The story is that my great grandfather might not have been a legal citizen and my grandfather who was born in Russia around 1902 had lived in the U.S. since 1904 was almost deported if not for a few well connected friends in Kansas City he might have had to leave for a country that he could not remember. Apparently the final paperwork to make him a naturalized citizen was never filed.
So, I and everyone I know are the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren or themselves an immigrant. I want an aggressive immigration policy that allows the hard working, smartest or wealthiest to immigrate to this country. I cannot imagine crossing an Ocean (in the case of Cubans or Asians and Europeans) or a desert on our southern border by anyone other than a person worthy of living in our country. But why not in a legal manner?
Who benefits from legal immigration?
Unions: There is a smaller pool of people in the country able to work for less than minimum wage.
State & Federal Government: Legal immigrants pay more taxes and use fewer resources of those governments.
Businesses: Certain industries won’t have to play a game of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and create a false benefit to its customers. Much like environmental costs that are not always reflected in the production cost of products if the business dumps chemicals instead of paying for proper disposal, or trees cut down on federal land for less than a fair market price, these always lead to bad information in the market place and disrupts its natural equilibrium. The lower production costs of hiring illegal immigrants are replaced by higher costs in healthcare and the criminal justice system.
Why do they let it continue?
Regular Democrats: Believing they are the party of minority groups, they don’t want to upset any group and loss their vote.
Progressive Democrats: They want as many people to put stress on the systems of the government at the state and federal levels in order to collapse them and force a new socialist model of government.
Regular Republicans: They don’t want to stop the immigration, other than in speech, as they don’t want to be seen as “racist” and to also provide cheap labor to certain big businesses.
Final thought:
I believe the US immigration laws need to promote immigration by the wealthy and those with job skills we need. The rest are for a general labor pool which will increase during years of economic growth and reduced in economic downturns. Work visas based on skills or sponsorship by companies must be the law. I also believe our immigration policies need to be the same as Mexico’s when it comes to “illegal” immigration:
“Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Re-entry, after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Law enforcement officials at all levels, by national mandate, must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. [7]. "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.", Article 16 of the constitution of Mexico, also known as a "citizens arrest".”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Why Chicago was DOA on getting the Olympics
Although certain media outlets are now criticizing mostly conservatives for showing pleasure in Chicago not getting the Olympics and pleasure in knowing it was a failure that damaged President Obama’s reputation, the fate was sealed long before the President’s trip was taken and the mistake was on the administration for not knowing what they were getting in to in the first place.
France and the U.S. have the oldest Olympic Committee’s (est. 1894) and obviously been powerful members. The USOC (United States Olympic Committee) has a sweet deal which gives them 13% of the ad revenue all of the Olympics and the TV deal by NBC wich is worth 5 billion over a 12 year period by itself. The IOC (Int’l Olympic Committee) has a conflict with the USOC because unlike the past where the US was 90% of the ad revenue it is now more like 40%. The USOC is a non-profit and the only non-government committee involved in the Olympics and has to rely on corporate and private donations to run unlike all the other national committees which are supported by their countries governments.
The USOC is made up of corp. exec., sports federations and former Olympic athletes. The USOC is also looking to set up its own network for the Olympics which is contrary to the IOC desires. Dick Ebersol (NBC Sports) was on “Morning Joe” and he indicated that the IOC believed the USOC was incompetent combined with the cash issue of the ad revenue it was going to be impossible for the US to win the 2016 bid.
So, the cards were stacked against Chicago and Oprah, Barack and Michelle traveling to Copenhagen which was a giant waist of time. They have to have been lied to by their “yes” men and the Olympic committee, five minutes with Ebersol would have cleared this up and saved a lot of money in travel and power.
© WithComment.com 2009
France and the U.S. have the oldest Olympic Committee’s (est. 1894) and obviously been powerful members. The USOC (United States Olympic Committee) has a sweet deal which gives them 13% of the ad revenue all of the Olympics and the TV deal by NBC wich is worth 5 billion over a 12 year period by itself. The IOC (Int’l Olympic Committee) has a conflict with the USOC because unlike the past where the US was 90% of the ad revenue it is now more like 40%. The USOC is a non-profit and the only non-government committee involved in the Olympics and has to rely on corporate and private donations to run unlike all the other national committees which are supported by their countries governments.
The USOC is made up of corp. exec., sports federations and former Olympic athletes. The USOC is also looking to set up its own network for the Olympics which is contrary to the IOC desires. Dick Ebersol (NBC Sports) was on “Morning Joe” and he indicated that the IOC believed the USOC was incompetent combined with the cash issue of the ad revenue it was going to be impossible for the US to win the 2016 bid.
