Intermezzo: Sorting My Ducks

Good day, family and friends!

I know, it's been a month and a half since my last post. My general plan is to post at least twice a month, but as John Lennon said, "life's what happens while you're making plans." For those of you who have been following my (lengthy) series on Healthcare in America, I do intend to finish off my suggestions and post the bibliography. I also have articles on racism, Islam, journalism, and progressivism planned. For right now, however, I just need to do a basic brain dump in an attempt to get my ducks in a row.

Something that has been preying on my mind for awhile is the degeneration of the most basic social skills. "What social skills are those?" you may be asking yourself. Simple: basic common courtesy and consideration for those around you.

Every day, I am confronted with numerous examples of overly common behavior in today's society that would never have been tolerated when I was a child 40 years ago. Here are a few:

Past: a gentleman or lady would never have been caught cursing in public (though that social convention was usually overlooked for men in extreme situations). Foul language was used regularly only by the coarsest, most low-class individuals who lived on the fringes of society.

Present: a prominent celebrity with pretensions to the White House uses the infamous "F-bomb" three times during a motivational speech to a Women's group. It's bad enough he was being foul-mouthed in public, but doing so in front of an all-female audience would, in the past, have gotten him excoriated at the very least.

Past: people caring for their yards would gather up and bag their grass, hedge, and tree clippings. Not doing so would have most likely resulted in that person being censured by his neighbors, possibly even fined for littering in certain municipalities.

Present: anyone with a leaf blower feels they have the right to blow any and all detritus out of their yard and into the public street where it is left subject to the whims of wind, rain, and traffic. They have the attitude that "its only an eyesore if its in my yard!"

Past: people doing business with each other addressed each other politely and used formal honorifics such as "Sir" and "Ma'am."

Present: formalities such as these are all too often denounced by younger adults (under 40) as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest." People using these honorifics are often accused of being condescending. (I actually had a customer yell at me over the phone once because I kept addressing her as "Ma'am" instead of by her first name. I finally said to her, "I am sorry if my using "Ma'am" has offended you, but you are speaking to an office in Texas. I was born and raised in this region and addressing a customer as "Sir" or "Ma'am" is drilled into us as simple common courtesy from the moment we begin speaking. I am sorry if you were raised in an area where manners were not taught and I will try to use your first name, but please keep in mind that you are asking me to overcome 45 years of conditioning in the space of 30 seconds." She didn't say anything the next time I slipped in that conversation and addressed her as "Ma'am.")

There are many, many more I could share...particularly pertaining to traffic. I believe I summarized this degradation of basic etiquette best when I once quipped, "when the demagogues tried to create a classless society, all they managed to create was a society with no class." Don't get me wrong, even though I portray and am descended from German Nobility, I am very happy to live in a society that has no formal class structure. Sure, there will always be an underlying "Good-ol'-boy" cronyism network of some sort, but for the most part, America's social classes are based on merit. Through the application of hard work, perseverance, and more than a little brain power, Americans born into the lowest strata of our society can and do attain the highest heights, and vice-versa. When a "Good-ol'-boy" barrier is encountered, it will usually crumble in the light of exposure to the public.

American author Robert Heinlein once referred to niceties and formal honorifics as "Civilization Lubrication." I believe he was right, but I extend his definition beyond the language. The way we behave with those whom we encounter every day can be another form of "Civilization Lubrication." Human society is the ultimate machine made up of myriad rubbing parts. When you throw the sands of rudeness, inconsideration, and selfishness into the machine, friction will increase and create unnecessary heat and abrasion. On the other hand, if you choose to lubricate the machine of our society with kindness, politesse, and courtesy, then you reduce the friction and allow the machine to work at peak efficiency.

Maybe its time for those who decry the "tone of debate" with foul language, those who revel in performers who use language that would flay the paint off a battleship, those who believe that it doesn't matter where garbage lands as long as it is not on their property to try a little lubricant instead of sand.

Or, as radio talk show host Sean Rima is fond of saying, "Be good to each other and don't be a jerk!"

Next time: back to my Healthcare summary.

Until then, best regards...



© James P. Rice 2011

Healthcare in America: The Fix, pt. 5

Good day, family and friends!

Let's plow right ahead...

Once again, depending on whose data you choose to use, Insurance Fraud perpetrated by both patients and physicians account for between 3% and 10% of the cost of healthcare every year. This has resulted in insurance companies creating "Benefits Coverage Panels" made up of non-medical personnel making medical decisions which, in turn, often result in patients being denied treatment based solely on cost and "likelihood of fraud" statistical models and not on the medical data.

