This is a subject that is starting to make the rounds more and more as the campaign goes on. There is a very interesting article at

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24223304/

which goes into a lot more detail. As much as this article talks about it, it does not go into the incident in the early 90's when McCain, responding to an attempted joke by Cindy McCain on his thinning hair, fired back with a remark which compared her to a trollop and also called her a name for a woman's private parts which is not considered a polite or kind euphemism. He did this in front of three witnesses. More on this will be coming out in a soon-to-be-released book on McCain. It's my understanding that denials of the event are not being issued at this point but instead explanations are being offered which relegate the incident to a joke. Of course, that must have been it.......most men I know with quick tempers certainly joke around with their wives in public by calling them such names.....I'll bet all those present must have been doubled over with laughter......

Anyway, I'm certainly tired of laughing at his antics. I'm also very tired at the passes he keeps getting from the media lapdogs (as referred to by Whit over at Whit's Whittlings) who seem to have fallen in love with the irascible bully. The media has continued to let him get away with his confused statements about who it is we're fighting in Iraq. He's done it five times that I can think of and if he didn't have his lapdog politico friend, Jerky Joe Lieberman, around to keep him in line who knows what else he might have said. This is the guy who's supposed to be the one we want to answer the proverbial phone at 3:00 AM????? Shoot, he'd answer it and tell them they had the wrong number.

I have some other questions I'd like to ask him specifically along with some of the questions I would have posed to Barack and Hillary and I'll get to those soon.

Stay tuned....

“MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do? And number two, if you get the nomination, what will you do when those sermons are played on television again and again and again?”

Are you kidding me? This was on ABC? One of our main networks with supposedly a high reputation? What would Howard K. Smith have asked? The moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, must have received some recent training from The National Enquirer or even lower, Fox News. Also what on earth is George doing there as a supposedly impartial moderator? Doesn't anyone remember that he was once part of the Clinton team some years ago?

Why weren't the candidates asked questions like these:

"How is your healthcare proposal actually going to meaningfully lower health insurance rates without having to lower the comprehensiveness of coverage?" - to both candidates

"How on earth can you mandate the purchase of health insurance and compare it to auto and homeowner's insurance when the rates for health insurance are so much higher and this country hasn't seen a significant rise in real wages for so long?" - to Sen. Clinton

"How would you approach the Middle East situation especially in Iraq and Afghanistan in your first ninety days in office?" - to both

"What would you do to replenish and re-strengthen the condition of the US troops morale and ability to respond to other potential needs if we are still going to be in Iraq for at least 1-2 years before any withdrawal is even attempted?" - to both candidates

"Is the US government going to continue bailing out large financial entities who get into trouble and not thoroughly address the woes of regular people with their home mortgages?" - to both

"Because you are of a minority racial part of our populace, how can you address any fears that the majority might have regarding your showing any favoritism to that minority part to make up for biases they have endured?" - to Obama

"In your approach to taxes, are you going to commit to the idea that the middle class will not feel the brunt of any reversion to previous income tax rates and including estate taxes? How would you define the middle class economically?" - to both candidates

"How will you assuage the real estate home market and restore the goal of reasonable home ownership to the American people?" - to both

"Are you going to address the extremely high, some call usurious, interest rates that credit card companies and banks are charging even good customers? If so, what will you do?" - to both

"Regarding NAFTA, are you going to address the fact that corporations are given a tax break to export their job positions?" - to both

"What are you going to do to encourage the re-establishment of American manufacturing capability and does the American workplace have to take large wage losses to do it?" - to both

"Is it fair that hedge fund managers only have to pay capital gains tax instead of regular income tax?" - to both

"How are you going to re-strengthen Social Security and is the government going to keep dipping into the SS fund to make up for gaps in government revenues?" - to both

"Should corn be used primarily for food or for fuel? If for fuel, how are you going to address the rise in food prices caused in part by the change in primary use?" - to both

Do you see what I mean? Why can't we have questions like that instead of tabloid crap like we had the other night? No, silly me, we need to entertain instead of making a difference.

