Illegal Immigrants

Here is where I stand on the issue of Illegal Immigrants. Crossing the boarder and bypassing the legal process, is clearly breaking the law. I love the people from Mexico. I've made many trips to Baja to witness Christ to them and brought food, clothing, and other supplies to help. I've done manual labor there on buildings, plumbing, electrical, and other projects. I've been instrumental in starting the only Spanish language Celebrate Recovery group in Ventura County, and have reached out to the Spanish speaking inmates in the Wayside jail. But those that are here illegally have broken the law. I do not subscribe to calling them "undocumented immigrants." Undocumented means they lack some kind of documentation proving they are here illegally. If those that sneak into this country had documents at all they would read "Illegal immigrant."

There is a process for gaining entry to this country and it should be followed. I have no problem with a controlled influx of peoples from any country. If our system is too slow or limits are set to low then we should address that problem. If we have a quota and it is low there shouldn't be any challenge in increasing that limit - many people are quite okay with allowing millions in so the votes should be there. Those that hire illegal immigrants should be fined or arrested. That would go a very long way to solving the problem. They too are breaking the law.

The boarder should be made secure but we should address the problem of improving the legal process so it doesn't take so long. Apparently many people feel that adding millions of immigrants to this country is a good thing. I don't know because I can't fully wrap my mind around the complexities of adding millions of low skilled workers to the economy. I don't know if it helps or hurts. All I know is to me the single key issue is this; if we want them to come into the country it shouldn't be across the desert but through the gates. Simply making it legal should solve many issues. I do not understand why the immigration process isn't brought up and argued the way so many other issues are in this country.

To grant amnesty to all of them is to ignore due process. This alone would weaken the key to order in this country and that is our legal system. I do not know what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that are here already. It gets way too complex for me when things are injected into the conversation such as children of these illegal adults being born in the United States. I certainly would not agree to splitting families up. Yet to grant amnesty would simply invite another influx of illegal immigrants and the problem would resurface.

I think those who enter the country illegally are suffering because of indecision and lack of process in this country. I don't fault them for wanting to come here, earn money, and send it back to Mexico or other countries. The disparity between one side of the boarder and the other is so dramatic. The worst living conditions in Ventura County are comparable with the best conditions in Baja Mexico. The poverty there is some of the worst I've ever seen and I have traveled widely. But in my opinion the poverty is inextricably linked to the lack of law and order in Mexico. That is the last thing we want to import.

A few years ago I met with the church people of the church we support in Carranza Baja Mexico. I was the Mexico Liaison for our church's Mission Committee at the time. We tried to help those wonderful people improve their state in life by introducing the concept of micro loans, a practice that helps poor people around the world. The process is to have a small group of people pool their money and form a mini-bank. That money would then be used by one of the members to improve their personal situation and they are then required to refill the pot with some of the profits of their enterprise. Then the next person dips into the pot. Our church would have seeded the pot. The church members would form a committee and examine and approve the borrowing member's business plan. The church members understood and wanted to make use of this process but they all said it was a losing battle. The problem is there is a line or size of business which is ignored if you stay below that line. If you cross that line and your business becomes large enough to be visible it is then heavily taxed and much of the taxation is local, basically a rip off by the local officials and police. So the lack of law and order is actually handcuffing the people. It is possible if your business becomes successful enough it may be taken over by those in power.

I fully support the new Arizona law. Clearly one of the things that makes the United States stand out among all countries of the world is law and order. This problem is a big gap in our law and order and should be addressed.

Obviously this is a hot issue with me. I'm glad I'm not a politician who has to struggle with a solution. I'm just upset that the focus is misdirected. Many people bring up the argument that we who want to close the boarder, or make laws like Arizona, don't like the Mexican people. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least in the case of those to whom I have spoken with about this issue, and it certainly isn't true of me. That stand is simply, to me, a diversion from the fact that they are here illegally.

Apple frustrations

I am not an Apple fan-boy but I do have an iPod Touch 3G which changed my life. I've nearly stopped using my laptop because the Touch does most of what I want to do in a portable mode of operation. It is definitely a love-hate relationship though. But I need to rewind time a little to fully explain my frustrations with Apple.