I propose two different options for putting medical decisions back into the hands of those most concerned with the results of the decision...the patient and the patient's physician:

1) While I do believe that private insurance companies do have the right and the fiduciary duty to take every legal, ethical, and moral action they can to minimize costs and protect their bottom line, I do not believe that accountants and lawyers are qualified to make decisions as to whether or not a medical procedure is necessary. Therefore, I suggest that medical professionals from all specialties, as part of their professional licensing, be required to serve a minimal amount of time every year on a regional independent board that reviews case histories for the insurance companies and determine whether or not a procedure is medically necessary and should be covered. This would allow medical decisions to be made by qualified medical professionals. It would also allow for insurance companies to reduce their costs by not maintaining the permanent staffing necessary for the "Benefits Coverage Panels", even allowing for the contribution to a central funding pool that would be used to compensate the medical professionals for their time.

2) Periodic review of cases denied by the insurance companies to make certain there is a legitimate medical reason for denying the coverage, as long as the patient met all the other requirements for coverage in their policy. These reviews could be handled by the same regional boards proposed in Option 1.

These independent regional review boards would serve to reduce fraud on both sides of the fence. By not having a vested interest in the case, they can objectively look at each case and determine: whether or not it is a legitimate medical procedure, based on the patient's medical history and current medical status; whether or not the physician prescribing the procedure is merely feeding a hypochondriac's condition to fatten their bank account; whether or not the doctor and patient are working together to out and out defraud the insurance company; or even whether or not the insurance company is attempting to defraud the patient by selling them a policy, then issuing 'rubber stamp' denials in order to avoid paying out on claims. The boards will also reduce the operational costs of the insurance companies...part of which the companies would most likely pass on to their consumers in a competitive market, reducing the cost of healthcare coverage for consumers.

Next time: Competition...it does a body good!

Until then, best regards...



© James P. Rice 2011

Intermezzo: Requiem for Seven Heroes

Good day, family and friends,

Twenty-five years ago today, 28 January 1986, I was awakened by my clock radio at 11:00 am CST as I was every Tuesday so I could get ready to work the closing shift at the restaurant where I was assistant manager. As the radio clicked on, the first words I heard were, "...repeat, the shuttle Challenger exploded minutes ago on lift-off..." I catapulted myself out of bed, scrabbled through my bedroom door and into my living room, and stabbed at the power button on my television. As the picture came on, I sat on the floor in shock as my eyes were assaulted by the replay of the Challenger exploding 73 seconds after leaving the launch pad. I was devastated. The lives of seven of my heroes...heroes I held dear in my heart...had met a fiery end before my eyes.

This may seem dramatic, but you must understand; I grew up in a generation steeped in the Space Race. America's manned presence in space was born just two months before I was. We grew up knowing the names of the Mercury 7...following the exploits of America's astronauts through the Gemini and Apollo programs...planning activities around launch and splash-down schedules so we could watch on our black & white television. We mourned as a nation in January 1967 when three of our Astronauts were lost in a fire during a pressure test of Apollo 1. Four days after my birthday in 1969, We were clustered around TVs everywhere with family and friends as we watched the launch of Apollo XI. Four days later, on 20 July 1969, we were clustered around the TV again at 2:00 pm (Houston time) to watch the Lunar module land on the surface of our Moon...seeing Walter Cronkite and Robert Heinlein rendered speechless with joy upon hearing, "The Eagle has landed!" Just eight months after Apollo XI's return to Earth, we sat on pins and needles as we lived through the drama that was the aborted Apollo XIII mission.

And we knew out Astronauts; especially living in Houston where most of them lived when not in space. We knew they weren't gods, but we often viewed them a demi-gods...the all-to-human offspring of the gods. They were larger than life, but had human faults. Yet, because of what they did...because they knowingly put their lives on the line for the advance of the space program...we overlooked their faults and appreciated them for their bravery and their deeds.

Unfortunately, after the successful mission of Apollo XIV, most Americans became jaded and complacent about the space program. Two of the three television networks at the time actually dropped live coverage of the launch of Apollo XVII due to "lack of viewer interest." Space travel had become commonplace to Americans. We forgot the anguish we felt from Apollo 1 and Apollo XIII. Even though I'd once had a conversation with a shuttle Astronaut who actually said that every Astronaut who goes up in the shuttle knows there is a 50/50 chance it will blow up on launch "like a firecracker with a short fuse", it still didn't enter my consciousness that something could happen to our Astronauts. 28 January 1986 taught us how wrong we all were.