Stay tuned...

I have been asked by a couple of friends when I was going to post my proposal for healthcare. Okay, here it is.

I have a concept for healthcare coverage which to date no one has proposed but which I have had in mind for quite awhile. As you know, there has been a lot written about the health insurance situation in the United States. Many of our elected and non-elected leaders have proposed numerous ideas as what they hope will be the solution. However, no plan proposed to this date, including yours, substantively deals with how to make health insurance more directly affordable for our citizens while at the same time provide comprehensive coverage which would encourage people to practice preventive care through regular checkups, etc.

HSA’s don’t really work because while they lower the premium through higher deductibles, most people don’t have the discretionary income to put money aside. Hence, people wait until a problem for them or their children becomes acute and then of course the cost to rectify their situation becomes much higher. The concept of pooling industry groups and non-related businesses doesn’t hold much hope because that won’t change the scope of coverage and premiums have consistently shown they will increase as the cost of medical technology advances.

The plan I have in mind requires an open mind as it will necessitate the cooperation of the government, the health insurance companies, employers, consumers, doctors and the property & casualty insurance companies. One thing to keep in mind is that it is not pragmatic to eliminate the health insurance companies for two reasons; 1) they have too much money and too much political power to make them go away; and 2) more importantly, we want them there to use their money to balance out the heavy end of our medical costs.

The first facet of the plan begins with every person under 65 in the United States (we will leave Medicare alone under the plan) being covered by a universal government plan at 100% from the first dollar to a maximum of $10,000.00. That includes office visits to their doctors, pharmaceutical costs, emergency room costs, surgeries, etc. Think of a funnel with all costs being tossed in at the top and the government paying for the first $10,000.00. What happens now?

Well, because the government is covering the first $10,000.00, it is superfluous for any private insurance company to offer a deductible on any of their plans for less than $10,000.00. As a result, every private plan starts off with a $10,000.00 deductible and from that point on the private insurance company pays all costs at 100%. That’s where their partnership in this comes in. They MUST pay 100% from that point on for this to work. What does the $10,000.00 deductible accomplish? It lowers the premiums drastically. It will lower premiums to roughly 50% of their previous level. By lowering the premiums that much, the premiums on their face will become much more affordable. What else happens now?

Well, if the coverage from the government and the private insurance companies is now 100% from first dollar to whatever the final cost is, there is now no need for businesses to carry workman’s compensation medical coverage. (Notice I did not include disability coverage. That remains as is.) Any medical coverage under workman’s compensation is now superfluous because of the coverage now in force. What does that mean? It means that businesses no longer have to PAY PREMIUMS for that coverage. What does that mean? It means that businesses can now better afford to pay for their employees’ medical coverage by using premiums they previously were paying for workman’s compensation and because the premiums they will be paying for medical care would be far less than it had been before.

There are some ancillary requirements which must be instituted for this to work. First, employers must be required under this new system to cover their employees and families. An employee’s spouse may opt out if they are working elsewhere. Second, property & casualty companies must agree to give up the medical portion of the workman’s compensation business. Third, health insurance companies must agree to standardize their plans so that everyone is basically in the same boat. This boat would include no pre-existing condition limitations. Fourth, those same health insurance companies cannot have hidden deductibles in their plans by limiting the parameters of coverages. The phrase “usual, customary and reasonable” must be standardized across the board so that for every geographical region, the insurance companies are on the same page. Fifth, the government must allow all premiums for health insurance coverage to be deductible for individuals on the same basis as employers or companies. Sixth, doctors and hospitals must agree to more formalized standardization of their charges across the board. Seventh, pharmaceutical companies must do the same thing with their products.

Why is this good from a government/single payer perspective? The answer is that one of the reasons a lot of people fear universal coverage by the government is the potential cost of everyone being covered for an unlimited amount. This plan takes care of that because it limits the government’s exposure to $10,000.00 per person per year and any actuary can tell you that a majority of people do not come close to that figure. Under this plan, there would be a run on services for the first couple of years as people started to take care of their minor ailments and checkups which they have ignored for years but it would then settle down to a ‘normal” routine.

