Hello world!


Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!

  1. #1 by jss3rd on February 27, 2017 - 5:21 pm

    So many of my friends on the left fully support the protests that seem to pop up at the drop of a hat based on facts that may or may not be true. Those friends decry the Constitution as being out of date and unneeded it todays times and situations. Yet for some strange reason, while protesting they keep shouting that they have the right to protest and to be protected from religious bigotry. The rights they claim did not just appear – look at most other countries in the world who have no such rights. The rights were given to you by the men and women who fought for and provided you with a Constitution which is as valid today as it was in 1787. It is the very rock that guarantees you that “Congress cannot establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press. Further, that Constitution guarantees and assures you the right to PEACEABLY assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 13th Amendment.

    To value and understand the Constitution, I think we need to remember that 13 sovereign and independent small and weak nations decided for their mutual protection (military, economic and cultural), they would join together and combine in certain specific and enumerated areas (for which each state was to small and weak to handle on its own) for a limited national government to exercise power in only those enumerated areas and provided in the 10th Amendment “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.”

    MA and her northern sister states needed snow shovels, horse drawn slays, and methods to get its crops to the shore before they were lost to the winter. Earthquakes and tornadoes were not primary concerns, nor were they very concerned with the control and eradication of yellow fever and malaria and other sub- tropical diseases.

    Kentucky was concerned with Indians, mine safety, etc. As the western states can onboard, they were also concerned with mine safety, lung diseases caused by silica, coal, and other types of dust caused by mining.

    The Southern States were concerned with cheap labor to grow its crops, and sub-tropical diseases like yellow fever and malaria and other sub- tropical diseases.

    What I am trying to say is that the different 13 states had different needs and agendas, but the one thing they had in common was the need for a unified national defense, the ability to print a unified money that would have to be accepted in each state. They also need post offices and post roads to insure that the mails from each state was treated fairly and could pass over state borders without having to be checked or censored.

    Fast forward to today. CA and the Left Coast are concerned with energy regulation to the point their costs of gasoline is typically 50% higher than the rest of the nation. Real Estate prices are extremely high. They are still very concerned about requiring, at considerable costs, requiring all new building to have earthquake protections. Why would the citizens of GA want to pay for earthquake protection? Why would KY want to pay for desalinization plants? Why would CA want stricter regulation of mine safety and lung protection?

    Think maybe the states are still important in the government of these United States of America? Still think one person one votes makes sense?? Remember that California could have thrown the election to a candidate who 37 of the 50 states rejected. Would that represent the will of the people in the majority of the states who have different needs and agendas than the folks in CA, NY, and a few other huge states?

    To further show you some of the damage done by Progressives. The Constitution does not enumerate a “police power” in the powers of the federal government, so I guess the 10th Amendment (“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.”) intended for only the states to have police powers and created police/law enforcement and other public safety agencies – right? Well the Progressive differed and have been able to “interpret” the Constitution to grant law enforcement powers on the federal government. So, what is wrong with a few FBI, DEA, ATF and other agencies have folks with guns and powers of arrest?? How about the IRS? Should they have guns and arrest powers??

    Well, read and weep – here is a list of the federal agencies where employees can carry guns and make arrests:

    LIST OF FEDERAL AGENCIES AND UNITS OF AGENCIES
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#List_of_agencies_and_units_of_agencies

