We have said earlier that bos Trump is a master tactition. Jane Goodall, who has studied apes for a lifetime recently published comments about Trump that mirror this view, while comparing him to an ape. Indeed many others have pointed to the astonishing similarity in appearance. But he was born such, and can’t be criticized for how he was born.

Instead, we are interested in the similarities of behavior. Apes depend for their survival on tactics. Trump is a master tactitian. The evolution of homo sapiens and other advanced mammals, such as dolphins, depended on developing strategic thinking. The ability to think strategically is dependent to a large extent on the condition of one’s brain. There is a quality of objectivity in assessing ones’ social and physical context which is required for optimal survival. . We maintain that Trumps’ emotional condition mitigates against having sufficient situational objectivity to be or stay in the “right ballpark” as it were. In simple words, there is something not quite “right” here. 

Perhaps it is the combination of his daily uptake of drugs, like finasteride, combined with the preceding  mental illness of Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Fortunately (or unfortunately for Trump) being the president of the USA exposes one to a lot of scrutiny, and ones’ flaws and excesses, let alone mental illnesses, becomes really impossible to hide. As time passes these will be increasingly  obvious to all onlookers.  And in borrowing one of our subjects’ oft used language tactics, (persuasion experts call it appealing to ” social proof”) “everyone is saying ” yes indeed, everyone will be saying that “the emperor has no clothes”.

On this date 11/12/17, after monitoring Trump’s fast receding  approval rating, it has become apparent that more and more Americans are catching on to the fact that they have been hoodwinked by Trump. We have tried to make a contribution to our beloved America by writing this blog. We worry a little about the cognitive dissonance drag. This occurs when one is strongly opinionated while challenged by evidence that they were misled, misinformed, or simply made a bad choice. We humans don’t like to think that we make mistakes. So we find ways to deny the evidence. But eventually additional emerging evidence just becomes too overwhelming  for even the most stubbornly held beliefs to be retained. At least we hope so.

Please email us if you feel we can make improvements with our blog: [email protected]

There are thousands of people being punished for crimes not nearly as appalling as those that may have been committed by Arpaio. His sentence was just 6 months, and it was merely for contempt of court. Yet he perpetrated much suffering on his defenseless victims.

Might thousands now jailed have an equal or better claim for pardon deservedness than Arpaio?

The pardon was timed and announced under cover of a national emergency thereby drawing attention away from itself (the president’s own admission).  .Is this a transparent and amateurish strategy accompanied by timeworn tactics?

Can you imagine a world where Trump’s followers are enabled to commit crimes with the promise, if caught and convicted, of a pardon?

The president’s announced willingness to put up lawsuit defense money, while encouraging illegal violence on protestors, during his campaign, was an early warning sign..

And now Trump doesn’t even have to put up his own money!

Trump is on record for having queried about presidential pardon applicability for himself. The question for now is, can pardon be granted to collaborators who commit crimes fashioned to protect the president?

Is this “brown shirt” stuff we are beginning to see? Might it lead to anarchy? What will be the price for resisters? Is there  a plan? Are the dots connecting?

We welcome your feedback.

Some of Trumps’ republican endorsers are still touting Trump Care (this from House Republican, Joe Wilson yesterday at a town hall)

“By having the ability of buying insurance across state lines, association health plans and by increasing the ability of health savings accounts, we would provide choice that Obamacare simply has not presented,” Wilson explained. “And it wouldn’t impact employment, it would give them more choice as well.”

But many in the crowd didn’t appear to buy it, heckling and interrupting the Republican congressman as he tried to speak.

House Republicans across the country, particularly those from rural districts, are facing similar situations this week as they return home from Washington, D.C., for a two-week break.”

This concept, of enabling insurers to sell in any state, that is, across state lines, is a favorite concept for Trump as it enables competition, a panacea for republican idealoques, who think that it would somehow help or solve high health insurance cost. What it demonstrates is a tendency to rigidly adhere to prevalent free market, ideology. And it does sound logical. But it simply demonstrates profound ignorance.

Why?

Years ago, health insurance was generally provided by insurers who did frequently cut across state lines. And the insurance was pretty simple. You paid the health insurance company a premium and when you had a claim, you submitted it to them and they would pay it according to their contract. Often  they didn’t pay the full claim, as many claims exceeded what insurers called the “reasonable and customary” limits. In that universe, insurance premiums incessantly increased, year over year, approaching unafordability.

Than, an old concept started to regain popularity, and that was the HMO (Health Maintenance Organization). These organizations started and grew networks of doctors and hospitals who agreed to serve “members” which were the insureds, and they were initially paid a fixed fee based on the headcounts of the members in the network, divided by the  number of doctors and hospitals who joined the network. The key to this was that the networks were clustered around where the bulk of the insureds were living and working. These networks were effectively “insuring” themselves, in that the HMO was really an agreement with regional health providers to provide medical services in return for a fixed monthly fee.

