Planned destruction

 I think I've figured it out. We're going to destroy this country by blowing it up. Matt Gaetz made a statement that, if the Republicans took the house and the senate, they were going to shut the government down. Then I read that Hershel Walker is in a tie with Warnock in GA. I could go on and on but I think you get the point. If they are able to get THE most unqualified nut jobs into local and state governments, along with a majority in the house and senate, they could lie, cheat and steal their way to pretty much ending all of the progress made in the last 100 years. The thing is, it's happening and the only way to stop it is for the general public to wise up and start voting for qualified candidates- republicans or democrats. Gaetz doesn't even get his own irony which is, if you get rid of the government, why would you need him?

This means the republicans are going to have to get rid of McConnel, McCarthy, Paul, Grahm, Boebert and what's her name among a few. In other words, they're going to have to clean house. Then, the idiot democrats or progressive line of Americans are going to have to get off their duffs and vote- every time- local, state and federal. Voting is the only mechanism available to the public to set things straight. We already know that the Trump faction is in the minority so there should still be a way to keep them out of office in all but the reddest states.

Wouldn't it be great if all public servants, in order to preserve their jobs and things like pensions, were forbidden from pleading the 5th or avoiding/litigating subpoenas and the like. I can dream these kinds of things. While I'm at it, I'm dreaming of getting dark money out of politics, making all donations over $1000 public and declaring corporations as corporations and not "people". Freak'n ridiculous.

Hysteresis

 Many of you who "stumble" onto this post may not know what the meaning of the word "hysteresis" is and that's ok. I'm and engineer so I'm familiar with the concept from electronics, and inductors to be more precise. The phenomena of hysteresis however, applies to more than just natural systems but has applications in economics too.

I'll explain. Hysteresis is the phenomena where a device, system or organism when subjected to a change or stimulus has a (potentially) expected reaction but there is a significant time delay between the two. In the context of our political system, it means that usually the person in charge in period one, is responsible for whatever happens in the next person's tenure. This could partially or totally. The reasons for this are relatively obvious to most of us. Some policy choices and decisions just take time to implement and then promulgate through a massive economy.

Why am I bringing this up? I keep hearing people trying to blame the current president for inflation and other economic woes after 2 years in office. If my theory is right, we're just now feeling the impact of decisions and policies that were put in place in the last administration just as trump experienced good times while he was in office as a result of the Obama administration. The effects of the Obama administration were probably even more cemented into our economics because he was in office for two terms. 

I'm not an economist so I don't really know just what the delay, hysteresis, is due to radical changes in policies actually is, but I suspect it's measured in years. What happened in the previous administration that are now heavily impacting our current situation? I probably cannot come up with them all but some that I can think of include poor handling of the pandemic, cozying up to Putin, robbing the poor to pay the rich, isolating the US in global markets without any plans for remediation and this constant false notion of America and Patriotism. All of these, to name a few, have taken time- albeit some of them, like the Patriotism bit (you know "stop the steal"), were pretty short periods- to show their effects on the US as a people and on the economy. I think this is because the "deplorables" were already waiting in the wings.

It's natural to blame the President of the country for all of its ills but the reality is that nearly all of the ills began well before the President took office. As countries go, the US can change on a dime whereas most other countries may take years to change. This is due to our relatively short democratic elected official tenures. Let's see, Putin has been the head of Russia for 30 years now?? The US has probably had at least 4 complete administration changes in that time. The two party system worked pretty well for a while in the sense that change was slower so the changes didn't seem so dramatic or draconian. Now however, we get one party in who makes a bunch of changes and then the other party gets in and tears them all down again. We're not longer keeping up with the times but rather reversing the hands.

The point of all this was to merely point out that blaming the current President for any ills you're experiencing right here and now, is mostly ludicrous. It's also selective because if you are pro-life (in as far as unborn babies go) and blame Biden for inflation, then you must also congratulate him for the Dodd decision- whether he supported it or not. Do you see how this works now? The point is that one side of our political system consistently uses double standards to reward a given administration about, well just about anything by leaving out the important bits. My big fear is that the other side will now start doing the same thing out of desperation. At that point, you may as well let the military take over.

If you've ever seen any Jordan Klepper videos, it re-enforces something someone told me long ago which is that, "you can't argue with a dumb guy."

Starting up in 2022...again

It's been some years since I've commented on or made observations about the goings on here in the world. Let's just say, things have "moved on" since my last rant in 2017 when George W. Bush was the President here. I'm certain that he's delighted to no longer be listed as the worst president of the US, leaving that dubious accolade to Herr Drumpf. 

Just to "tee" things up, some of the idiocies going on the world now include minority control of the US as a standard, Putin the command trying to get into the history books by reconvening the Soviet Union (not quite like getting the band back together), the exorcism of women's rights by relegating 50% of the earth's population to canine status and a cataclysmic climate situation that will create a world something akin to a Mad Max movie set. There are more, of course but these are the one's on my mind right now.

