The Affordable Health Care Act

I have tried to avoid this one as I strive to stay out of the emotion filled political issues and instead look at other issues like my last post on Medicare but as I finished writing that one, I received some information in the mail from Blue Cross that I felt had to be commented upon.

I received a package entitled “Health Care Reform is Coming”. It does on to state - Health care Reform will be different for everybody. (I thought it was going to equalize everybody.) So here it is. (I am adding my comments in a different color so you can tell the difference between what they said and what I say)”

Some of the benefits already existed, so new or expanded benefits are listed in bold:

• Ambulatory Patient Services
• Emergency Services
• Hospitalization
• Maternity and newborn care not automatically covered.
• Increased benefits for mental health and substance use disorder services including behavioral health treatment.
• Prescription drugs.
• Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
• Laboratory services.
• Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management.
• Pediatric services including oral and vision care.

< So if I am not insane (hope not), just born or a child (hah), or expecting a child (blow my brains out at this point in life), then I really don't get anything. >

Additionally, all new health care compliant plans now have an annual cap on out of pocket expenses (estimated $6350 for single and $12,700 for family).

< Oh joy! $12,700 is all I will have to spend out of pocket AFTER I pay for the premiums! With premiums close to $1000 a month now and $12,700 out of pocket I won't have to worry about house payments or groceries anymore! Get real who can afford $24,00 a year in insurance premiums AND out of pocket expenses? I thought this was the Affordable Heath care Act, not the Run Them into Bankruptcy Act. More on money and premiums and money in a moment. >

Terms defined:

Federal Poverty Level (FPL) – A measure of income level (by family size) that determines eligibility for premium tax credits. For example, a family of four that makes less than $94,200 a year may be eligible for help.

< Moment is here. $94,200 is poverty level for a family for four!!??? It that is poverty I am buried in poverty. The news reported the other day that the average (not median) income in this country is approximately $55,000 a year. That means before taxes half the people in this country earn less than $55,000. After taxes that means half this country has a take home of about $38,500. now subtract the $12,000 on insurance premiums and the $12,700 in out of pocket expenses and you have about $13,800 to live on (food, gas at $4/gal, house note or rent, etc.). If you make less than the average income as half the country does, then you have serious problems. >

Premium Tax Credits – These will be made available to low and middle-income Americans and applied to health insurance premiums. Cost Sharing Reductions will limit a plan's maximum out-of-pocket costs.

< If poverty for a family of four is $94,200 a year, then what on earth is low to middle income? Low must be $100,000 - $150,000 and middle income must be $150,000 - $250,000 a year. Nice to know they will be helped also. Does anybody know the Great Recession is still impacting so many Americans? We cannot afford this! >

What Are My Options?

One of the things you will need to do is determine if you have a grandfathered plan (which refers to health insurance plans that were in effect prior to March 23, 2010).

< So if you changed jobs or got a new plan after that date, you will be forced to change with no options! >

If you have a grandfathered plan:

You have flexibility. If you like your current plan you can stay with it. For many people, this will be the best course of action because it may be the least expensive option.

< Key words here: Least expensive option. Meaning the new Affordable Health Care Act will cost more than anything we have now. I thought this initiative was to help people have insurance that could not afford it. This sounds like if you can't afford it now, you really won't be able to afford it later!! >

You may still qualify for a premium tax credit that can be applied to health insurance premiums; however, premium tax credits cannot be applied to your current grandfathered plan. It may be in your best interest financially to stay with your grandfathered plan.

< In other words, it is going to be really expensive. The tax credits will NOT begin to cover the additional cost and you better stay with the grandfathered plan. BUT WAIT, what about those that did not have their existing plan on March 23, 2010? What if you moved or got a new job or some other way had a life change that moved you to a new plan? Buckle up, here it comes! >

Once you leave a grandfathered plan, you cannot go back to it!

< Oh, so if your children grow up and move out or you get a new job, you have no choice, you will be forced to move to this new insurance coverage!! >

If you do not have a grandfathered plan:

We will automatically move you to a 2014 BCBS health care reform compliant plan that most closely matches your current plan. Your new plan will look a lot like what you have today. You always have the option to change this plan during the annual open enrollment period.