This concept caught on, as it worked remarkably well to lower costs, as employer groups found that they could cover the health needs of their employees at a lower cost than the more traditional system of health insurance. Individuals too were able to buy into these networks. It also was convenient because folks didn’t have to bother with submitting claim forms and rarely had to worry about reasonable and customary claim limits.

For a period of years health insurance premiums paid to these networks was considerably lower than traditional health insurance. It really was a panacea compared to traditional health insurance.

One critical aspect of this system was that health insurance itself became more community based, that is, the health networks that were formed were regional, and generally state oriented. The networks were where their members were.  Anyone would want their doctor close to where they lived and worked. And even now, that is how much of our health insurance works.

For a health insurer to be able to sell in any state without restriction would depend, for its success,  on it forming the same kind of provider network that already exists with a competitor in that state. And why would those doctors and hospitals give that new insurer a better deal, that is, sell their services for less money than their current relationship provides?

One supposes that a now out of state health insurance company could “rent” a network existing in the state it wishes to sell in, basically renting it from another insurer who already had formed a network. And why would that “rent” be lower than the actual cost already being incurred by the pre-existing insurer?

So the idea that health insurers being allowed to sell across state lines would somehow lower premiums is only a canard. In fact, insisting on that idea demonstrates profound ignorance of how our health insurance now works. (this shouldn’t surprise anyone, as so many Trump ideas have been equally absurd).

The other idea being touted as a panacea by Trump is the idea of health savings accounts (HSA’s). An HSA allows folks to put aside funds in a tax deductible account to be used in conjunction with a health insurance plan that has a high front end deductible: Explanation through Kiplinger:

“As of 2015, adults with plans featuring deductibles of $1,300 for individuals or $2,600 for families can contribute to a health savings account. For eligibility to be ensured, the policy must make everything subject to the same deductible; for example, the policy cannot have a separate deductible for prescriptions or preventative care, notes Kiplinger.

The maximum contribution to an HSA for individuals is $3,350 or $6,650 for families, reports Kiplinger. If someone in the home is age 55 or older, there’s an additional $1,000 on the contribution cap. Contributions are made pretax when made through an employer, and they are tax-deductible for self-employed taxpayers. The money in the HSA can be used for medical expenses only. Contributions for the tax year must be made by April 15 the following year. HSAs are offered by many different banks and firms; taxpayers can open their accounts anywhere as long as their health insurance policies make them eligible for the account.”

Now the idea of health savings accounts works fairly well for healthy people, anticipating some far off rainy day. But any visit to a doctor or hospital, as well as a chronic illness,  can quickly diminish the value of a health savings account or zero it out entirely.  Moreover, if you examine the premium cost for the high deductible health insurance plan portion, and combine it with the accompanying savings account deposits, the total cost, if you get sick (even a minor illness) is substantially comparable to a fully insured plan, and in many cases more. What you also have created in an HSA is a disincentive to go to the doctor, because the front end deductible, which is paid out of one’s own money, is so high.  Finally, if you are not a well person, the HSA is not only not going to save you money, it will cost you more..

If you are a well, physically fit, active, young person in particular, the HSA is not unappealing. And thus the attraction of these kind of insureds to HSAs  create the phenomena of adverse selection. The health insurance companies receive less premium money from them, meaning that they have to increase premiums on everyone to cover the older and sicker insureds who are making more frequent and large medical claims and using more pharmaceuticals. It is like pushing on a string.

In one of our posts we talked about the real reason for constant increases in health insurance premiums, and it is quite simple. People get sick, chronic sicknesses, in particular metabolic syndrome disorders, such as diabetes and heart disease, as well as cancers, dementia, depression, anxiety, etc., are running rampant in American society, and these illnesses are being addressed by very expensive drugs and extreme and costly treatments. And more often than not, these treatments don’t cure anything, meaning that the medical costs are not one-offs.

Sick people are too often becoming lifetime victims of treatments that fail to make them healthy.

Worse, when they retire, they roll off into Medicare, which is itself in dire straights.

Talk about the high cost of medical insurance too often misses these salient, though obvious,  points.

 

News Release

“The amendment that the Rules Committee approved Thursday afternoon on a party-line vote would set up a federal insurance pool for those with serious and expensive medical conditions such as cancer, congestive heart failure and AIDS. The fund is intended to subsidize coverage for patients with those serious preexisting conditions to lower premiums for healthier patients”

Since this idea subsidizes, in full(?), what the industry now considers “catastrophic illness” the effect will be socializing all these ensuing claims. No one knows what restrictions would be placed on claim costs (like life saving but expensive surgery, transplants, costly drugs, etc.)

One wonders, in any case, if it could pass muster with enough republicans, and whether the dems will be  happy  with the details (with Trump, the devil will always be in the details, details well disguised to  get by the public while creating good  talking points).

