Thursday, January 21, 2010
Reforming Health Care
My mind works a bit differently from most. I tend to think "outside the box." For two decades I have recognized a trend toward societal salvation, It appears that I am the only one in the world to have thought of this. In 1990, listeners thought I was insane. The technology that can save us was only just beginning to develop. I could see its potential, but I could not convince anyone else of it. Nonetheless, my predictions are coming true. My arguments are becoming easier and protests of skepticism are now rare. So, what is this solution?
The cover article in The Economist from February 17, 2007, explained what I knew to be true 17 years earlier: society is on the verge of abandoning paper money and coins in favor of plastic commerce. This idea stuns many people, many of whom mumble in confusion, "What? You mean we won't be using money?" Of course not! You will be using exactly what all of us are already using: ATM and credit cards. There is no segment of society that does not already use plastic. Most States, if not all, already pay welfare benefits with an ATM system. It saves millions of dollars in the costs of printing and mailing checks. The recipients like the system because their checks cannot be stolen (i.e., they aren't getting checks any longer) and the funds are available on time. Considerable fraud has also been eliminated by this system.
It is no longer a matter of choice in this transformation. Society will become cashless whether you like it or not! Paper money and coins are already too cumbersome, expensive to use, and obsolete. The details are articulated in the article to which I referred above. So what is needed is for people to objectively consider what happens when there no longer is any anonymous cash in circulation. Some will immediately panic and whine that privacy will be eliminated. Well, I want someone to tell me how cash gives anyone any measure of privacy. Cash does not protect any citizen from a rogue government. Unless you are already using plastic and electronic commerce, you are residing in a cave with Bin Laden. The credit agencies know more about us that we know about ourselves. Your tax and health records are in the hands of the government and other agencies whom we might not trust. And just what is it you will be buying in a cashless society that you fear your government might discover? If you are buying it, it will have to be legal! The most vicious and vociferous objections invariably come from persons terrified about how they will be able to obtain marijuana without anonymous cash. That tends to illustrate the point of my cashless strategy. It is not possible to buy contraband if there is no anonymous cash.
In a cashless society, illicit drug trafficking cannot exist. Skeptics continue to insist that criminals will "always find a way." But there is nothing else that an addict can use to purchase his drugs. A dealer cannot accept stolen contraband, for the value is uncertain and there is an enormous an insurmountable problem of laundering it. There is no credible scheme that criminals can use to defeat cashlessness in order to run a drug enterprise. You cannot launder cash when there is no cash to be laundered. The trail of funds remains indelible forever!
Additionally, there can be no bank robberies, kidnappings for ransom, terrorist financing, gang activity, or almost any property crime. Identity theft would become useless if there were no anonymous cash with which to abscond. Illegal immigration for employment becomes impossible. The most vicious criminals in the world will starve unless they work for a living.
My theory is that taxpayers could easily save several trillions of dollars over a decade. This is more than enough to finance health care reform. This is the first step that needs to be acknowledged. I am convinced that I am right. As patient as I try to be, there are still people who claim this idea is preposterous. A closed mind cannot be debated. But anonymous cash will become extinct and mainstream pundits already acknowledge this. We already have the technology and infrastructure to accomplish this very quickly. It is actually a very small change in the lives of the majority of us.
Determined skeptics will have to explain how drug trafficking and all of the other crimes I described can flourish is a society that abandons anonymous cash. In twenty years, not one credible scenario has been presented to me that would enable criminals to defeat cashlessness.
The cover article in The Economist from February 17, 2007, explained what I knew to be true 17 years earlier: society is on the verge of abandoning paper money and coins in favor of plastic commerce. This idea stuns many people, many of whom mumble in confusion, "What? You mean we won't be using money?" Of course not! You will be using exactly what all of us are already using: ATM and credit cards. There is no segment of society that does not already use plastic. Most States, if not all, already pay welfare benefits with an ATM system. It saves millions of dollars in the costs of printing and mailing checks. The recipients like the system because their checks cannot be stolen (i.e., they aren't getting checks any longer) and the funds are available on time. Considerable fraud has also been eliminated by this system.