The most astounding things that have happened politically since I last blogged (sounds awful doesn't it? It's probably going to be illegal soon), is that the Republican Party has been taken over by some evil force that thinks their bizarre notions of human behavior and societal liberties include only white males with machine guns and anything or anyone else is an aberration and well, just unchristian like. This has created THE most dangerous country on the planet only you wouldn't be able to convince them of that to wit I say, just ask anyone from any other country what we are. We've moved from the Ugly American to the Crazy American.

It dawns on me that the Republicans went to war to fight the Taliban, a brutal mysoginistic band of males that seek a world where women are mere vessels for baby making and slaves to their male "mates". Does this sound familiar? Republicans, without even realizing it, are the US incarnation of the Taliban. That leads me to my dilemma. I've been trying to find a phrase, like libtards, that links the monikers of republican and Taliban together. To date I've come up with nothing snappy which is a damn shame. I'll keep working on it.

Enjoy the Jan 6th hearings and the various spectacles surrounding the last administration...and I'm hoping it's the last one...

Healthcare 2

I was just reading that Aetna was pulling out of the ACA exchanges in all states. I suspect this is because they are not making enough money on operations so it's a bad business deal. Well, health care is a bad business deal for them because it doesn't really lend itself to the insurance model- period; and it never will.

Insurance is based on statistics. Specifically the statistic that the big payouts are at least 3 sigma off the mean population (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to study up on large, normal, population distributions). In  a normal distrubution, which large populations tend to gravitate toward- a small percentage on the low end of the curve never get sick at all and at the top is the small percentage that is sick all the time (in the case of health care, a large part of the sickest are "known" and no probablistic...we refer to them as "pre-existing" conditions). The largest part of the population is between those two extremes. Socio economic class works similarly in the US with the poorest of the poor at the bottom, and the richest of the richest at the top with a very large middle class. This rant isn't about population changes so I'm assuming, for now, that we are all normally distributed.

The perfect world of insurance has those that never or rarely making a claim, in essence, subsidizing those that are misfortunate enough to need the help and, on average, rates for everyone could be the same. But, insurance companies are allowed to "game the system" by fixing the populations. In the auto insurance industry, you are part of the big pool right up until your aren't. They you are put in another pool where they can charge you more money or eliminate you entirely from their population. Modern information systems see to it that you carry this information along with you even if you need to switch carriers. So what does this have to do with healthcare?

First, healthcare is only partly catestrophic. Most of it is routine and therefore doesn't lend itself to a catastrophic insurance model. Second, you can't put the "bad drivers" back into the pool without the "good drivers" subsidizing them. This is the "pre-existing conditions" pool that republicans are fond of talking about. A human, unlike a car, with a pre-existing condition is unlikely to manifest ever as part of the normal (middle class in my example) distribution with time, whereas, if the car business one accident does not mean you will have a second and eventually you become part of the normal distribution again. Also, not that your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, brake replacements and the like. I healthcare, the equivalent procedures have to be done for a variety of reasons which I would hope are obvious, but yet the ARE part of your healthcare insurance. This is, in part, why healthcare doesn't lend itself well to the insurance model.

Now consider that some health related services keep you from (or delaying) catestrophic health events. In the driver world, they make you go to defensive driving school in hopes that you don't have another accident or get another ticket. The equivalent in healthcare is preventive medicine. In the current scheme, most insurance cover a very small amount of preventative health care. In my opinion, they cover just enough to get you into the system so they can keep track of you and to keep you going to the doctor's so as to improve their overall income...the more people go to the doctor for routine non-costly visits, the more co-pays and the more of the deductable goes to the insurance companies. On the flip side, they might find something seriously wrong too. While this might cause a major outlay, I'm betting that it's still less expensive than treating a pro-longed condition when it is finally diagnosed down the line (and sure there are probably exceptions). As long as the entire population pays into the pool (healthy and sick alike), there should be no issues providing all needed services.

This is where the big rub comes in. The ACA addressed the "pool" problem by doing the following: Young and old, sick and healthy all had to pay into the system in some way. Further, they expanded Medicare (known in the US as the most efficient health care system available) to cover more people, in effect, adding tax dollars into the pool for those that cannot afford them. Presumably, Medicaid would pick up the rest. The republican version of the ACA...eliminates nearly everything above. Only two things can happen: Only really wealthy people will have any kind of insurance or; we'll go back to the way it was before where only corporations will provide health coverage. The problem with the latter is that they (companies) are already shedding this expense so, unless something happens, we're going to end up with only wealthy people having guaranteed health care. Emergency rooms will be back in vogue and care will be even more expensive not to mention that people will die. It will be that drastic.

Editorial note 2022. I just realized I never hit the publish button so I did to complete the record....sorry!

Healthcare

It's 2017 and you would have thought that the most wealthy country on the planet would have terrific health care for all of its citizens. Not so. The facts on this have long been established so I'm curious as to why our conservative politicians still think the current "system" is so great? Don't they have to suffer through the same insurance game, co-pays and deductibles that all the rest of us do? See where I'm going with this?