    Agencies in bold text are Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA).
    Executive Branch[edit]
    Department of Agriculture (USDA)[edit]
    • Office of Inspector General (USDA OIG)
    • United States Forest Service (USFS)
    • U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (USFS LEI)
    Department of Commerce (DOC)[edit]
    • Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
    • Office of Export Enforcement (OEE)
    • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
    • National Institute of Standards and Technology Police (NIST Police)
    • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    • Office for Law Enforcement (OLE)
    • Department of Commerce Office of Security (DOC OS)
    • Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (DOC OIG)
    Department of Defense[edit]
    • Office of Inspector General (DOD OIG)
    • Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS)
    • Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA)
    • United States Pentagon Police (USPPD)
    • Department of Defense Police
    • Defense Logistics Agency Police (DLA)
    • National Security Agency Police (NSA)
    • Defense Intelligence Agency Police (DIA)
    • National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Police (NGA)
    • Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR)
    • Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) (organization disbanded)
    Department of the Army[edit]
    • United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID)
    • United States Army Military Police Corps
    • Department of the Army Civilian Police
    • United States Army Corrections Command
    • Department of the Army Civilian Security Guards
    • Army Counterintelligence (CI), United States Army Intelligence and Security Command
    Department of the Navy[edit]
    • Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
    • United States Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division (USMC CID)
    • Master-at-arms (United States Navy) (military police)
    • Department of the Navy Police (civilian police)
    • Marine Corps Provost Marshal’s Office (military police)
    • United States Marine Corps Police (civilian police)
    Department of the Air Force[edit]
    • Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI)
    • Air Force Security Forces Center (AFSFC)
    • Air Force Security Forces (military police)
    • Department of the Air Force Police (civilian police)
    Department of Education[edit]
    • Office of the Inspector General (ED OIG)
    Department of Energy (DOE)[edit]
    • Office of Inspector General (DOE OIG)
    • Office of Health, Safety and Security (DOE HSS)
    • National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
    • Office of Secure Transportation (OST)
    Department of Health and Human Services[edit]
    • United States Food and Drug Administration (HHSFDA)
    • Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI)
    • National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    • National Institutes of Health Police (NIH Police)
    • Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG)
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS)[edit]

    CBP Officers and Border Patrol Agents at a ceremony in 2007
    • Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
    • National Protection and Programs Directorate
    • Federal Protective Service (FPS)
    • United States Coast Guard (USCG)
    • Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS)
    • United States Coast Guard Police (CGPD)
    • United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    • Office of Air and Marine (OAM)
    • Office of Border Patrol (OBP)
    • Office of Field Operations (OFO)
    • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
    • Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center (MWEOC) Police
    • Office of Chief Security Officer (OCSO)
    • United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
    • Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO)
    • Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
    • Office of Intelligence
    • Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
    • United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
    • United States Secret Service (USSS)
    • Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
    • Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) / Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS)
    • Office of Inspection (OI)
    • Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHSOIG)
    Department of Housing and Urban Development[edit]
    • Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG) [1][5]
    • Protective Service Division (HUD PSD)
    Department of the Interior (USDI)[edit]
    • Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    • Bureau of Indian Affairs Police (BIA Police)
    • Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    • Bureau of Land Management Office of Law Enforcement (BLM Rangers and Special Agents)
    • Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
    • Bureau of Reclamation Office of Law Enforcement (BOR Rangers)
    • Hoover Dam Police aka Bureau of Reclamation Police
    • National Park Service (NPS)
    • Division of Law Enforcement, Security and Emergency Services (U.S. Park Rangers-Law Enforcement)
    • United States Park Police
    • Office of Inspector General (DOI OIG)
    • Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
    • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
    • Office of Law Enforcement (FWS OLE)
    • Division of Refuge Law Enforcement
    Department of Justice (USDOJ)[edit]
    • Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)
    • Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (since 1973)
    • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    • Federal Bureau of Investigation Police (FBI Police)
    • Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
    • United States Marshals Service (USMS)
    • Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG)
    • Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ OPR)
    Department of Labor[edit]
    • Office of Inspector General (DOLOIG)
    Department of State (DoS)[edit]
    • Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)
    • U.S. Diplomatic Security Service (DSS)
    • Office of Foreign Missions
    • Office of the Inspector General
    Department of Transportation[edit]
    • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
    • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    • Office of Inspector General (DOTOIG)
    • United States Merchant Marine Academy Department of Public Safety (USMMADPS)
    • Office of Odometer Fraud Investigation – NHTSA (OFI)
    Department of the Treasury[edit]