< Really? Really? When is the last time your insurance plan or anybody else changed you to a new plan or anything that was better for you? I had a friend that had a computer replaced under warranty with the assurance that it would be as good as or better than the one it replaced but they got no say so in what it would be like. Well, let's just say they would up buying a new computer as it was so unusable. Among other things it was supposed to be for a female to carry to class. They had a 15 inch laptop and got a 17 inch thing that weighed 10 pounds (literally 9.6). The point is if you believe you insurance company is going to move you to a plan that will cost about the same and have the same basic coverage, I have property in the Florida swamps to sell you and a bridge in Brooklyn also. >

< My Bottom Line: It appears one of the largest financial disasters this country has ever experienced is about to happen. This will be so much more than the dot com bust in 2000 or the housing bust, or the Great Recession. I don't want to sound like a fear monger as I typically heat that but when I look at the numbers ($94,200 poverty line, $12,000 for health care premiums currently with significant increase to happen according to the insurance companies, and $12,700 out of pocket expenses, I don't see how the working class will survive. I suggest you get you application in now for government housing, food stamps, and welfare. The line forms to the rear, don't get caught short. >  

** Update: The news reports that the government has allowed business a one year exemption to the Affordable Health Care Act. If business have a one year exemption, why can't individuals get a one year exemption? (or more). If businesses don't have to provide the coverage the plan requires, does that mean that the employees will now have to buy it out of pocket like so many others? This doesn’t help matters, it only puts more of a burden on the people.

The Act has already hurt so many people by encouraging companies to limit their workers to 30 hours a week or less. If you don't believe this, go talk to anybody that has tried to get a job or has gotten one in the last few years. Odds are they are at 30 hours a week or less. 

Medicare and the Donut Hole

And Now a Word about Medicare and the Donut Hole 

For those of you approaching 60 +, here is something you need to know about. This comes from one of my readers down south in North Carolina (how do you people stand it down there with all that humidity?) They work at firm in conjunction with a pharmaceutical firm and they submitted this for my consideration and it is something we all should now about in life (what this blog is about - Thoughts on life of whatever nature)

For those of you approaching that age where Medicare may become part of your life, you need to know about the Donut Hole. Insurance for Medicare (Like AARP) Part D has four levels. Deductible, Initial, Coverage Gap (the Donut Hole), and Catastrophic. (I am not going into Part B etc as that is not the focus today). This discussion ONLY covers Prescription Drugs, not any other medical coverage.

Phase 1 Deductible - When you start using Medicare Part D , the Deductible Phase is exactly what it sounds like, you have a deductible to meet. Some plans do not charge a deductible. Easy enough.

Phase 2 Initial - When you meet your deductible (assuming you had one) you enter the Initial Phase. At that point you simply pay the copay. The copay depends upon whether the prescription is Brand or Generic and its Tier. No need to explain Brand vs. Generic but a word about Tiers. Tiers are levels that the insurance company sets. Simple relatively inexpensive drugs are Tier 1. Higher tier drugs such as 2, 3, and 4 are more expensive. You don't want to know about Tier 5 and 6, really, some plans don't even cover them.

Phase 3 The Coverage Gap ( aka The Donut Hole) - BUT as you go along, at some point you will look down and notice that the copay for that prescription suddenly jumped anticlimactically – as in doubled!! You walk up to the pharmacist and want to know WHAT HAPPENED? Why is my copay doubled? (My source deals with these calls all the time from insurance members and pharmacists trying to confirm the Donut Hole) . The Pharmacist makes a call (to somebody like my reader) and they look up your information and confirm it to the Pharmacist and they tell you you are in the Coverage Gap or Donut hole. WHAT THE #%^ is that??

The Coverage Gap (Don't ask why it is called the Donut Hole as nobody seems to know but the terms is widely know throughout the industry.) is when the amount of money spent by you AND the insurance plan reaches $2970.00 for 2013) The amount of money BOTH of you have spent is called your TDE or Total Drug Expenditure. It is IMPORTANT to note, it is the Total of what you AND the insurance company have spent for your prescriptions for the year to date.

When you reach that point, you pay approximately half the cost of the drug. That is how my reader and Pharmacists have a hint you are in the Donut Hole, the copay doubled from what it was.

4. Catastrophic Phase - The next and last Phase is the Catastrophic Phase. This means you finances are a catastrophe and you are just about broke from prescription bills. When you get into the Catastrophic Phase you pay 5% of the Cost of Approved cost of the medicine with a minimum usually of $2.65 for generic and $6.65 for Brand name medicine. Sound good right? Well, some medicines cost $6500 for a three month supply so your copay is still $325 or more. He tells me one drug not covered yet by insurance costs $1500 for a three month supply!!