Over 10 years ago I had (still have an use) a Sony NX70 then later NX80 PDA. It has a screen larger than the iPod Touch, WiFi, lots of useful apps, could play and record video, take photos, had email, voice recorder, a remote on the earphone cord to play/pause, go to previous or next track and control the volume, there was an infrared transceiver which allowed me to control TVs, DVD players and such, the infrared could even transfer apps between two PDAs. It has two card slots for Memory Sticks and CF cards, it has a physical as well as virtual keyboard, supported a keyboard docking station and/or my folding infrared keyboard, and the battery life was at least 4 hours for video and up to 20 hours for audio. By the way the battery is user replaceable which is why I still can use the PDA today. The software apps I have allowed me to view and edit MS Word files, Excel files, and Power Point files. I even use it as my EKG machine for my heart condition. On it I keep a bible, it is still my alarm clock, has world clocks for several time zones, the usual calculator, todo list, phone and address book, memo pad, and it can play flash videos. In short it is capable of much more than the current 3G version of the iPod Touch - and it is almost 10 years old. So when Apple touts their great new inventions today we who owned Palm based much older units chuckle a bit.

The NX80 is quite a bit larger and not really a pocket unit though. It is 3x the thickness of the Touch, weighs perhaps 3 or 4 times and doesn't have all the apps of the Touch. But today, April 8, 2010, Apple is as I write this describing OS4 for the iPhone. It really looks like Apple thinks they invented multitasking. They are describing it like it is something new for the world when it is 30 years old and well understood by most of the world.

Apple continues to leave important things out of their hardware and software, then takes credit for them when they finally put it in. Its a waiting game to see which version of their hardware I will purchase, knowing there will always be things missing that I'd really like to have. The Touch is great but I really wish it had a few things.

1) An external Bluetooth keyboard. Apparently they are announcing that today - 10 years later than my personal experience and finally on the iPhone and Touch. Its about time. I actually used my infrared keyboard on the PDA while on airplanes to create 50 pages of a book I'm writing.

2) Some buttons please. When listening to music I have to push the single button at the bottom of the Touch, slide the on screen lock, then I finally have access to screen virtual buttons to advance songs or pause the music. In the 3G they finally put volume buttons on the side - give me a break.

3) A microphone. Something else my 10 year old NX80 has. You can purchase external microphones and the earphones shipped with the unit has a microphone but this is such a simple thing to include - the iPhone already has one! It's stuipd when you think of it because there are built in apps that only work with a microphone.

4) User customization. Please let me do things my way not only the Apple way. On the Sony PDA I could decide what action I could do when I slid my finger up the screen. In my case I assigned that feature to the brightness. On the Touch I have to leave an application to go to the control settings, change the brightness, then re-open the app I was using. Some of this is lack of multitasking (being announced today finally) and some could be enhanced by some user customization. Funny how on the PDA the Date and Time were so accessible. On the Touch I get the time in the top bar but there seems to be no way to add the date there. I have to find the calendar app (which I don't use) to see today's date on the icon. Sure would like to add that to the title bar.

I'd really like to have a mode to eliminate the on screen lock. I'd like to select a mode which would blank the screen to save battery power, then would wake up the screen when I touch it so I could play/pause, go to the next song or podcast, etc. I understand that might easily cause the unit to wake up for example if it is in my pocket. But I'd know that and only use this mode when I wanted to such as in the car when playing music from the Touch through my car radio.

I could go on. Apple's strange iTunes application still is awkward to me after years of use. Instead of being direct, where I simply drag what I want onto my Touch, I have to go through this strange user interface.

5) I have a 32GB Touch with lots of available space but Apple doesn't let me create folders and store files there. What a waste. Instead I also carry a USB stick in my pocket. I could eliminate another item in my pocket if Apple simply let me have access to the memory in my Touch. Someday they'll introduce this as a new wonderful feature and the world will get all excited about it.

6) A camera. I don't use the camera on my phone because it is too low quality and moving the photos from the camera (Razr) to the computer is a pain. The Touch would be great if it had a 3MP camera, video would be nice too.