We now know what led to this tragedy. Our complacency led to the scientists and engineers at NASA losing their 'pull' within the agency to the bureaucrats and politicians. Because of this, an engineering decision was made, not by engineers, but instead by a politically-appointed director who was given a politically-motivated soft-pedaling of the dangers of the low temperature by a Morton-Thiokol 'government liaison', and who made a launch decision based on not wanting NASA to "...look bad by postponing the launch again." Because of this, Dick Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison Onizuka, Judy Resnik, Ron McNair, Christa McAuliffe, and Greg Jarvis lost their lives.

Today, I encourage everyone to take four minutes and view President Regan's address to the nation after this tragedy (see below). I exhort each and every one of you to pause for a moment at some time today and say a prayer, light a candle, chant a mantra, or just remember these seven brave souls who lost their lives. Remember every brave soul who lost their lives in the pursuit of knowledge and advancement of the human race.

God bless you all...


© James P. Rice 2011

Healthcare in America: The Fix, pt. 4

Good day, family and friends!

As I mentioned last May, "identifying a problem without offering solutions is just bellyaching." So, with that in mind, let me begin to lay out my suggestions for addressing the issues facing the best healthcare system in the history of mankind...

The first place we have to start is with Tort Reform. As previously noted, out of control litigation in this country accounts for between 19% and 27% (depending on which study you choose to believe) of healthcare costs every year. Getting the ambulance-chasing shyster weasels and the morally-deficit shiftless scammers under control will knock off a fifth of the cost of providing healthcare and healthcare coverage to physicians, clinics, hospitals, and insurance companies.

The first step to this end is to restore Personal Responsibility to the basic tenets of our legal system:

Allow judges and juries to consider "reasonable expectations" when deliberating on the merits and evidence of a case. (id est: if one orders hot coffee and it arrives steaming, there is a reasonable expectation that spilling it on one's self may result in one's flesh being scalded);

If an attorney or law firm accepts a case that is tenuous at best, and brings it before the courts, and that case is deemed by the presiding judge to be without merit and is dismissed, and that there was no intent to defraud on the part of the plaintiff, then the attorney or law firm (and not the plaintiff) will be required to reimburse the defendants all legal expenses, including lost wages and travel expenses, that they incurred;

If an attorney or law firm knowingly accepts a case that is bogus or outright fraudulent and brings it before the courts, then the attorney or law firm will be subject to the same criminal penalties as the plaitiffs, and, along with the plaintiff, will be required to reimburse the defendants all legal expenses, including lost wages and travel expenses, that they incurred;

I believe that human life is sacred and priceless and that a dollar amount cannot be attached to it. I also believe that the tragic loss of a family member should never be viewed as a bonanza by their survivors. Having stated this, however, I do believe that families should be reimbursed for the loss of a loved one due to negligence or criminal activity. To this end I believe that an equitable way to determine this reimbursement should be as follows:

If the victim is under 68 years of age (10 years shy of the average life span of a citizen of the United States): The age of the victim subtracted from 68 times the average annual total compensation (including value of benefits) someone of the same age/career/educational level in the same federal congressional district can expect to make before retirement times 133% plus any rescue/medical expenses incurred by the family as a result of the event that led to their loved one's death plus legal costs.

Or, as a formula: [(68-A)x1.33W]+MEDX+LEGX = Compensation

(for example: A 42 year old man with a Bachelor's degree who has been working as a Customer Service manager in the computer industry in federal Congressional District Texas-31 dies through the negligence or outright incompetence of a surgeon. To determine the compensation his family should receive, the formula would be: [(68-42)x($46,280x1.33)]+MEDX+LEGX or $1,600,362.40 plus any medical/rescue and legal expenses the family incurred from this tragedy.)

If the victim is 68 years of age or older (10 years shy of the average life span of a citizen of the United States): The average annual total compensation/retirement income for someone of the same age/career/educational level in the same federal congressional district times 3 plus any rescue/medical expenses incurred by the family as a result of the event that led to their loved one's death plus legal costs.

Or, as a formula: 3W+MEDX+LEGX = Compensation

(for example: A 72 year old retired Mechanical Engineer who, thanks to diligently saving money and contributing to a retirement fund, has an annual retirement income of $75,000, dies through the negligence or outright incompetence of a surgeon. To determine the compensation his family should receive, the formula would be: 3x$75,000+MEDX+LEGX or $225,000 plus any medical/rescue and legal expenses the family incurred from this tragedy.)