So, the cards were stacked against Chicago and Oprah, Barack and Michelle traveling to Copenhagen which was a giant waist of time. They have to have been lied to by their “yes” men and the Olympic committee, five minutes with Ebersol would have cleared this up and saved a lot of money in travel and power.
© WithComment.com 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
That which is right, just and true can still prevail.
"It is simple. You will never forgive yourself. Accept it. You hurt others, many others, that cannot be undone. You will never find personal retribution, but your life does not have to end. That which is right, just and true can still prevail. If you do not fight for what you believe in, all may be lost for everyone else. But do not fight for yourself, fight for others, others that may be saved through your effort. That is the least you can do."
- Teal'c (SG1-"The Arc of Truth)
- Teal'c (SG1-"The Arc of Truth)
Healthcare is mostly socialized already.
If you take Federal, State, Local governments along with Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and V.A. coverage of civilians and veterans nearly 48% of the U.S. population are on a public healthcare program or a private policy funded by public funds through their employment with a government agency.
As to those “uninsured”, many of the 46 million are that way by choice. 18 million (40% of the uninsured) are between 18 and 34 years of age. This group, other than child rearing, have low healthcare costs compared to older Americans and choose to spend their money elsewhere.
17 million (38%) of the “uninsured” have an annual household income of over $50,000.
14 million (31%) of the “uninsured” are eligible for Medicaid or S-Chip but have not enrolled!
12 million or so are illegal immigrants.
Now many of these groups overlap and you get a larger number than 45 million but about 8 million make too much to be on Medicaid, yet need coverage and can’t afford it. This is the target group that the congress and the White house needs to go after. To do that you don’t need to change the whole system which will end up with bad management, I give you:
-Cash for Clunkers
-Most State and Federal deficit explosions for 2009
-Public Education (no competitors) has led to lower test scores and more violence.
-War on Poverty
-War on Drugs
-Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac and all the fallout including:
-TARP (remember it was to buy all the “toxic” assets, which is has yet to do)
-Stimulus Package I (most of the money comes in election year 2010!)
Changes that would help and not hurt would be:
· Doctors & nurses who perform a certain amount of service for free in these clinics will have their student loans reduced and if they full fill a five year contract will have gone to school for free.
· Limits on awards for malpractice suits.
· Companies to make their employees aware of programs like Medicaid & S-CHIP.
· Tax credits for small companies who offer health insurance (public or private)
· A health insurance that is just an addition to the Medicaid system and not an addition.
· Tax credits for individuals who take the plan if not offered through their employer.
· Allow insurance to cross state boarders just like auto insurance.
· Government oversight on reimbursement rates, much like utility companies.
The cost to companies and the public would be minimal and cover those who really do want to get health insurance but cannot afford it.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Part II: Nationalized Healthcare Service at the Clinic Level
There are two tiers to healthcare in the U.S.
The first is the clinic/G.P. doctors. This is the first line of defense against illness and first assessments of the need for hospitalization and long term care. One of the complaints is that people are seeing their doctors for minor health concerns, like colds and common flu, take up time and cost more than just using over the counter solutions. Reimbursements for vaccinations are such that nurses are the ones that usually administrate the shot and perform most of the work, freeing the G.P. for the final review and assess the more complex situations.
The second is the hospital and long term care needs. This is the arena of specialists and the area that per-patient costs are highest. This is where bones are set and life threatening treatments are performed.
The government (Fed or State) have an interest to keep costs under control. I believe that a regulated medical system is needed; however, direct involvement should be kept to a minimum at the hospital & specialist level.
The second approach I believe could work is one were more “free clinic” are available to those without health insurance. Staffing them is always an issue, but I have some ideas on that too. If a person without health insurance comes to a clinic for a non-emergency reason (flu/minor injury) they would have to be means tested. By this I mean that they have to fill out a financial record. Yes, it might be a bit time consuming and I don’t suggest this instead of treatment, but if the “Uninsured” is poor enough then they can sign up for Medicaid. If they have means but their employer doesn’t offer insurance, then a national ins. Policy linked to Medicaid type benefits would be offered but with premiums based on income.
This would be only offered to those currently without insurance.
The first is the clinic/G.P. doctors. This is the first line of defense against illness and first assessments of the need for hospitalization and long term care. One of the complaints is that people are seeing their doctors for minor health concerns, like colds and common flu, take up time and cost more than just using over the counter solutions. Reimbursements for vaccinations are such that nurses are the ones that usually administrate the shot and perform most of the work, freeing the G.P. for the final review and assess the more complex situations.