    A Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police (BEP) patrol car.
    • Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
    • Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP)
    • Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police (BEP Police)
    • Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN)
    • Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
    • Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI)
    • United States Mint Police (USMP)
    • Office of Inspector General (TREASOIG)
    • Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
    • Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (SIGTARP)
    Department of Veterans Affairs[edit]
    • Office of Inspector General (VAOIG)
    • Veterans Affairs Police
    Legislative Branch[edit]
    • Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives
    • Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate
    • United States Capitol Police (USCP)
    • Office of the Inspector General (USCP OIG)
    • Office of Professional Responsibility (USCP OPR)
    • Library of Congress (LOC)
    • Office of the Inspector General (LOCOIG)
    • Government Publishing Office (GPO)
    • Government Publishing Office Police
    • Office of Inspector General (GPO OIG)
    Judicial Branch[edit]
    • Marshal of the United States Supreme Court
    • United States Supreme Court Police
    • Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC)
    • Office of Probation and Pretrial Services
    Other federal law enforcement agencies[edit]
    Independent Agencies and Quasi-official Corporations
    • Central Intelligence Agency
    • Security Protective Service (CIA SPS)
    • United States Environmental Protection Agency
    • Criminal Investigation Division (EPA CID)
    • Office of Inspector General (EPA OIG)
    • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    • Office of Inspector General (NASA OIG)
    • Office of Protective Services (NASA OPS)
    • Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
    • Office of Inspector General (OPM OIG)
    • Federal Investigative Services Division (FIS) / National Background Investigations Bureau (NBIB)
    • Facilities, Security, and Emergency Management
    • United States Postal Service (USPS)
    • USPS Office of Inspector General (USPS OIG)
    • United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
    • U.S. Postal Police
    • Smithsonian Institution (SI)
    • Office of Protection Services
    • National Zoological Park Police (NZPP)
    • Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
    • Amtrak
    • Amtrak Office of Inspector General
    • Amtrak Office of Security Strategy and Special Operations (OSSSO)
    • Amtrak Police
    • Federal Reserve Bank
    • Federal Reserve Police
    • Tennessee Valley Authority
    • Tennessee Valley Authority Police (TVAP)
    • Office of Inspector General (TVA OIG)
    • Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
    • Office of Inspector General (NRC OIG)
    • National Science Foundation (NSF)
    • Office of the Inspector General (NSF OIG)
    • National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
    • Office of the Inspector General (NARA OIG)
    • Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)
    • Office of Inspector General (RRB OIG)
    • Small Business Administration (SBA)
    • Office of Inspector General (SBA OIG)
    • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
    • Office of Inspector General (FDIC OIG)
    • General Services Administration (GSA)
    • Office of Inspector General (GSA OIG)
    • Social Security Administration (SSA)
    • Office of Inspector General (SSA OIG)
    • United States Agency for International Development
    • Office of Inspector General (AID OIG)
    • Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
    • Office of the Inspector General (CNCS OIG)

    BOY, I BET YOU FEEL SAFER NOW!!

  2. #2 by WilliamSnura on November 13, 2017 - 4:00 am

    First, let’s get a little historical perspective on American health care. This is not intended to be an exhausted look into that history but it will give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What drove costs higher and higher?

    To begin, let’s turn to the American civil war. In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail’s pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to wound care, related surgeries and/or amputations of the affected limbs and this often resulted in the onset of massive infection. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!

    Let’s skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times. After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a “wait and see” approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries (now largely performed in sterile surgical environments) but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of deaths remained the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.

    This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950’s) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; “nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. The simple fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources. There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Except for the very destitute who were lucky to find their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.

    What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to this day, absolutely enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as a means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight a great pool of money became available to pay for health care. Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts. More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid (1965). In addition funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for almost anything has consequently become very lucrative. This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today.

    I do not wish to convey that medical innovations are a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor’s offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology in the form of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. So the result is that there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and we have the “perfect storm” for higher and higher health care costs. And by and large the storm is only intensifying.

    At this point, let’s turn to the key questions that will lead us into a review and hopefully a better understanding of the health care reform proposals in the news today. Is the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? When we add politics and an election year to the debate, information to help us answer these questions become critical. We need to spend some effort in understanding health care and sorting out how we think about it. Properly armed we can more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen some of these problems. What can be done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions?

    The Obama health care plan is complex for sure – I have never seen a health care plan that isn’t. But through a variety of programs his plan attempts to deal with a) increasing the number of American that are covered by adequate insurance (almost 50 million are not), and b) managing costs in such a manner that quality and our access to health care is not adversely affected. Republicans seek to achieve these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let’s look at what the Obama plan does to accomplish the two objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was passed by congress, and begins to seriously kick-in starting in 2014. So this is the direction we are currently taking as we attempt to reform health care.

    Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the number of Americans that will be covered by health insurance.

    To cover the cost of this expansion the plan requires everyone to have health insurance with a penalty to be paid if we don’t comply. It will purportedly send money to the states to cover those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs.

    To cover the added costs there were a number of new taxes introduced, one being a 2.5% tax on new medical technologies and another increases taxes on interest and dividend income for wealthier Americans.