It is things like these that keep me from even trying an Apple computer. I hear many wonderful things about them but it is that Apple arrogance that keeps me away. I really use a lot of user customization to make things my way on my PCs. Not being able to do that if I had a Mac would drive me crazy. If Apple got it right it would be fine but there are so many ways Apple doesn't get it right for me.

The thing I appreciate most about Apple is it is an American company exporting products to the rest of the world. I'm happy to have the competition for Microsoft.

With the addition of the Bluetooth keyboard capability I will be MUCH happier with my Touch. The physical keyboard is the main missing thing for me. A full size folding keyboard will be a huge improvement for me.

iPad? I have no intention of buying one. It is a large Touch that won't fit in my pocket. In fact all the news about the iPad has made me seek out and research netbooks. I favor the 12.1" versions that are now coming on the market for their full size keyboards, light weight, and long battery life. I find the idea of holding a 1 1/2 pound iPad with one hand while poking at the screen with the other hand is not a format I'm interested in. The keyboard of a netbook not only gives me a useful typing experience, it also holds the screen! Imagine that! If Apple were to mount that iPad screen on a clamshell keyboard they would have a great product - hey I think we call that a netbook...

The Great Recession

The biggest economic challenge most of us will face in our lifetimes is having sufficient funds in retirement to last the rest of our lives. Many who intended to retire are now forced to continue working as their nest eggs have dwindled to the point where they can not continue on their planned course. Recommendations abound to continue working and not retire early. I retired as the economic downturn was just rearing its ugly head so I've had to face what many suggested people of my age should avoid. This has put me in the position of trying to figure out what went wrong primarily so I can plan for my family's future.

The economic downturn that began in 2007 and will certainly continue through 2010 and beyond brings to the surface a range of economic mistakes developed over decades in the United States. I see a number of individual, government, and business practices that contributed to this situation. In my opinion not one of these can solely be blamed for the downturn but in unison, and in hindsight, the actions of many led to a reset in the American economy, and it won't be over for a very long time.

There may be more than I list here but I think these are largely the cause of the strife we are now facing:

1) Social Security
2) Medicare and Medicaid
2) Unions
3) Lack of delayed gratification
4) Greed
5) Tax and Spend governments


1) Social Security
I am on Social Security (SS). I depend on it. So why do I list it as the first cause of this downturn? The intentions for Social Security were good; the final outcome is not so good. At the time SS was implemented the need was great and the plan was reasonable, with some exceptions. An unintended consequence of SS is it taught the American people not to save for retirement.

Nobody ever told the American people Social Security was their retirement plan. The idea was to keep the poorest from being destitute in their later years. In other words if you didn't, our couldn't, save up enough to retire then the government would help out. Unfortunately a near total lack of effort was put into teaching the people about saving for retirement. Quite the opposite the government in recent decades has been loud and clear that consumer spending drives the economy, so much so that during this downturn the federal government has even supplied cash to the people to spend. The general mentality was spend even if it meant going into debt to do so.

This short term thinking was bolstered by the federal government by neglecting to continuously teach people that their retirement was their responsibility and they should put away some percentage of their paycheck. That knowledge abounds in the financial community, but not in the government. Oh you can find it on government web sites if you seek it out. But you really have to look for it. Normally if I Google something I will find an answer in the first or second Google'd response. Not so when I Google "Federal Government Advice on Personal Spending and Saving." What you will see is lots of sites by private industry.

The end result is many people haven't saved enough for retirement. The other half of this equation is many people have developed an unhealthy spending habit which has contributed to this consumer driven economy. The U.S. savings rate has recently toggled from negative to about 4% which is an improvement. The more people save the more money is made available for development. Investing in the stock market is putting money into the hands of businesses to expand, hire people, and make products to sell overseas. Lack of saving and investing squelches growth.

SS also drains paychecks making it even harder to save. Throughout much of my working life the hit my paycheck took from SS usually exceeded my Federal or State taxes. In other words I was paying more "taxes" to Social Security than I was in what the government calls income tax. This inhibited my ability to save for my future. Don't even think that my SS money was paying for my own SS income in retirement. Not even close. SS is a Ponzi scheme of the worst kind - government forced.