The second is the hospital and long term care needs. This is the arena of specialists and the area that per-patient costs are highest. This is where bones are set and life threatening treatments are performed.
The government (Fed or State) have an interest to keep costs under control. I believe that a regulated medical system is needed; however, direct involvement should be kept to a minimum at the hospital & specialist level.
The second approach I believe could work is one were more “free clinic” are available to those without health insurance. Staffing them is always an issue, but I have some ideas on that too. If a person without health insurance comes to a clinic for a non-emergency reason (flu/minor injury) they would have to be means tested. By this I mean that they have to fill out a financial record. Yes, it might be a bit time consuming and I don’t suggest this instead of treatment, but if the “Uninsured” is poor enough then they can sign up for Medicaid. If they have means but their employer doesn’t offer insurance, then a national ins. Policy linked to Medicaid type benefits would be offered but with premiums based on income.
This would be only offered to those currently without insurance.
- Doctors & nurses who perform a certain amount of service for free in these clinics will have their student loans reduced and if they full fill a five year contract will have gone to school for free.
- Limits on awards for malpractice suits.
- No companies forced to offer it, except to make their employees aware of the policy.
- Tax credits for small companies who offer health insurance (public or private)
- This health insurance is just an addition to the Medicaid system and not an addition.
- Tax credits for individuals who take the plan if not offered through their employer.
- Allow insurance to cross state boarders just like auto insurance.
- Government oversight on reimbursement rates, much like utility companies.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Part I: Car Ins. vs. Health Ins.
We have a system in place to copy our health insurance after and that is the auto insurance industry. You have insurance to protect you if there is damage to your vehicle, there is a deductible and a maximum coverage. The insurance also covers medical cost for you, any passengers and if it is your fault, the other vehicles driver and passengers. It works well.
If you car needs gas or any maintenance issues, such as oil change or new fuel pump, you pay for them. You don’t turn in a claim to the insurance company for these minor items (There is a company trying to promote a maintenance insurance policy but I would bet it fails). Only in catastrophic situations do you need to file a claim, accident, vandalism or act of nature (hail or flood).
Health insurance use to be this way too. Most early policies covered only hospitalization costs and most other visits to the doctor were paid by the policy holder. My father did not have health insurance when both I and my sister were born. This was 1966 & 1968 and costs were less but the system was the same. My mom saw the doctor multi times for prenatal care and took a check and the doctor’s services were completely paid by the time I was born. The hospital presented a bill after the care and he paid if off over a few months. Why was it cheaper? Because the doctor and hospital knew its patients were not wealthy and their fees were set accordingly.
As health insurance became more common and hospitals and doctors could charge higher rates, they had deeper pockets and lawyers began to file lawsuits and premiums went up for those institutions, who then had to charge even more.
I propose that the “National Healthcare” be hospitalization/major medical coverage. If the people on this insurance have to go to the doctor for routine check-ups, the patient should pay all or the vast majority of the costs (supplemental ins. could be offered). Only if the care is needed in an emergency room or admission to the hospital does the national policy kick in.
This would be only offered to those currently without insurance.
If you car needs gas or any maintenance issues, such as oil change or new fuel pump, you pay for them. You don’t turn in a claim to the insurance company for these minor items (There is a company trying to promote a maintenance insurance policy but I would bet it fails). Only in catastrophic situations do you need to file a claim, accident, vandalism or act of nature (hail or flood).
Health insurance use to be this way too. Most early policies covered only hospitalization costs and most other visits to the doctor were paid by the policy holder. My father did not have health insurance when both I and my sister were born. This was 1966 & 1968 and costs were less but the system was the same. My mom saw the doctor multi times for prenatal care and took a check and the doctor’s services were completely paid by the time I was born. The hospital presented a bill after the care and he paid if off over a few months. Why was it cheaper? Because the doctor and hospital knew its patients were not wealthy and their fees were set accordingly.
As health insurance became more common and hospitals and doctors could charge higher rates, they had deeper pockets and lawyers began to file lawsuits and premiums went up for those institutions, who then had to charge even more.
I propose that the “National Healthcare” be hospitalization/major medical coverage. If the people on this insurance have to go to the doctor for routine check-ups, the patient should pay all or the vast majority of the costs (supplemental ins. could be offered). Only if the care is needed in an emergency room or admission to the hospital does the national policy kick in.
This would be only offered to those currently without insurance.
