Replacing Obamacare

President Trump promised to replace Obamacare, but so far has  only suggested modifying it.   He should replace the Obama approach to health care.  

Medical costs cause the price of health insurance to be too high for some to afford.    Obamacare attempted to deal with high insurance rates by forcing healthy people to buy health insurance. 

A better  approach would recognize that it isn't practical for profit-making insurance programs to pay for expensive to treat chronic disorders such as those associated with alcohol or tobacco use.   Special programs could be set up to cover such disorders. 

Taxes on alcohol and tobacco should be used to fund programs for alcohol and tobacco related medical disorders.   For example, a per gallon tax on alcohol products would go into a fund for treatment of alcohol related disorders.   A doctor would certify that a person has an alcohol related disorder and health care providers would send health care bills for the patient to the alcohol fund in the same way bills are sent to insurance companies for payment.   To simplify payment procedures all medical problems of a patient with an alcohol related medical problem would be paid by the fund because alcohol can reduce the body's ability to handle problems.  The fund would also cover medical costs of those who suffer injuries because  of the actions of someone under the influence of alcohol even if the injury involved a preexisting condition.  A police report that one of the drivers in a traffic accident was under the influence of alcohol would trigger payment from the alcohol fund even if the courts wouldn't consider the drinking driver to be at fault.

Under the current insurance system people who never use tobacco or alcohol help pay for the medical treatment of those who have tobacco or alcohol related medical problems.  Under my proposal only those who use alcohol and tobacco  products would pay to treat  medical problems related to alcohol and tobacco use.  

Another type of health care fund would involve specific disorders, such as heart trouble or specific cancers that may be caused by various factors other than tobacco or alcohol.   Government would use general taxes to finance treatment and conduct research.  Other funds might come from non-profit organizations.  Government might encourage non-profit funds by offering to match what they raise.    

Each fund would operate in part as a research project.  Paying for all treatments from a single fund would allow researchers to monitor and compare the success rate of various different treatments.   Insurance companies are reluctant to fund experimental treatments because they can't expect to benefit from them, but the federal government could benefit from knowing what doesn't work as well as knowing what does work.

Obama Official Admits Meddling in Russia

 Tom Malinowski, who  served as Barack Obama's assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 2014 to 2017, has admitted in a Washington Post article that the United States "meddled" in Russian elections by financing political groups.

Malinowski says:  "until the U.S. Agency for International Development was expelled from Russia in 2012  [it helped]  fund some of the country’s leading nongovernmental organizations. These included the human rights group Memorial, the Committee Against Torture and, most important, given the drama to come, a group called Golos, Russia’s main nongovernment organization for election fraud monitoring."

Malinowski  demonstrates his imperialistic attitude with the claim:  "This effort was non-partisan and it aimed to strengthen democracy for everyone in Russia, not to steer the outcome."  What gives  Malinowski and the United States the authority to claim they know what is best for Russian democracy?    The term "non-partisan" is a nonsense word because issue positions and election procedures may not  have the same impact on all parties.   Any claims about corruption in the Russian government are inherently partisan because the claims place the governing party in  a negative light.

Malinowski may be too ignorant to understand the potential implications of such spending, but former KGB officer President Vladimir Putin probably knows why the Soviet Union financed comparable groups in the United States during the 1950's.     Americans called such organizations designed to support the communist view of the world   "communist front groups".    When a nation finances alternate political groups in another nation, it is meddling in that nation's politics if any of those connected with those organizations participates in politics regardless of whether  the participation involves issues or  personalities.   I wonder what Democrats would say if Russia  financed a group in the United States whose purpose was monitoring election fraud.

Malinowski is out of touch with reality.  He suffers from the delusion that American foreign policy has some idealistic purpose.   As a Vietnam vet I know that isn't true..  Many American foreign policy actions are just a response to events.   Actions that have a purpose usually are designed to serve corporate  interests.  

The best example of this situation is the Obama administration's efforts to push the crooked Enron corporation's global warming fraud.   The claim that carbon dioxide causes global warming is based on a primitive early 19th Century belief that was disproved in 1909.  Malinowski talks about corruption in Russia.   I wonder what he would say if Russia had made a major effort to discredit Hillary Clinton by exposing the global warming fraud prior to last year's election.  

Is It Colin Kaepenick's Revenge?

I didn't realize how bad the NFL's concussion problem was until  many of its players developed kneeling sickness during the singing of the national anthem.    .  The kneelers claim they are protesting racism, but kneeling is usually done as a form of submission, not a form of protest.   In the NFL, a player who fields a kickoff in the end zone will kneel to show he doesn't plan to run with the ball.   Late in the game the  quarterback on the team that is leading will "take a knee" to run out the clock.     Kneeling is what a slave may do to show obedience to an owner.

The national anthem, "Star Spangled Banner", recalls the bravery of the men in one of our nation's most important battles.   In the War of 1812 the men of Ft. McHenry held off the British navy in spite of a fierce naval bombardment.  At dawn the flag was still waving.  By protesting during the national anthem,  the kneelers  show contempt for those Americans who died in that battle including an escaped slave who had enlisted as a private in the U.S. army using the name William Williams.   The  kneelers also show contempt for 360,000 U.S. army soldiers who died fighting in the Civil War which ended slavery.   40,000 of those soldiers were black.

The kneelers alienate many of those fans who have friends and relatives serving in distant combat zones.   Many fans have served in combat in the current conflict or lost friends or relatives in the 9/11 attack.