IMPORTANT (as in the point of all this) So how do you get from the Coverage Gap (Donut Hole) to Catastrophic with the lower copays? (You aren't going to like this.) You get out of the Donut Hole when your TROOP (Total Out OF Pocket) expenses reach $4970 (for 2013). Sounds Ok, $4970 - $2950 = HOLD ON!!! BAD MATH!!. You go into the Donut Hole based upon your TDE which is BOTH your money and the Insurance Plan's money. BUT getting OUT is based SOLEY upon YOUR Money! So when your TDE reaches say $3000, you are in the Donut Hole but your Troop at that moment may only be $450.00 WAIT you mean all that TDE doesn’t count?? That's right. Only YOUR money spent counts. This means you have a long way to go until YOU SPEND $4970 OUT OF YOUR POCKET!! (You may now put the nitro pill under your tongue).

The reader reports people reaching the Donut Hole will start ordering their medicine based not upon what they do but upon cost. I.E. they buy several inexpensive ones but don't buy the expensive ones like heart medicine until next month or later. (Dumb but sometimes all one can do). They report one lady told them that a customer said that when they reach the Donut Hole, it is like playing Russian Roulette ordering which prescription to get each month.

So what can you do about all this? First, simply knowing what will happen helps. Second when you go to get a Medicare Supplement, ask about coverage in the Donut Hole (You may want to say Coverage Gap as Insurance agents are not as familiar with the term. They just sell it).

One tip my reader gives us. Your Medicare resets every year on January first. This means that toward the end of the year, like in November through December, you want don't want to order refills that extend over into January other than a few days IF you are in the Coverage Gap. Coverage Gap people can order a 60 day supply on November 1 or a 30 day supply on December 1. This minimizes the impact of the Coverage Gap on you pocket. In January you will have to meet your deducible if you have one but almost anything beats the Coverage Gap.

At that point, Good Luck.

Marriage – The Government – The Future.

Well, I meant to get this written before the Supreme Court Ruled but time hasn't permitted lately but that doesn’t mean it hasn't been on my mind. Also I hope people will think about what I write and not just respond with inflammatory and emotional rhetoric.

As we undergo the media hoopla, some important things we need to remember. As the Christian community bemoans the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, they must remember that the church actually does not control the right to marry people. Marriage is authorized by the government. For you married folks out there, remember back at the end of the ceremony when the minister or officiant said something to the effect, “By the authority vested in me by the state of ******, I now pronounce you man and wife. The government authorizes your marriage. Remember the key elements to a marriage are (!) both parties say “I Do”, (2) the Officiant says “You are”, and (3) THE LICENSE IS SIGNED AND RECORDED IN THE COURTHOUSE.

The state / federal government (actually the state more than the federal) sanctions marriage as well as divorce. Proof that the government controls marriage is shown by the fact only the state can authorize a divorce. People are divorced in court, not in church. Also the government controls who can perform the ceremony. This is shown in the marriage of X-Men / Star Trek Next Generation's Patrick Stewart. The officiant at the ceremony will be Ian McKellan ( X-Men / Hobbit - Gandalf) From Time Entertainment "McKellen won’t need to add “Father” before his “Sir”: although many people who perform weddings for friends do so by becoming ministers through the Universal Life Church, that step is unnecessary in Massachusetts, where McKellen said the wedding would take place. The Bay State offers a “one day marriage designation” that, for $25 and a character reference, allows any friend or family member of the couple to legally perform a wedding.” (http://entertainment.time.com/2013/03/19/sir-ian-mckellen-to-marry-sir-patrick-stewart-no-not-like-that/)

Other evidence of the fact marriage is controlled by the government and not the church, Justice of the Peace' perform marriage ceremonies and they are not ordained church people.

One important thing about he Supreme Court ruling is that it does not ram gay marriage down the church's throat so to speak. Churches have the right to decide within their denominational structure if they will or will not perform the ceremony. The Federal government cannot actually force state to do as much as we think. Remember when the federal government made the speed limit 55 mph (who can forget?) Some states wanted to keep the speed limit at 70 mph. The response from the Federal government was basically to the effect, We can't make you set the speed limit at 55 mph but if you don't we will withdraw all federal highway funding. Federal funding is like an addictive drug that once the state is “hooked on and can't live without, then the federal government can demand their way or threaten to withdraw the money the state can't function without. This is why the federal government cannot demand churches marry gay people (despite what some emotional people have said.). The only leverage the government has to exert its will upon the churches is via the tax exemption (and the threat to remove it) on church property and operations and that is at the state level.