No companies forced to offer it, except to make their employees aware of the policy.
Tax credits for small companies who offer health insurance (public or private)
This health insurance is just an addition to the Medicaid system and not an addition.
Tax credits for individuals who take the plan if not offered through their employer.
Allow insurance to cross state boarders just like auto insurance.
Government oversight on reimbursement rates, much like utility companies.
Limits on awards for malpractice suits.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The "Big" 3: The death of what was America
General Motors (GM): Founded 9/16/1908 as a holding company for Buick and over the next 2 years took on Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Pontiac and began GMC Trucks. Ironically William Durant lost ownership control after the collapse of new vehicle sales, regained control after starting Chevrolet, however, ultimately lost it for good after another slump in sales.
Chrysler (C): Founded 6/6/1925 from the ashes of the "Maxwell-Chalmers" company. In 1928 Plymouth was introduced along with DeSoto. By 1930 Dodge had been acquired. The last major name picked up by Chrysler was Jeep in 1987. In 1979 a 1.5 billion dollar loan was guaranteed to avoid bankruptcy. They sold off parts of the company that were profitable but not part of their core industry. In a few years they paid back the loan plus 300 million in interest to the U.S. government.
Ford (F): Founded 6/13/03 by Henry Ford with $28,000 and twelve investors. For a large chunk of Ford's existence it was a family owned business and is believed to be the most sound of the 3 auto makers.
All of the automakers have their own finance companies to help customers buy their product; they all also own auto parts retail outlets and have partnerships in all of the major countries around the world. Their size and depth in not only the U.S.,but the world economy, is very impressive. The effects of their bankruptcys are not limited to just the auto workers. Between these 3 some 20 millionvehicles are sold yearly and the market could not handle this shortfall.
This would create a shortage and thus increase the profits of those still making vehicles and what will probably happen is the Japanese and Chinese auto companies would buy up the best sellers of the American auto makers. They will not move them overseas as the costs still justify U.S. based manufactures, however, the unions will be weaker and those that have been on retirement plans will have to find other sources of income.
If that is the ultimate outcome, why not just do it now. By allowing them to dump the union contract, drop some model lines and probably combine Chrysler into some of Ford and GM the government can assure that automakers based in the U.S. still exist, just in case we need them for national security issues in the future. A temporary loan to allow this process to occur is justified and needed. Those Senators who voted against a plan just because Nissan has plants in their state are too short sighted in their thinking. That thinking would allow a no vote on aid to flood victims in the mid-west, or earthquakes in the west, hurricanes in the south, or terrorist acts in the north-east. We are still the "United States" and should act like it.
© WithComment.com 2008
Chrysler (C): Founded 6/6/1925 from the ashes of the "Maxwell-Chalmers" company. In 1928 Plymouth was introduced along with DeSoto. By 1930 Dodge had been acquired. The last major name picked up by Chrysler was Jeep in 1987. In 1979 a 1.5 billion dollar loan was guaranteed to avoid bankruptcy. They sold off parts of the company that were profitable but not part of their core industry. In a few years they paid back the loan plus 300 million in interest to the U.S. government.
Ford (F): Founded 6/13/03 by Henry Ford with $28,000 and twelve investors. For a large chunk of Ford's existence it was a family owned business and is believed to be the most sound of the 3 auto makers.
All of the automakers have their own finance companies to help customers buy their product; they all also own auto parts retail outlets and have partnerships in all of the major countries around the world. Their size and depth in not only the U.S.,but the world economy, is very impressive. The effects of their bankruptcys are not limited to just the auto workers. Between these 3 some 20 millionvehicles are sold yearly and the market could not handle this shortfall.
This would create a shortage and thus increase the profits of those still making vehicles and what will probably happen is the Japanese and Chinese auto companies would buy up the best sellers of the American auto makers. They will not move them overseas as the costs still justify U.S. based manufactures, however, the unions will be weaker and those that have been on retirement plans will have to find other sources of income.
If that is the ultimate outcome, why not just do it now. By allowing them to dump the union contract, drop some model lines and probably combine Chrysler into some of Ford and GM the government can assure that automakers based in the U.S. still exist, just in case we need them for national security issues in the future. A temporary loan to allow this process to occur is justified and needed. Those Senators who voted against a plan just because Nissan has plants in their state are too short sighted in their thinking. That thinking would allow a no vote on aid to flood victims in the mid-west, or earthquakes in the west, hurricanes in the south, or terrorist acts in the north-east. We are still the "United States" and should act like it.
© WithComment.com 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)