    The Obama plan also uses concepts such as evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers (doctors and hospitals) to control costs.

    The insurance mandate covered by points 1 and 2 above is a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.S. provide “free” (paid for by rather high individual and corporate taxes) health care to most if not all of their citizens. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of restrictions for which many Americans would be culturally unprepared. Here is the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments as to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate as a result of a petition by 26 states attorney’s general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this element of the plan. The problem is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it is generally believed that the Obama plan as we know it is doomed. This is because its major goal of providing health insurance to all would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a decision.

    As you would guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that have to pay them. Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to “give up” something that would either create new revenue or would reduce costs within their spheres of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device company, recently announced at least a 1,000 employee reduction in part to cover these new fees. This is being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. The reduction in good paying jobs in these sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will have to be dealt with in order to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals. Over the next ten years some estimates put the cost reductions to hospitals and physicians at half a trillion dollars and this will flow directly to and affect the companies that supply hospitals and doctors with the latest medical technologies. None of this is to say that efficiencies will not be realized by these changes or that other jobs will in turn be created but this will represent painful change for a while. It helps us to understand that health care reform does have an effect both positive and negative.

    Finally, the Obama plan seeks to change the way medical decisions are made. While clinical and basic research underpins almost everything done in medicine today, doctors are creatures of habit like the rest of us and their training and day-to-day experiences dictate to a great extent how they go about diagnosing and treating our conditions. Enter the concept of evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. Both of these seek to develop and utilize data bases from electronic health records and other sources to give better and more timely information and feedback to physicians as to the outcomes and costs of the treatments they are providing. There is great waste in health care today, estimated at perhaps a third of an over 2 trillion dollar health care spend annually. Imagine the savings that are possible from a reduction in unnecessary test and procedures that do not compare favorably with health care interventions that are better documented as effective. Now the Republicans and others don’t generally like these ideas as they tend to characterize them as “big government control” of your and my health care. But to be fair, regardless of their political persuasions, most people who understand health care at all, know that better data for the purposes described above will be crucial to getting health care efficiencies, patient safety and costs headed in the right direction.

    A brief review of how Republicans and more conservative individuals think about health care reform. I believe they would agree that costs must come under control and that more, not fewer Americans should have access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. But the main difference is that these folks see market forces and competition as the way to creating the cost reductions and efficiencies we need. There are a number of ideas with regard to driving more competition among health insurance companies and health care providers (doctors and hospitals) so that the consumer would begin to drive cost down by the choices we make. This works in many sectors of our economy but this formula has shown that improvements are illusive when applied to health care. Primarily the problem is that health care choices are difficult even for those who understand it and are connected. The general population, however, is not so informed and besides we have all been brought up to “go to the doctor” when we feel it is necessary and we also have a cultural heritage that has engendered within most of us the feeling that health care is something that is just there and there really isn’t any reason not to access it for whatever the reason and worse we all feel that there is nothing we can do to affect its costs to insure its availability to those with serious problems.

    OK, this article was not intended to be an exhaustive study as I needed to keep it short in an attempt to hold my audience’s attention and to leave some room for discussing what we can do contribute mightily to solving some of the problems. First we must understand that the dollars available for health care are not limitless. Any changes that are put in place to provide better insurance coverage and access to care will cost more. And somehow we have to find the revenues to pay for these changes. At the same time we have to pay less for medical treatments and procedures and do something to restrict the availability of unproven or poorly documented treatments as we are the highest cost health care system in the world and don’t necessarily have the best results in terms of longevity or avoiding chronic diseases much earlier than necessary.

    I believe that we need a revolutionary change in the way we think about health care, its availability, its costs and who pays for it. And if you think I am about to say we should arbitrarily and drastically reduce spending on health care you would be wrong. Here it is fellow citizens – health care spending needs to be preserved and protected for those who need it. And to free up these dollars those of us who don’t need it or can delay it or avoid it need to act. First, we need to convince our politicians that this country needs sustained public education with regard to the value of preventive health strategies. This should be a top priority and it has worked to reduce the number of U.S. smokers for example. If prevention were to take hold, it is reasonable to assume that those needing health care for the myriad of life style engendered chronic diseases would decrease dramatically. Millions of Americans are experiencing these diseases far earlier than in decades past and much of this is due to poor life style choices. This change alone would free up plenty of money to handle the health care costs of those in dire need of treatment, whether due to an acute emergency or chronic condition.