It may seem as if these formulas place a greater value on the younger person than on the older. Quite the contrary; these formulas are designed to be completely neutral and not attempt to establish any sort of relative value on the lives of these two individuals. Instead, the formulas are merely designed to compensate the survivors for potential loss of family income due to the negligence or incompetence of the surgeons in question. The survivors of the younger victim would have lost 20 - 25 years of his contributions to the family income while the survivors of the older victim would still have the retirement savings he (or she) had established and worked to create, so they would not be facing a financial crisis as a result of the tragedy.

Next time, keeping bureaucrats out of medical decisions.

Until then, best regards...



© James P. Rice 2011

Healthcare in America: The Fix, pt. 3

Good day, family and friends!

Let's get right to it...

Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In the simplest terms, this means that, if you are born in the US, or have gone through the naturalization process and are no longer subject to a foreign government, then no one can make any sort of law or regulation requiring you to pay a fee, purchase a commodity, or take any sort of test to maintain your citizenship status or to exercise your rights as a citizen. The only exception to this is in cases where a person has been convicted of a crime and either fine or imprisonment has been imposed as their punishment, or if they have had a civil penalty rendered against them.

Basically, this clause states that it is unconstitutional to require law-abiding citizens who have neither been accused of a crime, nor received a judgment against them in a civil proceeding, to purchase health insurance in order to maintain their status as a law-abiding citizen.

I know, I know. I can hear some of you out there decrying, "but what about auto insurance?!? The government dictates that we must have auto insurance in order to legally drive a car. Isn't this the same thing??"

No, it isn't. This argument is nothing but a spurious attempt to compare apples to eggplant. Here is the difference: the Right to Life is one of the unalienable Rights bestowed upon humanity by The Creator (also known as one of Nature's Laws); while driving an automobile is a privilege granted by society. The Constitution was created and designed to protect those unalienable Rights that are an inherent part of our humanity by limiting the ability of government to encroach upon and violate them. Forcing citizens to pay in any form in order to exercise one of our unalienable Rights is in direct conflict with this protection.

On the other hand, automobile insurance was created in order to help citizens more readily comply with the regulation that, before they operate any motorized vehicle on a public thoroughfare, they prove that they can and will be financially able to pay for any damage to another person, vehicle, or other property if they are found to be the cause of an accident. But it is also a misunderstanding that the government forces drivers to purchase auto insurance. Citizens actually have the options of either establishing an escrow account with the minimum balance dictated by law (I believe that, at this time in Texas, it is $100,000), or they can simply not operate a motorized vehicle.

See? Not the same thing.

Okay, I went a bit long this time. Next time, I really will start laying out my suggestions for repairing and improving the best healthcare system in the world.

Until then, best regards...



© James P. Rice 2011

Healthcare in America: The Fix, pt. 2

Good day, family and friends!

Well, now! It seems Real Life reared its ugly head. This is my first post since 30 July 2010. For those of you new to my blog, I started this series of articles in August 2009. If you want to bring yourselves up to speed, I suggest you start with my first post on Healthcare in America located at http://smellthetruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-in-america-just-how-sick-is.html.

Now, let's continue the discussion...

Amendment X of the Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution does not specifically say the Federal Government can do something, then it is automatically prohibited from doing it. Not only that, but anything the Constitution does not specifically permit the Federal Government to do is the jurisdiction of the individual States, or the individual citizens themselves and can't even be touched by the Federal Government. Once again, the Founders were brilliant when they created the Constitution. They knew that it was inevitable that like-minded individuals would try to band together, gain control of the nation, and impose their personal opinions and philosophies on this country. To prevent this from happening, they created a series of checks and balances in an attempt to make certain the United States was under the Rule of Law and not the Rule of Man.

"What does this have with Public Law No. 111-148," you ask? A better question to ask is this: Where in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Government the power to...

1) ...take over (not just impose and enforce safety regulations that span all the States) an entire industry and its corollary industries?

2) ...dictate that private, law-abiding citizens must purchase a commodity in order to remain a citizen in good standing?

3) ...confiscate legally-gained income from one group of citizens and redistribute it to and supplement the lifestyles of a different group of citizens who have chosen to be less productive and focus more on personal gratification?

4) ...establish that the worth of one citizen is greater than another based on the citizen's age and ability to contribute to society?

The answer to those questions is, "No where." The Constitution does not grant any of those powers or abilities to the federal government. There are some who have tried to stretch and twist the sentence in Article I, Section 8 that grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"...what is commonly referred to as the "Interstate Commerce Clause"...to apply to these four areas. Only the most twisted, creative mis-interpretation of a clause written to be straight forward and self-explanatory can be used to justify such unconstitutional actions.

Next time, I finish up with the violation of Amendment XIV and start laying out my own suggestions to fix Healthcare in America.

Until then, best regards...



© James P. Rice 2011