It is no longer a matter of choice in this transformation. Society will become cashless whether you like it or not! Paper money and coins are already too cumbersome, expensive to use, and obsolete. The details are articulated in the article to which I referred above. So what is needed is for people to objectively consider what happens when there no longer is any anonymous cash in circulation. Some will immediately panic and whine that privacy will be eliminated. Well, I want someone to tell me how cash gives anyone any measure of privacy. Cash does not protect any citizen from a rogue government. Unless you are already using plastic and electronic commerce, you are residing in a cave with Bin Laden. The credit agencies know more about us that we know about ourselves. Your tax and health records are in the hands of the government and other agencies whom we might not trust. And just what is it you will be buying in a cashless society that you fear your government might discover? If you are buying it, it will have to be legal! The most vicious and vociferous objections invariably come from persons terrified about how they will be able to obtain marijuana without anonymous cash. That tends to illustrate the point of my cashless strategy. It is not possible to buy contraband if there is no anonymous cash.
In a cashless society, illicit drug trafficking cannot exist. Skeptics continue to insist that criminals will "always find a way." But there is nothing else that an addict can use to purchase his drugs. A dealer cannot accept stolen contraband, for the value is uncertain and there is an enormous an insurmountable problem of laundering it. There is no credible scheme that criminals can use to defeat cashlessness in order to run a drug enterprise. You cannot launder cash when there is no cash to be laundered. The trail of funds remains indelible forever!
Additionally, there can be no bank robberies, kidnappings for ransom, terrorist financing, gang activity, or almost any property crime. Identity theft would become useless if there were no anonymous cash with which to abscond. Illegal immigration for employment becomes impossible. The most vicious criminals in the world will starve unless they work for a living.
My theory is that taxpayers could easily save several trillions of dollars over a decade. This is more than enough to finance health care reform. This is the first step that needs to be acknowledged. I am convinced that I am right. As patient as I try to be, there are still people who claim this idea is preposterous. A closed mind cannot be debated. But anonymous cash will become extinct and mainstream pundits already acknowledge this. We already have the technology and infrastructure to accomplish this very quickly. It is actually a very small change in the lives of the majority of us.
Determined skeptics will have to explain how drug trafficking and all of the other crimes I described can flourish is a society that abandons anonymous cash. In twenty years, not one credible scenario has been presented to me that would enable criminals to defeat cashlessness.
Lessons to Learn
I met with my congresswoman, Jackie Speier, last August to discuss health care reform. As a longtime practicing physician, I have some insights into such matters. In fact, I know exactly how to reform health care in America to the delight of almost everyone. But I'll get to that later. I presented to Congresswoman Speier a blueprint for accomplishing such reform, but my ideas fell upon polite but deaf ears. My closing admonition to her was, "If the Democrats pass a bill that cuts Medicare benefits and raises taxes, you will all be out of office in 2010!"
Not only did she not explore my creative solutions for health care reform, but she supported the House version of a bill that clearly will make health care, and the country, much worse. By any objective measure, the current proposals will spend trillions of dollars, increase costs to every citizen, and weaken the economy even further. The bills in the House and the Senate are so preposterous that all of our elected Senators and Representatives supporting this curse have given themselves exemptions from being forced to participate in the catastrophe. Even Obama, when asked by a "journalist" if he would put his own family into the plan he was foisting upon the country, refused to commit to such an idea.
Now the Republicans are celebrating the election of Scott Brown to the Senate. Pundits are waxing prolific about the impact of this shocking development. It probably does reflect considerable anger from the electorate regarding the failed promises of Obama and the shameless corruption in D.C. But what no one is saying, not even the angry voters themselves, is that the exemption written into the bills for our elected officials is what really galls reasonable people on all sides of the health care debate. I don't think that many people are actually cognizant of this source of anger. Yet they know it when reminded of it. All of the other vocalized criticisms do influence us, but this cowardly and shameful tactic by our elected officials remains an indolent and subliminal pustule in our psyches.