Some republican congressman said something to the effect that everyone has the right to healthcare but that you don't rob Peter to pay Paul. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he clearly isn't "Paul" in his scenario so it's easy for him to feel that way. But what if he were a Paul, growing up in a blighted inner-city neighborhood and born to parents where the father was never present, mom was drug addicted and could never quite get it together? He wouldn't have had a computer at home, no books around and no one around to ride him to always study and do the right thing. In fact, what if he could barely go for a walk in his neighborhood for fear of taking a stray bullet or being pressured into selling drugs? No, Peter has no conception of any of this and frankly, he doesn't really even care.

Paul's life is so far removed from the one that Peter experienced as a white male born to a middle to upper class family, he cannot see what's out there. His limited experience with the "Paul's" of the world boil down to the occasional visit to the soup kitchen or observing a school lunch program or food pantry.  These things, he thinks, should be enough for any young poor child to have enough to succeed. Peter has formed his philosophy of the Paul's of the world by the old adage that America is the land of opportunity and that ANYONE can succeed. Of course this is a true statement as is "anyone who plays the lottery can win" - but your odds aren't very good.

It isn't clear to me how to fix this mental retardation that some of us suffer in this country. One would hope that religion would play a part in adjusting mindsets but very often, the Peter's of the world claim to be very religious so, they either aren't listening or perhaps they are attending the wrong churches. Maybe we should have something like a "Peace corp" for politicians where they go and work in some of these communities for three or fourth months. Maybe they could even live with a poor family to experience their life first hand? Will it make a difference? Who knows but at least they will have some critical experience on which to base their policy choices. At a minimum, all of our politicians should be made to use the same policies and programs they are advocating for the rest of us. Without that, you will forever have a system that views healthcare as a product you buy off the shelf and not something that's, well, really smart to have for all of our citizens- rich and poor alike.

A footnote to all of this if you're wondering why congress doesn't have to use the programs they initiate for the rest of us. That one is easy...he/she who has the gold, makes the rules. They know when they made a doggy.

Back at it with the electoral college

The last time I "blogged" was in 2010. The world did  not end with the second coming of GW but I rearranged my personal finances and didn't lose any money in the great recession. I'm starting up again primarily because I tend not to forget arguments after I write them down and the act of writing them down helps to clarify my thinking. Feel free to read these entries but do not get the impression that I'm doing this for any type of external reactions.

Ok, that's over with...the election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was extremely telling on many fronts but the one I want to key into here is the electoral college and the role it's playing in US politics. I very well can see why the electoral college was established. It was an enticement for less populated territories to join the federation. It was a promise to them that they would have influence in federal matters. It was probably a pretty good system when voting rights were limited and technology had not yet evolved to allow all of the people's votes to be counted.

My contention is that, in recent history, the electoral college system has diverged from being consistent with the actual popular vote (all of those illegal immigrant votes cast aside) which used to be a very rare event. As Stephen King's character Roland in the Dark Tower Series was fond of saying, "The world has moved on." While I think this statement rings true for nearly all of our constitution, it's especially the case for the electoral college. You have to ask yourself whether it's really needed? If you can count every single ballot cast, why the convoluted machinations of the electoral college? I would think conservatives would resonate with it's elimination on the grounds that it reduces bureaucracy and complexity- they seem to like simple- and eliminating this step would certainly simplify things.

The argument that is made against eliminating it is usually that the less populated states would then not have as much influence as they do with it. Ok, but why should they? Democracy is about the people, not the states. If a state wants more clout, they'll have to figure out a way to attract more people. That's pretty simple...There is no better metric of fairness in a democratic society than one person, one vote. Surely, even conservatives can see that.

November elections

I don't have time to keep up with all the races but I'm compelled to comment on a few that, if the Republicans really turn out and vote for their candidate, they are dumber than posts.

Minnesota gets cold in the winter but surely their brains haven't frozen enough to invite Michele Bachman back to the table! I guess now's the time to just say it anyway...if roughly half the population are women then surely she is unelectable. One thing I know about women is they all hate bimbos and Bachman is the queen of bimbos. In fact I'll go out on a limb and say that Michele Bachman makes Sarah Palin seem like Einstein. What's wrong with you people? No one is going to take away your hunting rifles and you shouldn't be shooting Elk with an AK-47- where's your sense of fair play.

On the other extreme, the desert heat of Arizona has always produced and exceptional cadre of ditzes and doofuses. One of them with severe heat stroke made a run for president last time. I say, let's not let that happen again eh? Evidently the sunstroke problems remain since Ben Quayle will likely win here (according to the polls ahem). You remember his Dad, Dan don't you? He was the sexist Vice President of the United States. I'm sure he meant well but I don't recall him ever accomplishing anything except putting his foot in his mouth. His best work was slipping into anonymity post term. His son is a chip off the old block without a few critical chips. Arizonians....grab and umbrella....chill and try something else.

My final "winner" is Rand Paul. I actually liked his dad a little during the last campaign. He held is own with Bill Maher and at least feigned a few ideas that sounded interesting but would probably never happen in this country. Unfortunately, his kid is just a dope with no prospects that has decided to make a career out of politics. It's so crazy obvious that everyone in Kentucky should be lining up to keep him out. Come on, you all are at least half civilized- you have the derby and mint juleps. Just vote NO for Rand Paul- you'll be glad you did.

Like I said, there are many others, on both sides but I'm just picking on the Republicans because it's so much easier.