What would a typical occurrence of medical coverage look like under this plan? You could have an individual starting off by going to their doctor for a checkup. The visit would be covered from first dollar on. The doctor might discover something which he would like to check out so he orders some tests without having to call an insurance clerk to see if his recommendations are covered. The doctor also prescribes some medication for the patient in case something occurs before he is able to get back with the patient. The patient presents their “medical card” to the clerk in the doctors office to pay for the visit. The patient presents the same card to the pharmacy to get their medication. The patient presents the same card to the lab where the tests are run. All charges are attributed to the patient’s general “account”. The patient goes back to the doctor a week later to discuss the results. The visit is paid for by the card. The doctor is very concerned with the results and recommends surgery. The patient decides to seek a second opinion which they do and that visit is paid for by the card. The second doctor concurs and the patient agrees to the surgery. The patient checks into the hospital two days later and presents their card to the hospital administration office. The office looks at the patient’s general account and can see the surgery and expected hospital stay will take the patient over the $10,000.00 government pay schedule and notifies the insurance company listed on the patient’s account information. The patient has the surgery and is in the hospital for a week. Halfway during the week, the account goes over the $10,000.00 and from that point on, the hospital simply bills the insurance company. The patient goes home with more prescriptions and when they go to the pharmacy to fill them, the pharmacist swipes the medical card through the card machine and the pharmacist can see the insurance company is now paying the charge so they bill the insurance company. This continues for a month until the patient, after two more visits to the doctor for checkups billed to the insurance company, is then pronounced well. Later that year, the patient has a couple of minor doctor office visits which are billed to the insurance company. When the next calendar year rolls around, the process starts over.

What are the benefits of this overall health plan? We could have people possibly returning to the old fashioned doctor/patient relationship without an insurance clerk or government clerk automatically telling the doctor how to practice medicine. We have every employed person and their families covered by 100% coverage with no hidden deductibles. We have employers being better able to pay for said coverage because the premium being charged by the insurance company for a $10,000.00 deductible plan is discounted heavily and since they longer have to pay for workman’s compensation medical coverage, they are able to use that money to allocate to the medical coverage. We have doctor’s offices not having to designate more than one person to administrate insurance coverages and thus their office costs will come down to help them lower fees. We have health insurance now being much more available and affordable to a vastly larger number of Americans than we have now. We have the prospect of parents being able to more fully concentrate on their work and to more fully enjoy their lives without worrying themselves to death about possibility of a major medical occurrence wiping out their families economically. We have people being able to take themselves and their children to take care of little things which pop up or for just checkups without worrying about the costs and thus perhaps catching something early instead of waiting until that something becoming a much larger medical concern. We will have over 50% less bankruptcies in our country because that many are caused by medical costs and thus our economy will be healthier. We have a government sponsored medical system which has a cap on it and which can be actuarially figured to see what it will cost. This is what the insurance companies do all the time to calculate their premiums.

What are the cons? Well, we will have to raise taxes to do this probably via some type of sales tax. However that tax payment for most people will be mitigated to a large degree because our medical premiums will have gone down quite a bit and thus could very well come out being a wash. After all, what else is a medical premium but another type of tax? We will substitute one for another but I daresay the tax will be less than the difference so people could very well come out ahead. Additionally, with a sales tax, everyone helps pay for the governmental coverage. We might not have complete universal coverage as some might fall in the gaps if they are not employed but they will have for sure the $10,000.00 the government pays out. We keep Medicaid for the people whose assets and income are below the criteria. We keep Medicare for the people over 65 but for those who choose to keep working past that age, they will be covered under Medicare supplements which can be paid for by the employers under the same philosophy.

Insurance companies will still make money because the majority of their costs come from first dollar costs. If the government takes that off their hands, they will still be in the black. Workman’s compensation companies may lose some money but workman’s compensation coverage is not a desired plum anyway for them. They make their money elsewhere.