This year Social Security outlay exceeds payroll deductions, and the baby boomers haven't reached full retirement age yet. This thing is rapidly falling apart. Oh everybody loves a handout, but nobody is paying attention when the government is putting money in your front pocket they are taking a larger amount out of your back pocket. Overall Social Security is a very large experiential that has failed.

2) Medicare and Medicaid are such great topics at this time when President Obama recently signed the new sweeping Health Care law. If you examine Medicare and Medicaid you can already see the disaster that is coming. These programs are even worse than Social Security for how much money they are draining from our economy. The government has done nothing to reduce costs. The only approach they have taken is to simply pay less for services. This is slowly killing the medical services community and it will accelerate as the baby boomers (me) reach age 65 and start availing ourselves of these programs. Good luck paying for this all you working age folks. It is already bankrupt and either you are going to be personally taxed into oblivion or I am going to lack the heath care promised to me. All the things I said about Social Security pale in comparison to these programs. Add to this the new health care law and you have a recipe for economic collapse which is sure to come.

Once again everybody likes a hand out, nobody likes to pay the taxes to support the bureaucracy to provide the hand-outs, and nobody can afford these failing programs.

2) Unions
Like Social Security there was once a time when unions were sorely needed in this country. There is a time and a place for unions so the companies don't take advantage of the individual worker. Workers, through unions, can band together and make demands so there is a proper balance between the needs of the company and the needs of the workers. All is well and good at this point. The problem is unions have to justify themselves and they don't know when enough is enough. Unions are widely responsible for increasing wages and benefits beyond reasonable and out of balance. In my opinion unions are single handidly responsible for the demise of the American auto industry.

As wages were pushed up by union demands (oh sure anyone working for the union was happy about that) the industry had to make choices. In a world economy, with foreign companies making competitive products with lower salaries, something had to give as salaries and benefits increased. The only thing that remained a variable was quality. The industry had to cut corners on design, testing, materials, and in some cases features to keep the cars competitive. Quality and price for Toyota and Honda cars simply could not be maintained by the American industry. Unions killed the industry. You can apply the same story across the board for any major industry that has a union today. They simply don't know how to balance their demands against the needs of the industry they serve. Greed has no limits. Over time U.S. manufacturers are priced out of the markets.

It is easy to find overseas companies that could use unions today. Examples abound of companies that exploit their workers. I sincerely hope those people do form unions and strive for a proper balance. I also hope they have the wisdom to put the unions to sleep when they have achieved the balance and not drive their own economies into the ground.

4) Lack of delayed gratification
A 50" flat screen. I'd like to have that to watch football. No problem, "just charge it." Sound familiar. There are a couple of items that are very hard to buy without a loan today. Buying a home is pretty much out of the reach of most of us to pay cash. Beyond that much of what we purchase could be delayed until we have saved enough to buy them cash and save huge amounts in interest. There are exceptions but many don't consider things like buying a used car to get by while they save for the car they want. They just charge it. During times of high inflation this often seems to make sense. The thinking is if I don't buy this $1,000 item now it will be $2,000 by the time I save for it. While that may or may not be true the question remains do you really need this thing in the first place. If it is a truck for your business that is a different story. We are talking about wants vs needs here.

The amazing thing is that single switch of mind from spending to saving is one of the biggest wealth builders that could save the economy, and your personal financial situation. Often what happens when people begin to save for something rather than charge it is they lose that immediate sense of "I have to have this thing," and many times they don't end up buying it. In other words a lot of buying is impulse buying, sometimes as a way to soothe life.

I'm not immune from this problem. I've done my fair share of impulse buying on credit cards. Fortunately I figured out what I was doing wrong many years ago and flipped my spend and save habits.

Consider this. If you purchase a $3,000 flat screen on a credit card with a 12% interest rate and pay it off in 3 years you'll pay a total of $3,587. If you save the same amount of money per month ($99.64) at the end of 3 years even with only a 4% annual interest rate you'll have $3805.54 in your bank account. That means instead of having that flat screen today and paying $587 more than the price tag shows, you'll have gained $805.54 but you won't have the flat screen. Could you live for three more years without that "want?" It might change your financial life. The flat screen is an interesting example because if you've paid any attention at all the prices have been dropping like a rock. So somewhere during that 3 year period you could buy the flat screen, and have cash left over to purchase something else. Along the way you'd have no debt. Should you lose your job you might be very happy you have money instead of a flat screen.

