care'?  Government, industry or charity?  If you answer 'charity' then why is not the full and absolute amount donated to charity given as a tax write-off?  This, too, is a marketplace incentive, but one geared towards actually HELPING the poor get treatment.  Pharmaceutical companies could be given write-offs based on donations of modern medicines, not those that have expired, but fresh production.  Ditto to other parts of industry making durable goods and consumables used in health care.  By allowing companies to donate goods directly to charity to be used for the poor or those that cannot pay, we ALL gain greatly without any further interference by government.  Indeed local governments can give incentives in the way of property tax and other tax breaks to charitable organizations that do this work.  What is garnered are committed individuals who have the best interest of patients and the community at heart.

 

I do, indeed, want a health care system that 'works' for everyone.

One where we invest in our future infrastructure, not worry about current payments.

One where individuals are allowed to invest in themselves and their families, not one that takes money from them in taxes.

One that rewards charity to build communities so that the poor and needy are looked after by those who want to and will do their level best to cut all costs so that the money is spent ON the poor and not for profits.

To do these things requires that we change our way of viewing 'health care' as a service and treat it as an investment for ourselves, our children, our neighbors and our Nation.  You can't get that with government oversight.

But you can do that by the common citizen willing to take part to donate money and time, precious time from their lives, to charity.  Why do we penalize that instead of rewarding it? 

We are missing out on the best value around when we argue about costs.