This plan would combine the facets of all previous proposals with the addition of a couple more and would go a long way to solve the problem of being affordable to the American public. I would be happy to discuss the plan’s full ramifications if anyone should care to do so.

Stay Tuned

I had a conversation the other day with a fellow who couldn't understand why liberals and Democrats didn't want to keep our country safe by letting the government (read "Bush administration") wiretap and eavesdrop at will to catch potential terrorists. I just looked at him and shook my head. I took the time to explain the true situation and he asked me why wasn't this information correctly explained to the public. I said there was no political gain in the truth for the administration and the conservatives.

This is the way it is: We liberals don't have a problem with wiretapping anyone who might be a potential threat to our safety. What we do have a problem with is when the law and our Constitution are not followed. Our 4th Amendment mandates a warrant signed by a member of the judicial branch of our government. To address the problem of an emergency need to quickly put a tap on someone, Congress passed FISA which allows such an immediate action providing that a warrant request is filed within 72 hours of the action with a special court set up just for this purpose. This was working pretty well as the FISA court retroactively approved 99% of all requests.

However, this did not please the Bushies. They did not and do not want to have to answer to anyone regardless of the fact that our Founding Fathers had set up a tripartite system of government with each section having checks and balances imposed on it by the other two. This was inconvenient to the Bushies intent to vastly increase the power of the Executive Branch so they have been ignoring the law and have pushed heavily for the right to do so. Our cowardly Congress has not stood up for our rights and has allowed encroachment by the Bushies in this area. The point is that our government and our security services already had the ability to do what they wished upon the spur of the moment. THE LAW WAS ALREADY THERE. The Bushies simply do not want accountability attached to their actions. (See the Iraq War)

So to say the liberals don't want to protect our country is a total and baseless lie propagated solely for political purposes. So what else is new????

I wanted to add some additional thoughts on guns and gun control from my previous blog column. I am not a gun person as I don't own one. Owning a gun has simply never been a big issue in my life. (I do like knives and swords, which is another story.) While the idea of a lot of people running around carrying a gun has never been a comforting thought, I am fairly pragmatic about the gun issue. I think our society has such a gun culture which wields tremendous political power that to try to interpose a general gun ban is stupid and a waste of time and money and would just about cause a rebellion with a lot of violence. So I would go the other way in my approach.

You see, if I had the authority, I would rely on my interpretation of the Second Amendment as it relates to the police power of the state to regulate gun use and issuance of licenses. What really scares me about guns is the idea of people owning guns who have no earthly idea of the responsibilities of owning a gun and who have no idea of how to respect a gun and its potential for damage. I have in mind people who would go off half-cocked in a tense situation and wind up inadvertently hurting or killing other people through their own ineptness.

Therefore, I would institute licensing similar to what we do with automobiles. I would use the NRA in a partnership with government to set up training clinics for people who wished to own a gun and they would have to be able to pass a test to legally own a gun. I'm not saying they would have to be recognized as marksmen but simply that they would have to be able to use the gun competently without causing fear to innocent people around them, to clean a gun and to answer questions about acting responsible in different situations. I would also institute an age limit. I don't think children of 12 years of age should be carrying firearms. I think this would be a more rational way of dealing with the ownership of deadly firearms by the general populace.

I would also increase the penalties for those people with small children who can't seem to keep their weapons away from those children. The way I look at it, if a gun was not securely kept from a small child and the child got to it and thus eventually caused the death of another child whether accidently or not, I think those parents should lose their right to parent their other children. Such fatal carelessness should not be treated cavalierly. There is more to this subject than I can write now but that is my general feeling.

One irony I have always found amusing is that for a society such as ours which also seems to worship the Old West and our cowboys and our legendary lawmen, the reality is that we would excoriate those lawmen such as Wyatt Earp and Wild Bill Hickok and Bat Masterson because they practiced what they thought was the sensible act of banning the carrying and use of guns in the towns they patrolled. The NRA would have gone absolutely crazy and those famous lawmen would no longer have been legendary. Just an amusing thought.....