This problem is spread all across America and as said earlier consumer spending drives this economy. It could still drive the economy if only most people would put a delay in their purchase plans and save to buy rather than charging. The American economy would benefit in a number of ways.

5) Greed
No question that greed has become a news item lately. As banks have failed, credit default swaps have become front page news, and wall street bonuses are exposed it is clear that a lot of the money that changes hands in America is not being poured into manufacturing or other beneficial economic uses. Oh eventually those that pull in these huge sums of money will spend it and that will in itself stimulate the economy, but too much of this isn't healthy for the economy. Fortunately this has surfaced and there will be some changes. My only hope is regulation, that seems to be needed at this time, won't go overboard and stifle creativity and productivity.

6) Tax and spend governments.

Take all the comments I listed above under Lack of Delayed Gratification and apply them to the government and you end up right were we are today. There seems to be no sense of putting money away for a rainy day in this country when you examine the books of both the Federal budget nor the local governments.

We little guys have no choice but to work hard for our money so we can pay off those credit cards. The State and Federal governments can overspend with impunity. All they have to do is raise our taxes to pay for their extravagant spending habits.

If I ran my house the way the government runs the country I'd be millions of dollars in debt. The good news is I'd be lacking or nothing. All I'd have to do is go to my neighbors and demand they give me money to pay for all my purchases - or I'd throw them in jail. What a farce.

Talk of a balanced budget scares me. For me to balance my budget means less spending. For the government to balance the budget either means spending less or raising taxes. What do you think they are going to do? The federal and state governments are out of control when it comes to spending. There is no other way to look at it. Its like giving an open ended credit card to a teen-ager. What other outcome would we expect.

Health Care Law

I hope I can be civil on this topic. I am more sad and disappointed than angry over the liberal congress members voting this into law this week. I am aligned with 51% of this nation that thinks what happened this week is either completely wrong (40%) or they aren't sure (11%). In my opinion this nation is too deep in the whole for the financial outcome to be good, and adding this extravagant and ill designed plan will be the final large blow that brings the country to its knees.

I want to cover several subtopics - again just so I can vent. If anybody ever finds a reason to read this they should know exactly why I have issues with what just happened in Washington. Too bad I live in California. This is such a liberal state my vote has meant very little over the past 40+ years living here. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are worthy to their party - they are just wrong. Every time my wife and I have tried to communicate our desires for yes or no votes on some critical bill we are sent a form letter politely indicating they are going to do what is best for the people of the state; in other words they ignore us.

1) The need for health care reform.
2) Where I think the health care problems lie.
3) Comparing this vote to the "success" of Social Security and Medicare
4) How this will impact the health industry and our health care.
5) The real cost.
6) Why an alternate plan makes so much more sense.

1) The need for health care reform.
I don't question the need for change in America's health care system. Certainly when such a huge percentage of the population can't afford health care something has to be done. Those that can afford it, like me, are pumping huge amounts of money to purchase a family plan, crippling our retirement budget. Health care costs have the potential to independently drag the economy down. Most people choose to drop insurance and take their chances on their own health.

2) Where I think the health care problems lie.
It is broken on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.

I'm sure the vast majority of the health care professionals who tread the ill and maimed love what they do and are dedicated people. This is not where the problem lies.

The real problem lies in the dissemination of components of health care, separation between those in need and how payments are distributed by health insurance companies, out of control lawsuits for malpractice, and the belief by many that they should be afforded nothing but the best care in spite of their age because they have no involvement in the cost of procedures.

The way money is managed throughout the entire system is a mess. Doctors who work at hospitals are often free agents who are paid outside the hospital money flow. The hospitals are forced to take patients who have no health insurance and pass that cost on to the insurance companies pushing up premiums for the rest of us. Health care for the individual normally involves multiple doctors who don't share our medical history, we are forced to use lab services often independent of our doctors or hospitals, and through all of this we normally don't know the actual costs charged to the insurance company.