The kneelers have created a rift between players and fans that is costing the league revenue.   I wonder if that was Colin Kaepenick's goal when he persuaded current players to become involved in this silly protest.   Did he encourage the protests to get even with NFL teams for not signing him as  a free agent?

If NFL players really want to do something about racism they should donate money to civil  rights organizations, including political action committees that support civil rights oriented candidates  Kneeling on the sidelines and whining like children in a store who want toys is unlikely to accomplish anything.

Those Who Benefit from Economic Injustice Shouldn't Complain

Those athletes who complain about  the existence of injustice ignore the fact that they are part of the class whose members may benefit from whatever injustices are perceived to exist.   What is considered an injustice varies from one person to another.  

The use of local taxes to subsidize sports facilities can be considered an injustice.    Some of the athletes using the facilities pay more in income taxes than some of the local taxpayers make in  a year.  The money teams save by not having to pay to construct facilities is available for  player salaries.

If professional athletes are really concerned about injustice they should do something directly instead of whining about it like children  For example, they might  use part of  their income to create jobs in high unemployment areas.

Criticism of President Donald Trump's comments is unjustified. As the elected leader of the American he can speak for those who agree with him.  Normally we can expect that some will agree with him and some will disagree.

Donald Trump Should Tell Gestapo-like Mueller: "You're fired!"

Is Robert S.  Mueller III Mr. Mueller the special counsel or Herr Mueller the head of the American Gestapo?   His treatment of  Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul J. Manafort  implies  he should be called "Herr Mueller".

Mueller conducted a search of Manafort's residence by breaking into the residence while Manafort and his wife were in bed.   Such a tactic might have been  accepted in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union It should not be accepted in 21st Century America.

The secret police in police states use this tactic to terrorize their victims into confessing they are "witches".   Police in the United States might need to use this tactic with violent criminals. 

There can be no justification for using it in political controversies particularly when there is no evidence of a crime.  

Four of the Russian computer hackers [including a colonel and a major] who supposedly interfered in the election were on the C.I.A.'s payroll.  Thus, if anything illegal happened it was President Barack Obama and his C.I.A. who were involved rather than persons associated with Donald Trump.  Barack Obama was paying them. Not Donald Trump.   They reported to the C.I.A. Not Donald Trump

Did Pres. Obama and CIA Help Donald Trump Win?

News stories about purported Russian hacking in the presidential election continue to omit a very important fact.  The Russian government has arrested four of the hackers, including Col.Sergei Mikhailov, and charged them with working for  the CIA.

Thus if Russians did any election  hacking it was with the knowledge and consent of the CIA and President Barack Obama.    The knowledge received would have allowed the Obama administration to prevent any action that could have affected the outcome of the election.    If the president knew terrorists threatened to attack, he would assign federal agents to protect those who might be attacked.  Wouldn't a president who thought foreign government hackers threatened an organization assign government computer experts to protect against the attack? 

If the hackers tried to help Donald Trump win, it was because someone in the Obama administration wanted Trump to win.  It seems unlikely the CIA would have tried  to help Trump win without Obama's approval.   Incidentally with an FSB colonel on the CIA's  payroll it would have been easy  to have Russians meet with Trump's  associates where  the meetings  would be noticed.  [The FSB is the successor to the KGB.]

Why would Barack Obama want Donald Trump to win the election?  Perhaps Obama thought if Trump won, it might be possible to convince Congress to change the Constitution to allow Obama to seek a third term in 2020, particularly if Congress thought Trump was involved with the Russians.  That strategy wouldn't have been possible if Hillary Clinton had won.

 I doubt the claim that Russian hackers did anything that affected the outcome of the election. even if they tried to do  so.     However, if they did then any federal investigation  should ask what did the CIA and President Barack Obama know, when did they know it and what did they do with the knowledge?  If CIA officials didn't tell Obama about the Russians, why didn't they?

Wanton Destruction of Historic Art

The world was appalled when fanatical members of the Taliban blew up ancient Buddhist statues  carved into a mountain in Afghanistan.  They destroyed the priceless artifacts as part of an effort to eliminate items they didn't considered politically  correct.  More recently ISIS members  have been doing the same thing in Iraq.   They have even been destroying historical artifacts other Muslims consider acceptable.

Unfortunately, this vandalism oriented mental condition has begun infecting people in the South.  The southern vandals have begun destroying Civil War related art  such as statues remembering the men who led the Southern states into the  disaster known as the Civil War and in the process caused the end of slavery.     

As the great grandson of a Yankee soldier I've never really understood why southern whites would want to honor such men.  I presume they did not put up the statues because they knew the statues would be pigeon roosts.  

It would have made more sense if the former slaves had erected the statues to thank the men who provoked northerners into ending slavery.   In 1860 there was little prospect for ending slavery. Most northerners opposed slavery in their states because they hated the people held as slaves.   The decision by southern states to leave the union and fight a lengthy war so angered northerners that they decided to get even with southerners by freeing southern slaves and granting the freed slaves rights that were denied in some northern states.  Blacks couldn't even live in Illinois.   The descendants of slaves shouldn't be destroying Civil War monuments.  They should be protecting the  monuments to those who inadvertently brought a end to slavery.   Southerners should include signs with the monuments thanking the men who caused the north to end slavery. 

The Muslim extremists who have been destroying historic art have been doing so  to cover up the fact people in the region once had different religious beliefs.  Are the people who are leading the effort to destroy historic art in the south trying to cover up the fact that  southern slavery once caused a major war?  The presence of Civil War monuments can lead to questions about what caused the war.  Without the monuments, whites can avoid dealing with questions about the southern past.