Some church denominations will decide for the entire denomination. Other denominations will allow each church to decide although the denomination will exert “influence and pressure” on the individual churches to follow along with their views. (Again like the government, they can “withdraw support” and other things to exert their will.

One side note concerning church weddings. There is no outline for a Biblical church wedding. Nowhere in the Bible does it outline how a wedding is performed or the words to use. Ministers have books reflecting the wording used within their denomination but the Bible itself does not tell us the words to use. God seems to be more concerned about people taking marriage seriously more than how we do it. Examining passages such as Genesis 11:29 and 24:67 show marriage but not how. Apparently they were married according to the local custom of the time. I do not want to get into the issues of early Bible times with men having multiple wives, that is best left for another time, but the issue is, God intended marriage in whatever form to be taken seriously. Sad to say, some, many of those bemoaning gay marriage are not in line in their own lives in terms of marriage. I guess you are a literalist until it become inconvenient to your own situation, then the its ok to bend the rules. But I digress so that is all I will say, reflect on it.

Another side issue to marriage and the church. Ever wonder why so many people are not getting married in churches anymore? Increasingly couples are having ceremonies performed at other venues. In addition to not having a church minister perform the ceremony, people are getting married in other venues such as restaurants, barns etc. It is amazing the number of entrepreneurs that have constructed theme sites dedicated to weddings. I have witnessed church almost torn apart because the granddaughter of a long standing member of the church wanted to play a lovely country song at their wedding. (It was very nice and appropriate in my opinion). But the powers that be committee ruled no secular music or songs could be played. (Amazing fact – there is no such thing as Christian music, it is the words that define it, not the music.) Funny thing is so many churches allow “The Wedding Song” by Peter Stookey (of Peter, Paul, and Mary fame) even though it is secular. It is a secular song with definite religious wording. In fact it is difficult to actually define church music. The nearest I could find to defining church music is it must be found in the church hymnal. (Which one doesn't seem to matter.)

My Bottom Line – If I was licensed, ordained, had the permit from Massachusetts, or whatever, would I perform a gay marriage? No. Sorry but that is my choice. I have gay friends who I think the world of but if I was a officiant, for now I would not do the ceremony, I hope everyone can accept that as both sides need to have understanding of the other. I do exhort the Christian community that is so upset about gay marriage to reexamine their role in this world. Their task is not to condemn others but to help others in relationship to God through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The Future - ?

Even now as I watch the news, conflicting reports about the impact on California's Proposition 8 abound but the future is clear. As the number of states grows, the number of problems will grow in terms of people who are married in one state and not married when they move to another state. Eventually it will go to the courts and inevitably, like it or not, marriages recognized in one state will be recognized in all states.

The issue of gay marriage is a civil matter to be determined by the courts, not by the churches. The government cannot force the churches to perform gay marriages but the church has no say on if gay marriages can be performed. It is not their jurisdiction. Years ago when most weddings were done in a church, except for a few Justice of the Peace ceremonies, most people considered marriage ceremonies the domain of the church. Now we see that weddings are the domain of the government.

I hope this post will generate some honest discussion and not glib same old cliques.

Aren't All People Created Equally with the Same Rights?

(Caveat - Readers of this blog know that the author is non-partisan and follows neither party but the nature of this travesty of justice lies along political party lines as all too much does these days. Do not interpret this post and support for one party of the other. the focus is on American Rights for all equally)

Once again politics rears its ugly head to trample on the people. Our Constitution / Bill of Rights guarantees that we all have certain rights. Nowhere does it say that some people have more rights than others. All Americans are considered to be created equal. Yet now in the 21st century, we have our political system deciding who has more rights and who shouldn't have as much. And the group under scrutiny today is "American Women"!!! Yes, after all that has been done to secure the rights of women, we appear to be doing back to square one.

Of the three groups of women mentioned in the discussion, the media may choose to focus on the lesbian and illegal immigrants (Believe me they will) but the actual discussion point of the issue is the most American women of all, the Native American Indians!!