3) Comparing this vote to the "success" of Social Security and Medicare
I've recently heard the likes of Nancy Pelosi and the president use Social Security and Medicare of examples of successful government laws that have not only helped the population but saved us from the depths of the depression. Nothing could be further from the truth and here lies the biggest problem with the federal health care law.

By the way the original 10 year estimate on the overall cost of Medicare was off by a factor of EIGHT! Don't trust the government estimates. Heck I am an anal budget-er for our family with 20 years of our spending habits detailed to the penny using Quicken and we go over budget just about every year. How can we expect the government to project something as complex as our health care system and get it anywhere near right.

Anyone who is on the receiving end of a handout will appreciate the money or service. So it is easy to find positive comments about Social Security and Medicare. Why not; it appears as free to the individual. Heck our house gets checks every month and we couldn't survive without them. If you think you paid for it and deserve the benefits you didn't. In no case has anyone put sufficient money into the system to pay for what it will cost the federal government over your retired lifetime - unless you die early.

The problem of course is Social Security represents 21% of the budget, Medicare, Medicade, and CHIP represent another 20%. That is 41% of the total federal budget as of December 2009. All of this is funded each year by deductions from the paychecks of the shrinking working population. As the baby boomers retire these costs will go up as the working population has to foot the bill. Both of these programs are rapidly running into a brick wall. They will run out of money. The government has not stockpiled money to pay for these programs, they spent any extra that has come in over the past decades on other things. There is no pool of money sitting and waiting for the baby boomers. Its all been spent.

When Social Security was enacted there was a definite need. Older people were simply going to die without the help. They either didn't put away money for their retirement, or they couldn't due to the long lasting recession. The biggest problem with this whole plan was the government did little to educate the population about the need to save for themselves. Indeed the average citizen counted on Social Security to support themselves in retirement, even though in most cases it never would fully accomplish that goal. So what did people do with their future seemingly secure? They spent all their earnings, or even more than their earnings by using credit. They live month to month. The U.S. savings rate is currently 4% which is huge compared to past years and decades where it even fell below 2% many times (http://www.bea.gov/BRIEFRM/SAVING.HTM). As of October 2009 China is said to have a savings rate of 39%. Not only does savings put away money for our future, potentially reducing burdens on federal budgets, but that money isn't sitting in vaults, it is being used to fund manufacturing and it helps keep interest rates down.

Consumer spending persisted for the past few decades as we enjoyed ever larger houses, RVs, every electronic toy on the market, vacations, home improvements, cars, boats and other wants. We were taught to do so. Even now as the Great Recession is underway the government highly encourages us to spend; they have even sent us money to spend. While this principle may be what is required to yank the economy off the ground it is once again pushing us down the road of consumption without any focus on savings. Fortunately a portion of the population is turning the corner and starting to save for their future. Sadly many can't or don't follow this new pattern.

Medicare, while appreciated by many, contains similar pitfalls. Since we retired bunch (not me yet as I'm just 63) just depend on Medicare we aren't really involved with the cost of our medical care. It is mostly paid for us and all we have to do is cough up a small premium each month and perhaps a copay. So there is no individual accountability. Again we are being taught not to save for these things at an early age because it has been promised to be there for us. Our children will pay but we will too.

This simply can't continue. Major adjustments will have to be made. Services will be cut in Medicare; witness the new law just passed this week that contains articles to cut Medicare. In other words the federal government is already in the position of deciding what medical care you can and can not have. It isn't a future worry. It is here today.

Social Security and Medicare seem good on the surface but they are the two biggest reasons the country is sliding down a slippery economic slope and there is no way out without major cost to each of us.

When you stack the new health care law on top of this failing pyramid it is sure to colapse.

4) How this will impact the health industry and our health care.
The new law does exactly what it shouldn't do for we individuals. It puts enormous burdens on the health care insurance companies. Oh I'm sure there are some excess profits involved in the industry, but forcing government limits on medical care and not paying an amount to keep the insurance companies afloat will cause slow but sure failure. The end result will be that the government will step in and finally take over the entire health care system. We are then doomed. This is not a dictatorship, but it is rapidly becoming one if you allow the definition of a dictator to be broadened to include the congress and senate. Isn't that what just happened?