Fortunately, the dems know that by now. It’s downhill from here.

The Trump EPA under Secretary Price overturned the Obama era ban on Chlorpyrifos. What is Chlorpyrifos? PAN Pesticides Database: Toxicity, Chemicals of Concern

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Bad Actor PesticidesIn order to identify a “most toxic” set of pesticides, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) created the term PAN Bad Actor pesticides. These pesticides are at least one of the following: Known or probable carcinogens, as designated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), U.S. EPA, U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the state of California’s Proposition 65 list. Reproductive or developmental toxicants, as designated by the state of California’s Proposition 65 list. Neurotoxic cholinesterase inhibitors, as designated by California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Materials Safety Data Sheet for the particular chemical, or PAN staff evaluation of chemical structure (for organophosphorus compounds). Known groundwater contaminants, as designated by the state of California (for actively registered pesticides) or from historic groundwater monitoring records (for banned pesticides). Pesticides with high acute toxicity, as designated by the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. EPA, or the U.S. National Toxicology Program. In 2000, PAN and CPR published Hooked on Poison: Pesticide Use in California 1991-1998, a report on trends in pesticide use in California with a particular focus on Bad Actor pesticides used in California. About the Data: Accuracy, currency, comprehensiveness and source Data for PAN Bad Actors come from official lists of chemicals with certain toxicity properties. The available lists are generally accurate and up-to-date. However, because many chemicals have not yet been thoroughly evaluated, these lists cannot be considered comprehensive. New chemicals will be added as they are listed in the official source lists. References: See individual toxicant categories (acute toxins, carcinogens, etc.) for data sources. Top of page

We now have a Finisteride president

“Ninety-Four million Americans are out of the labor force” declared President Trump in his speech last night, as if to justify his coming awful actions on immigration and who knows what else? By the way, we understand that the script (yes it was only a speech) was crafted by his two lieutenants, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, both also masters of deception and NLP (Neuro-Linquistic Programing).

What Trump didn’t say is that statistic includes all people 16 years or older (that is high school and college students) and all non-working housewives, retirees, seasonal workers who are off season and not looking for work, basically everyone over 16 who is not working and not looking for work.

So the grim numbers, the ridiculously exaggerated numbers, intended to deceive, were no doubt the backdrop for the promotion of extreme policies that will ultimately permit him and his minions to achieve their now hidden intentions. What are these intentions? They are hidden from view in the minds of Trump, Bannon and Miller . If you want to understand them, we recommend following the money and studying the pathways to power utilized by past oligarchs and autocrats. The American future is going to be about power and money, but alas not our power and not our money.

 

When I was a little kid I became obsessed with the idea that if I had really strong suspenders I could jump really high and maybe even fly. Well that didn’t work. And that is the real reason health care plan fixes and Obamacare modifications wouldn’t work either.

We are in a pickle with health care, and President Trump is another galaxy  away from understanding that.

For as long as memory serves me, health insurance premiums have been in an upward spiral, regularly leading every component of the cost of living index. No mystery here, these premiums were simply keeping up with the incessant cost uptrend in primarily treating chronic illnesses and with end of life care. It was simple to predict, even twenty years ago, that there was an unsustainability to future health care spending.

Perhaps it was futile for Obama to attempt to fix healthcare, or some part of it.. The law attempted to bridge two central issues, one, the plight of the uninsured and uninsurable, and two, to redirect people to be healthier by incentivizing preventative care, which is why that kind of care is not subject to a deductible..

There were also provisions, which Trump and republicans don’t  talk about, capping insurance company profits to 15% of the plans’ premium cost.  This included administration, sales and marketing costs, etc. Thus, whatever premium increases we see in Obamacare pretty much reflect the claims experience of the insurers and the insureds. We did note that the new, though withdrawn (really failed), Trumpcare proposal, increased insurer’s profit to 20% (an enormous 33% increase). We also wondered how many Trumpster insiders recently purchased health insurer companies, such as Aetna, in there non-blinded or affiliated investment accounts.

Any program requiring insurance companies to accept all comers had to address the issue of adverse selection against them if pre-existing conditions are waived.. Thus, Obamacare can only work if adverse selection is mitigated by the requirement for everyone who doesn’t elect to have health insurance, or doesn’t get it through employers, Medicare, or Medicaid,  pay a tax  penalty.  But what if they can’t afford to enroll? Presto,, tax credits to help them pay the premium.

Indeed, one could say that Obamacare’s premium increases are not due to anything but that people are sick and becoming sicker,  because even people who did not have pre-existing conditions are quite often not in thriving health,. and modern medicine is expensive.

Our healthcare system, alas,  is not broken, as some say. Rather, our healthcare system is based on the oft reinforced false premise that major chronic illnesses are not primarily self caused and can be effectively addressed by pharmaceuticals and other extraordinary (and costly) treatments..The heck with good diet, exercise, and healthful lifestyles.