BACKGROUND: The issue under discussion is the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. It became law and has been reauthorized every time with no issues. (I admit to not realizing these Acts had to be reauthorized every five years. That is part of the problem, enacting them gets attention but letting them disappear like the last year of production of the American Motors Pacer gets no attention).
     The focus of the Act is to protect women from household / family  / domestic violence. It also equips law agencies with the means to fight the abuse that occurs. The abuse continues but not at the levels previously known.

THE PROBLEM: In 2012, re-authorization of the bill passed the Senate 68-31, with 8 Republicans included; surprising in today's partisan politics environment. The only change of significance is that it  now includes protection of women who are gay, illegal immigrants, or American Indians living on tribal jurisdictions. That last group - NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN (you know the Americans who were here before the white man came and took it all away) is the sticking point.
   The problem is the re-authorization now includes new protections for Native American women and the House Republicans object. The House striped provisions from the bill that wind up turning the clock back on women's rights. As expected, politics increased the level on squabbling when the White House refused to sign the House version. Reports are that despite efforts to resolve the issues, a deal could not be reached. A deal had to be made to ensure the rights of American Women?? A Deal ahd to be made to ensure people's right??? You have to be kidding!! Eric Cantor seems to be one of the  Republican leaders fighting for his party's views.

SPECIFICS: The three new provisions provide more protection for those from the LGBT community, immigrants who may or may not be in this country illegally, and for women on American Indian Reservations. The facts are that women on American Indian Reservations are more more often the victim of domestic violence than those not on the reservations. I.E, they are easier vitims because they lack protection and thus make easier targets. The problem is that the Indian tribal court system are not allowed to hear these cases which often involve non-Native American people. The Senate would finally allow that to happen, the Republicans do not want to allow it. The House Republicans will not publicly discuss their specific reason but it appears that the fear is that if the tribal courts jurisdiction is allowed to be expanded, then bigger issues will come forth. If tribal jurisdiction is allowed to expand to address the issue of white men who attack a woman on the reservation, there might be no limit to how far the authority could expand.

MY COMMENTS: As I see it, the issue boils down to a simple question of do all people in this country deserve equal protection? Especially women on Native American Reservations? I don't recall the US Constitution saying We the certain people who have the power..., I thought it said We the PEOPLE ... When you think about it doesn't this go beyond even American law? Don't all people as human beings have certain rights whether their government choose to grant them or not. America stands on a belief in God and many are Christians and should that Christianity support the rights of women. Apparently not according to the house Republicans. For whatever reasons that they have yet to publicly state, the House does not want to ensure the rights of women on Native American Reservations.

By the way - As I researched this, and I encourage you to do the same, it appears that we are not simply talking about Native American women but ANY woman that happens to be on an American Indian Reservation. So if some white woman (or any other non-Native America woman) is visiting the reservation, she lacks the protection that others enjoy. Interesting.

Please support getting this back on track and the expanded version approved. Please do not let the word "Democrat" or "Republican" have any part of your thinking. I don't care what you think of John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi. Instead Stand up for what is right for a change and support the equal protection of all. This isn't about politics, it's about people's rights.


Here are links to official transcripts of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights for those that are interested.

U.S. Constitution  -  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Bill of Rights   -  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

May We Continue to Boldly Go Someday

And as the last Space Shuttle is wheeled to its final storage, so the dream of President Kennedy and the nation, for manned exploration of space comes to an end. I feel for the employees of NASA and all the subcontractors who have spent their lives building this program only to see it end with no real plan for the future. They gave us so much more than travel to space, they gave us hope and dreams of a future. How many of us didn't at some point drink Tang and hope to be an astronaut also? Hopefully some future generation will revive the program.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/02/final-10-mile-trek-for-space-shuttle-atlantis/1676727/

What It Will Take to Restore Health to Our Economy

(SPOILER ALERT - This does not involve any political discussion so if you are looking for politics, keep looking elsewhere as there is none here today! Otherwise I hope you enjoy the discussion on the economy and at least find it thought provoking).

In America's economic system, money spent is what fuels our economy. Money spent creates demand which in turn creates jobs which creates money and thus the cycle goes on. If the cycle is interrupted, as it is in a recession, for whatever reason, then the cycle reverses itself. Fewer jobs mean less money and less money spent means less jobs and fewer jobs mean less money and ... you get the idea.  Ok, enough of basic economic thought.