The liberal Democrats forced a vote using sneaky rules to put a law in place, one that can't be repealed, against the wishes of the majority of the population including the entire Republican base.

I won't even try to argue if we will have good or bad health care in the long run. What I can promise is if it is good or very good it will simply sink the budget even faster. The only hope to balance the budget will be either to reduce our benefits or heavily tax everyone...oh that seems to be what is already happening isn't it.

This is a disaster and it is like a snowball rolling down hill.

I am of the opinion that the larger the social program put in place the longer it will take to fail. Social Security is a perfect example. It is a Ponzi scheme in the world, and like Madoff's kingdom the bubble will eventually burst. The bursting of the Social Security Ponzi bubble is now upon us.

5) The real cost.
The real cost eventually shows up as such a large amount of our workers paycheck goes to service these three huge failing programs, and the majority of the population works for the government rather than designing, manufacturing and selling products, will cause catastrophic failure of the American government. I will be long dead as I expect this to take two or more decades. My children will experience this collapse. You think the Depression and this Great Recession are bad. They will pale by comparison.

6) Why an alternate plan makes so much more sense.
The plan signed into law this week by President Obama is possibly the worst of all choices. I firmly believe that doing nothing would have been better than this new law. So what would I recommend? A whole new structure to the Health Care system. And there are working examples. Fortunately we are insured and serviced by one such great example. We have Kaiser Permenante.

Kaiser is one very good example of how the government should have begun to massage this country into a working health care system, perhaps without spending one dollar of federal money. It is a highly efficient operation, and good health care, with lower costs than most of the rest of the country. By switching to Kaiser from Blue Cross this year we reduced our medical costs by 22-46% (we won't know until the end of the year). If the whole health care system could cut 22-46% out of health care costs our problems might be solved. Furthermore the way Kaiser works is so pleasant compared to other health care situations.

To the best of my knowledge Kaiser is both a health care insurance company and a health care provider. They use no outside services unless it is the only recourse. It is in their best interest to provide good health care (or else they would lose participants) and to keep costs down. They are in the business of balancing these two sides of the equation. It isn't a case of get what you can from the other side of the operation. There is a strong emphasis on keeping people healthy to save money, and at the same time the care is very good. The entire operation is computerized so every facility I visit has my entire record on their computer terminal. This speeds office visits because I don't have to answer redundant questions. It also means my entire record is visible which reduces the possibility of prescribing conflicting medications. When I leave the doctors office I'm given a printout of all data entry during the visit. All of the doctors, nurses, and aids are at the computer during visits to both keep up with my medications and to enter their diagnosis and any changes to my medical care. Further I can log in from home and view all this data any time I want.

Here is a new thing for me. I can email my doctor. While my previous internist served me well for 20+ years he was old school. No email, no texting, just phone calls and personal visits should I be in the hospital. I can even ask my Kaiser doctor to extend my prescription by phone or email - no office visit in most cases. Kaiser has it's own pharmacy and the doctors electronic prescription is sent immediately. When I show up at the pharmacy there is an overhead digital scroll with my name telling me if my prescription is ready or not, normally it is ready before I arrive. This is a smooth operation.

I have my share of medical issues. I'm a cancer survivor. I have a 10 year history of a heart condition called Atrial Fibrulation so I'm on Coumadin which requires constant monitoring of my blood every couple of weeks. Before joining Kaiser my representative blood tests involved a prescription from my doctor which I would take to an independent lab. The lab had to then contact the doctor by phone to give him the results of the test. The doctor would then call me with an update and perhaps an adjustment to my prescription. Now with Kaiser the lab is part of the local Kaiser office. I just drop in, sign in, they swipe my card. I've given up sitting down in the waiting room because they call me in so quickly there is no time to sit. I'm in the office for perhaps 3-5 minutes total to have my blood drawn. The Kaiser group that oversees my blood thinner then emails me with the results and tells me when to repeat the process. Neat

Why, oh why, did the congress go down the path of implementing rules about health care that isn't their area of expertise when something like a Kaiser example is sitting right here?