    Let’s go deeper on the first issue. Most of us refuse do something about implementing basic wellness strategies into our daily lives. We don’t exercise but we offer a lot of excuses. We don’t eat right but we offer a lot of excuses. We smoke and/or we drink alcohol to excess and we offer a lot of excuses as to why we can’t do anything about managing these known to be destructive personal health habits. We don’t take advantage of preventive health check-ups that look at blood pressure, cholesterol readings and body weight but we offer a lot of excuses. In short we neglect these things and the result is that we succumb much earlier than necessary to chronic diseases like heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure. We wind up accessing doctors for these and more routine matters because “health care is there” and somehow we think we have no responsibility for reducing our demand on it.

    It is difficult for us to listen to these truths but easy to blame the sick. Maybe they should take better care of themselves! Well, that might be true or maybe they have a genetic condition and they have become among the unfortunate through absolutely no fault of their own. But the point is that you and I can implement personalized preventive disease measures as a way of dramatically improving health care access for others while reducing its costs. It is far better to be productive by doing something we can control then shifting the blame.

    There are a huge number of free web sites available that can steer us to a more healthful life style. A soon as you can, “Google” “preventive health care strategies”, look up your local hospital’s web site and you will find more than enough help to get you started. Finally, there is a lot to think about here and I have tried to outline the challenges but also the very powerful effect we could have on preserving the best of America’s health care system now and into the future. I am anxious to hear from you and until then – take charge and increase your chances for good health while making sure that health care is there when we need it.

    • #3 by jss3rd on November 13, 2017 - 1:42 pm

      Very well thought out and written review of out healthcare problem. I have only scanned it and not studied your proposals, but I am a Constitutional conservative who believes that the prohibition of taking life without due process covers denying healthcare because of inability to pay. To begin lowering cost, we need the largest risk pool available to predict the number and costs of injuries, illnesses, treatments, etc. each year. The way to get that risk pool is universal coverage paid for by or in conjunction with your taxes. Plan like Medicare for all is good, but I would prefer that it be run by a private, for profit federally mandated and approved, Monopoly. Drugs and medical devices should be purchased through a bid process. Patients should be able to go to the doctor and facility of their choice creating competition because the best doctors and facilities would see the most patients and pay would be based on a per patient seen scale.

      My old eyes are giving out so I need to sign off today, but will study your review more and comment more later.

      Again, Great job!!

      John

  3. #4 by Thomassotte on November 28, 2017 - 11:27 pm

    Living in France is one thing desired by many individuals. If you want to live in France then you have to get French property. You can read the advertisement section of the newspapers which has the section of houses for sale in France. After making a suitable choice, you should research about the properties for sale in France. French property is now a days very much wanted also.

    If you want to live in France and spend your life there you should select a proper house. French property is not cheap and you need to make a major investment. You must also know about the properties for sale in France at various locations. The houses for sale in France come in different prices depending on the location

  4. #5 by Stacie Winsted on December 2, 2017 - 7:03 am

    I’m going to start a serious blog that will eventually hold a great deal of content. I am a graphic designer, and my husband does my web programming, so this is for reals (haha, yes I just said that). That being said, I’ve already started collecting my content and writing entries, but just how much content should a brand new blog have when you “unveil” it to the world (ideally)?. . Thanks :).

  5. #6 by www kampungemas com alternatif sbobet on December 11, 2017 - 11:23 am

    There’s noticeably a bundle to find out about this. I assume you made certain good factors in features also.

  6. #7 by togel on December 12, 2017 - 9:12 pm

    I went over this site and I believe you have a lot of fantastic information, saved to favorites (:.

  7. #8 by Johnd285 on December 21, 2017 - 11:43 pm

    Your style is really unique compared to other folks I’ve read stuff from. eggagekfafga

  8. #9 by Smithc741 on December 21, 2017 - 11:43 pm

    I really enjoy reading on this website, it holds great articles. Don’t put too fine a point to your wit for fear it should get blunted. by Miguel de Cervantes. aedkeegbaafkeaeb

  9. #10 by Johne356 on December 21, 2017 - 11:44 pm

    Some really nice and useful information on this web site, also I conceive the style and design holds superb features. eefdbedfecgc

(will not be published)