An important fact in our economic system is that we have three primary sources of money in our economic system: (1) the Consumer, (2) Businesses, and (3) The Government. A quick look at these three sources of income.

(1) The Consumer - that's you and me. We the people are the ultimate source of all spending. When we don't spend, businesses don't have money to spend. When we don't spend, government tax income is significantly reduced. In the past, it is the consumer that has helped keep the economy afloat. A look back at economic history will show instances when the consumer spending is credited with keeping the economy going when other aspects were faltering.

(2) Business - Big or small business, business is business. Business spending for materials and supplies creates jobs for those manufacturers. Spending by businesses is an important part of our economy, at least in the past it has been. Of late, businesses more and more,as we all know, are sending jobs overseas. the issues is that businesses do not care about america or any other country. Businesses are apolitical. Businesses function to please their stockholders and ensure their own survival. Businesses truly have no interest in economic recovery other than how it affects their own business.

(3) The Government - Our government, unlike many others, exists to provide for the well being of its people. Sounds easy but go watch the move "Bruce Almighty". There is a scene where God's fill-in (Jim Carey) discovers he can't please everybody, one person prays for no rain when they go on a picnic while another person prays for rain for their crops in a drought. You get the idea. Likewise, it is virtually impossible for the government to please everybody at any given moment. We are a vast cross section of humanity with a wide variety of beliefs and values - and that is part of what makes this country great.

     The government collects money from the people and redistributes it via various channels of programs ranging from the military to highway funding or funding for various education programs. The government also has the unique power to create money which can be a dangerous thing. Witness the rise of Adolf hitler prior to WWII. Germany was undergoing inflation such as we can only imagine, the price of bread was changing so fast daily that signs were never current. The problem was the government was "solving the problem" by printing more money. The faster they printed money, the faster inflation rose because each day, the Mark was worth less and less. (The more there is of something, the less valuable it has).  America's Federal Reserve system regulates the amount of money supply through interest rates and other means. This power to regulate money is not a direct cause and effect power as the Fed can raise interest rates but if consumers and businesses continue to borrow money at even higher rates, the desired effect of the Fed is not realized.

**** 

So let's discuss what it will take to get the 2012 economy turned around. It was consumer spending that helped alleviate the initial impact of the 2007 -2009 (?) recession. Consumers spent on credit. And business liked it. Businesses today often make a better profit off their credit card operations than they do their merchandise. think about the last time you went to a store and the sales associate offered you a credit card. One major retailer charges 26.99% on their credit card!! No wonder they want customers to get one. They don't have to ship or handle returns on credit cards, only collect the  money each month. (By the way, don't get mad at the poor clerks, they are only trying to keep their jobs and meet insane quotas the companies have laid out). Credit cards are great profit makers.

But as the value of homes dramatically declined, and jobs were either lost or became insecure, consumer spending slackened. People looked at those credit card charges and wisely decided to pull in on their spending. And so one of the three main sources of spending in this country dried up. And it will remain dried up until people have worthwhile jobs, not the part time, no benefit jobs far too many are stuck with today. Far too many people have jobs with no vacation, no health insurance, or any other of the benefits we have enjoyed during previous periods of prosperity.

****

So with no consumer spending, where is the economic stimulus going to come from? Ah-ha you say, business, business, big business will fuel it with their spending. First this runs contrary to previous recoveries as small businesses have led the way out as individuals / entrepreneurs and small companies take chances and start up. Individuals tired of trading their time and lives for the companies money decide to do something they have a passion for and start new companies creating new jobs.

But still, won't big business with all that money be a significant factor in the economic recovery? Sadly no. If there is any evidence of it, nobody has seen it to date. Large corporations are sitting on vast sums of cash and are unwilling to spend it. During discussion of the Federal Deficit Limit this past spring, it was announced that Apple Corporation (no longer named Apple Computer) has more cash than the United States Government! Are they spending that money on crating jobs and prosperity in this country, the country they were founded in and are headquartered in? NO! They spend their money in third world countries hiring people to work in conditions this country would not allow. Some say people in this country are not willing to take certain jobs. Perhaps true to a degree but many jobs have been sent overseas because they could not exist in this country.

