Thursday, October 27, 2016
How to Select an American President: Give and take, a national culture
How to Select an American President: Give and take, a national culture: Today's news discussion is about the Clinton Foundation and the relationship among fundraising for the non-profit and commercial benefit...
Give and take, a national culture
Today's news discussion is about the Clinton Foundation and the relationship among fundraising for the non-profit and commercial benefits from Clinton participation. It is about the appearance of impropriety and conflicts of interest.
Having devoted much of my career working for government contractors, in and around national politics, I can testify that the American Political System is one of giving and taking. In a capitalist economic society, profit is the driving incentive. Corporations are not in the business of social and environmental responsibility. They are about maximizing economic gain.
Of course, government exists to create an optimal environment in which individuals and their corporations can flourish. Government regulates that performance with constraints that force a degree of social and environmental responsibility. That is accomplished by laws and regulations.
Special interests that include the regulated entities, as well as constituents who benefit from constraints, influence elected representatives who make laws and regulations. Representatives weigh considerations in the balance.
However, when representatives are dependent upon donations of money for their campaigns which come from those who are being regulated, there can be conflicts of interest.
Transparency is one way to mitigate the influence. Restricting donations is another way. As it stands, current practices among non-profits and for-profit corporations are inherent. Integrity and trust are a product of the persons involved.
Having devoted much of my career working for government contractors, in and around national politics, I can testify that the American Political System is one of giving and taking. In a capitalist economic society, profit is the driving incentive. Corporations are not in the business of social and environmental responsibility. They are about maximizing economic gain.
Of course, government exists to create an optimal environment in which individuals and their corporations can flourish. Government regulates that performance with constraints that force a degree of social and environmental responsibility. That is accomplished by laws and regulations.
Special interests that include the regulated entities, as well as constituents who benefit from constraints, influence elected representatives who make laws and regulations. Representatives weigh considerations in the balance.
However, when representatives are dependent upon donations of money for their campaigns which come from those who are being regulated, there can be conflicts of interest.
Transparency is one way to mitigate the influence. Restricting donations is another way. As it stands, current practices among non-profits and for-profit corporations are inherent. Integrity and trust are a product of the persons involved.
"Memo reveals interplay between Clinton Foundation, personal business
By Katie Bo Williams and Jonathan Easley - 10/26/16 08:51 PM EDT"
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/303023-memo-reveals-interplay-between-clinton-foundation-personal-business
Getty and The Hill
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Problems and solutions to affordable healthcare
Where are the candidates on this important issue? Clinton has done her homework; Trump has not.
Sarah Kliff at Vox presents a cogent description for which problems and solutions can be readily identified? The headline remains: 'Health care costs are out of control and on the rise.'
According to the Kliff story, the reason is that insurers underestimated the number of very sick people who were without insurance. When they signed into the system, that created a financial burden that the actuaries did not anticipate.
Here is an important question, why are insurers taking risks about an audience they didn't research to understand? President Obama and his tram have argued that private company insurers should not be in business to outguess the health of its audience. Rather, their profit should come from the profit made on services provided. The services provided by insurance companies is administration and not healthcare.
Remove the risk from the equation to lower costs, should be the aim.
Knowing the wellness of the population is a fact from which healthcare providers can plan and on which they can focus their professional services.
Public policy can address part of the problem. For instance, too many Americans eat improperly and in excess. They fail to get proper exercise. Part of the plan to reduce cost is to focus on prevention.
Solving the problem requires addressing the associated business models and to distinguish between administrative costs and professional healthcare delivery costs.
Read her full report.
"Obamacare's double-digit rate hike explained in 400 wordsUpdated by Sarah Kliff sarah@vox.com Oct 24, 2016, 5:35p
Obamacare premiums are on track to rise faster than ever before in 2017.
The Obama administration released data Monday showing that premiums for midlevel plans will rise, on average, 22 percent between 2016 and 2017.
Yes, that is a huge increase. Last year premiums went up by 7.5 percent.
Premiums are rising on the Obamacare marketplaces largely because the people who signed up for coverage were sicker than the insurance companies expected. This led some health insurers (like Aetna and UnitedHealth) to leave the marketplace. The insurance companies that stayed behind realized they’d have to charge higher premiums to cover their members’ medical bills."
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/24/13394258/obamacare-premiums-hike-explained
Image from Vox article
How to Select an American President: Trump's war on pollsters
How to Select an American President: Trump's war on pollsters: Trump's war on pollsters is just another distraction from his losing the election. A variety of sponsors or hosts conducts polls. Object...