Our government is out of control.

Media failure

Many news articles lately wonder about the demise of printed newspapers. Just the very fact that the newspapers and media are somewhat puzzled about this trend is sufficient to explain the problem. They are out of touch with their readers. Readers have moved on and I'm one of them.

Giving up the printed newspaper was very easy. First I never liked the format of the newspaper. It was large and unwieldy to handle and turning pages was a noisy cumbersome problem. Then focus on the front page demanded that a column started there and then continued on some other page forcing me to flip back and forth in this unwieldy format. Further the cost of the newspaper was about 1/2 the cost of my internet which is much more convenient and offers so much more.

A trend that also drives me away from broadcast news, cable news, newspapers, and the radio is this. A single story can so dominate the media reporting that it seems there is nothing else going on in the world. Lately it has been the earthquake in Haiti. I sent in my donation, don't intend to go to Haiti any time soon, don't have any friends or relatives there, am familiar with earthquakes (living in California) and that's the end of it. For days media of all types were flooded with facts that seemed so logical they didn't need to be printed or reported. People were crushed and killed, some people were found alive after many days, food and water are in short supply, many people are going there to help, and shelter is a key challenge for the people. Sorry folks this isn't news. It is the general nature of a major earthquake. Does it need to be reported? Yes. But it shouldn't be the lead story or ONLY story for days on end. You'd think suddenly the earth didn't have a 25 thousand mile circumference or there weren't 6 billion people on the earth. Local, national, international, business and other news is simply pushed aside so the stations can compete using the same single story. They are competing themselves out of a job.

So I turn to the internet allowing me to pick what I think is news. We've stopped delivery of the newspaper, have pretty much given up on TV news, and are relying on the internet for news of all types. Newspapers are trying desperately to figure out how to get paid for their on-line content. Sorry folks but I wouldn't pay for this dribble. If you ask me to pay I'll simply find another alternative or simply stop looking for news. It isn't going to change my life.

Another trend in the recent decade is to report yesterday's news as if it happened today. Somehow the media just has to be working to convince me that they have the latest news and are willing to bend the truth a little to that end. It is common for me to read something on the internet Monday afternoon, then hear it reported on the radio on Tuesday morning as happening "today." As if that wasn't enough they abandon news altogether and turn to speculation.

Now the media is trying to predict what will happen in the business world, politics, and other topics by reaching into the future with so called experts. This isn't news and it dominates the media recently.

Sometimes I long for the days when news didn't travel so fast. Times when it took a day or more for a story to reach the media and be reported. Then it was news because the event had happened, is in the past, and as much detail as necessary for a good story could be compiled without speculation.

Finally I've long been irritated by the celebrity focus on the reporters themselves. I want the news and nothing but the news. The reporters aren't my focus when I am seeking news. I don't care if they had a baby, or got an award (from their own industry that is out of touch with the people), or they went to Cambodia. Often the reporters are just reading copy and don't do any research. Their celebrity status is of their own making and is once again a competitive component that has nothing to do with the news. The only reason to pay attention to the reporter is some have personality matches to mine and some do not. I like Diane Sawyer but despise Barbara Walters - it's just my take, but if I know who is on I can tune in or avoid.

So I'm not surprised newspapers are closing their doors all around the country. They shouldn't be either.

I like a brief overview and UsaToday.com suits me fine, although that site also has some of the above mentioned weaknesses. Yet it is brief and easy to scan for the news I want.

I have to say National Public Radio and American Public Media seem to be the exception in all of this. They don't focus much attention on their reporters, have a wide variety of programs and topics, and being commercial free is such a relief. They do have many of the above listed weaknesses but the incidents are well below the norm. However for years I called NPR "Radio Iraq" for their strong liberal focus on the war in Iraq.

I have to overlook the liberal bent of NPR so I can enjoy the rest of thprogramming. I totally avoid some programming because of that liberal slant. Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr is unbelievably liberal. It turns my stomach and is cause for changing channels or jumping to a different podcast. Daniel Schorr is as liberal as Rush Limbaugh is conservative.

I think I'll send NPR some money.