Now the Democrats have a selection of disasters from which to choose: (1) pass the Senate bill in the House and hope to reconcile it with patchwork amendments in the Spring, (2) give up and do nothing, or (3) go back to the drawing board and create a new reform bill which will require bipartisan support. This last option would make them seem actually interested in America's welfare, but most of us still know that such sincere motives are as common as hen's teeth among politicians. The first option will still leave us with an abomination that damages society and leaves the elected elite exempt from harm.
Congresswoman Speier, as do all of her cohorts in the House, must campaign for reelection this year. What will her strategy be to impress her voting district? What will she present to us regarding her accomplishments during her first term? As far as I can determine, she has done nothing noteworthy of any praise during her service to the people. Indeed, her main claim to fame is that she was wounded in Guyana while accompanying a congressman who investigated what later became the Jonestown Massacre. You see, she was an apprentice politician in her youth and continued the path to a career politician. She never actually worked for a living and has no real understanding of the world outside of political assignations, corruption, and deal making. You can see the future career politicians today working in her office staff. They are neat, clean, mindless automatons learning to spout the party line. They are making contacts and learning the craft of deceptive spin and of telling everyone what they believe is desired to be heard. That is where she originated. She lacked the common sense even to understand that the health care bill she was supporting was suicide for her political career, as well as for health of the country. What will be her response to her Republican challenger who will undoubtedly ask, "Why did you exempt yourself and your family from the provisions of the plan you wished to inflict upon the rest of us?"
Not only did she not explore my creative solutions for health care reform, but she supported the House version of a bill that clearly will make health care, and the country, much worse. By any objective measure, the current proposals will spend trillions of dollars, increase costs to every citizen, and weaken the economy even further. The bills in the House and the Senate are so preposterous that all of our elected Senators and Representatives supporting this curse have given themselves exemptions from being forced to participate in the catastrophe. Even Obama, when asked by a "journalist" if he would put his own family into the plan he was foisting upon the country, refused to commit to such an idea.
Now the Republicans are celebrating the election of Scott Brown to the Senate. Pundits are waxing prolific about the impact of this shocking development. It probably does reflect considerable anger from the electorate regarding the failed promises of Obama and the shameless corruption in D.C. But what no one is saying, not even the angry voters themselves, is that the exemption written into the bills for our elected officials is what really galls reasonable people on all sides of the health care debate. I don't think that many people are actually cognizant of this source of anger. Yet they know it when reminded of it. All of the other vocalized criticisms do influence us, but this cowardly and shameful tactic by our elected officials remains an indolent and subliminal pustule in our psyches.
Now the Democrats have a selection of disasters from which to choose: (1) pass the Senate bill in the House and hope to reconcile it with patchwork amendments in the Spring, (2) give up and do nothing, or (3) go back to the drawing board and create a new reform bill which will require bipartisan support. This last option would make them seem actually interested in America's welfare, but most of us still know that such sincere motives are as common as hen's teeth among politicians. The first option will still leave us with an abomination that damages society and leaves the elected elite exempt from harm.
Congresswoman Speier, as do all of her cohorts in the House, must campaign for reelection this year. What will her strategy be to impress her voting district? What will she present to us regarding her accomplishments during her first term? As far as I can determine, she has done nothing noteworthy of any praise during her service to the people. Indeed, her main claim to fame is that she was wounded in Guyana while accompanying a congressman who investigated what later became the Jonestown Massacre. You see, she was an apprentice politician in her youth and continued the path to a career politician. She never actually worked for a living and has no real understanding of the world outside of political assignations, corruption, and deal making. You can see the future career politicians today working in her office staff. They are neat, clean, mindless automatons learning to spout the party line. They are making contacts and learning the craft of deceptive spin and of telling everyone what they believe is desired to be heard. That is where she originated. She lacked the common sense even to understand that the health care bill she was supporting was suicide for her political career, as well as for health of the country. What will be her response to her Republican challenger who will undoubtedly ask, "Why did you exempt yourself and your family from the provisions of the plan you wished to inflict upon the rest of us?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