Trump's war on pollsters
Trump's war on pollsters is just another distraction from his losing the election. A variety of sponsors or hosts conducts polls. Objectivity in the process comes from academic standards for the method. Fairness and accuracy come from how the audience is selected. That is, is the sample representative of the entire voting population, in this instance? Are the questions presented in a neutral manner? Is the instrument designed without any bias?
News media report results. News channels reflect the inherent bias of their owners. Professional journalists who work for news media companies are expected to follow standards. However, everyone has a bias, and it is human nature for that the occur.
Some news channels are blatantly biased. For instance, Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch is conservatively biased. While their creed is "Fair and Balanced," Fox is anything but that.
NBC, as another instance, is supposed to protect objectivity. However, it is clearly liberal.
Public Broadcasting is expected to toe the line as being most objective. Their reports often aggregate polls and broadcast the average.
Donald Trump declared that all polls are being manipulated to defeat him. That is simply impossible.
News media report results. News channels reflect the inherent bias of their owners. Professional journalists who work for news media companies are expected to follow standards. However, everyone has a bias, and it is human nature for that the occur.
Some news channels are blatantly biased. For instance, Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch is conservatively biased. While their creed is "Fair and Balanced," Fox is anything but that.
NBC, as another instance, is supposed to protect objectivity. However, it is clearly liberal.
Public Broadcasting is expected to toe the line as being most objective. Their reports often aggregate polls and broadcast the average.
Donald Trump declared that all polls are being manipulated to defeat him. That is simply impossible.
How to Select an American President: Healthcare in America
How to Select an American President: Healthcare in America: If we had a proper presidential debate, time would have been given to addressing the need, problems, and solutions for affordable healthcare...
Healthcare in America
If we had a proper presidential debate, time would have been given to addressing the need, problems, and solutions for affordable healthcare.
The Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare is in full swing and is now up for a review. The current law addresses the need to cover all citizens with "affordable" healthcare. The law is intended to reduce costs while ensuring the uninsured.
Republicans in Congress who did not like the law did nothing to fix it. The reason begins with their idea that people who are uninsured are just out of luck. They ignored the fact that uninsured individuals loaded the emergency rooms and drove up the cost of hospital care for everyone.
Republicans wanted the "private" system to take care of the problem, but it didn't. That is because "for profit" enterprises are not in business to address social responsibility without intervention by the government.
Getting past the first hurdle requires electing representatives to Congress who are not corrupted by capitalism.
Next, addressing the problem of excessively high healthcare costs requires removing excess profit-takers from the system. That is, health insurance providers are paid to insure customers by charging fees for administration plus a profit.
Government solutions aim at reducing or eliminating the profit on administration. Private sector advocates believe that commercial firms can manage more efficiently and for lower costs. That is most debatable.
Healthcare costs in America are too high by international standards. The problem must be addressed by competent elected representatives who are devoted to all constituents. Ignoring the problem without producing a solution is unacceptable.
The Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare is in full swing and is now up for a review. The current law addresses the need to cover all citizens with "affordable" healthcare. The law is intended to reduce costs while ensuring the uninsured.
Republicans in Congress who did not like the law did nothing to fix it. The reason begins with their idea that people who are uninsured are just out of luck. They ignored the fact that uninsured individuals loaded the emergency rooms and drove up the cost of hospital care for everyone.
Republicans wanted the "private" system to take care of the problem, but it didn't. That is because "for profit" enterprises are not in business to address social responsibility without intervention by the government.
Getting past the first hurdle requires electing representatives to Congress who are not corrupted by capitalism.
Next, addressing the problem of excessively high healthcare costs requires removing excess profit-takers from the system. That is, health insurance providers are paid to insure customers by charging fees for administration plus a profit.
Government solutions aim at reducing or eliminating the profit on administration. Private sector advocates believe that commercial firms can manage more efficiently and for lower costs. That is most debatable.
Healthcare costs in America are too high by international standards. The problem must be addressed by competent elected representatives who are devoted to all constituents. Ignoring the problem without producing a solution is unacceptable.
"Obamacare rates will rise by 25% in 2017, US government says
The law known as Obamacare is a key part of the president's legacy
The cost of healthcare insurance in the US under the Affordable Care Act is expected to rise by an average of 25% in 2017, according to the government.
About one in five consumers will also only be able to pick plans from a single insurer, it said.
But it said federal subsidies would also rise, and about 70% of people will find plans for less than $75 (£61) a month.
The healthcare law known as Obamacare is a major part of President Barack Obama's legacy.
The enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 mandated that every American had to purchase private insurance and prohibited insurers from turning away the sick. It also provided subsidies.
But Republicans want to repeal it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37758742
Image from the National Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)