Again businesses really don't care about economic recovery other than the impact it makes to their bottom line and the stockholders. Currently they are not spending to acquire skilled employees and train them but instead are shipping our jobs overseas to be conducted in substandard conditions to allow for more profit. That said, is there any reason to believe that there will be any sudden generosity or outpouring of patriotism and thus spending at the business level to create jobs and prosperity in this country?

****

NOTE: When we export out jobs overseas, we import their poverty. Don't believe it? Think about how many times you have called a company on the phone only to have somebody from India answer. Look at the improvement in their economy while ours gets worse every day.

NOTE: When businesses lay off their employees, they are also laying off their customers. A corollary to this is that when businesses refuse to hire full time employees, they are stifling their customer base. How many retailers currently have employees that do not qualify for a credit card with the company because of the amount hey are paid? I know of many people with good credit ratings who cannot qualify for a company credit card because their pay is so low.

**** 

So if the consumer is exhausted and broke, thus unable to contribute significantly any longer to the economic recovery and business are unwilling to spend and hire (at least in this country).  Where is the spending for economic recovery coming from? The only option left - The Government. While some consider the government an evil thing, it is still necessary for the well being of the people. And it is government spending that will have to lead us in this recovery just as it has so many times. A quick look back at economic history will show that major economic recoveries tend to occur due to government spending. Look at the Great Depression, many economists agree that FDR's programs helped maintain the economy and kept it from degenerating even more but the major cause of economic recovery from the Great Depression was WWII and the government spending on planes, tanks, and bullets that created jobs and prosperity.

 The opposite side is seen in our withdrawal from the Vietnam war. President Nixon had stated that withdrawal from the war would have a economic impact on our country and it did. As we withdrew from the war, the early 70's recession started. Just at the war ended in approximately 1973, the recession was nearing its peak. And just like today, the recovery was slow in coming even after the recession "officially ended".

Back to the positive side of government spending and recovery. The United States had its greatest increase in the National Debt under President Ronal Reagan (1981 - 1989) Under President Reagan, the debt increased 189%!! What were the causes of such a huge debt increase? Basically, Government spending. President Reagan spent money, especially on the military, building it up. We stared at eh Russians eyeball to eyeball and they blinked. President Reagan gave his famous statement, " Gorbachev, tear that wall down!" and the Soviet Union did. Why? Because we out spent them plain and simply. We spent more on our military and we flat out spent them to the point they were broke and could not sustain their posture anymore.

Unfortunately that type of spending is unsustainable by any government and we too had to back down and significantly reduce our spending with the resultant recession once again. Go ask President Bush about the economy. A popular phrase during his administration was "Its the economy Stupid!" In the end President Bush had been dealt a bad hand to start with. We had to back off on our government spending and the took over just as it began. Forces far beyond Republican and Democratic policies and plans acted to once again put our country into a recession or significant economic downturn.

****

SO what does this mean for us today? To Summarize, the consumer is drained financially and emotionally. Business are not willing to spend to create jobs and recovery (at least for the moment). So the burden is upon the government to spend to create jobs. But the danger is they cannot spend too freely or they run the risk of fueling inflation again. It is a delicate balance of spending without sending inflation rates through the ceiling. Also complicating the issue is that we are a world wide economy more than ever before. Witness how events in Greece and Spain among other countries have had significant impact in this country.

So when you hear people bad mouthing the government and how e have to cut government spending, realize that cutting government spending is exactly what is not needed at the current moment. In the short term we have to have increased government spending to fuel job creation but it must be carefully monitored to prevent fueling inflation. In the long term, government spending must be decreased as we cannot maintain continued growth of the national debt. But it has to be done slowly. We got into this mess over a long period of years. It is naive to think we will get out of it quickly. It will not happen in the next administration of even the one beyond that but it must be done. And so we are left in a situation akin to having a snake pop up in your car while crossing a bridge. You want to put one foot on the gas to hurry up and get off the bridge so you can get out of the car and you have one foot on the brake as you need to stop now! The days ahead require sound economic judgement in our leadership. We need increased government spending for now but decreased government spending in the long term future.

A Continuing discussion of the Economy.

The other day I commented about the economy and I wanted to continue that discussion. For those that missed the article (July 18th) here are some figures concerning unemployment.

"A word about job creation for those that don't appreciate the numbers. It is generally acknowledged that it takes between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs EVERY MONTH to offset immigration and graduates entering the work force. A quarter of a million new jobs every month JUST TO BREAK EVEN! So when the news reports that last month the economy grew by 115,000 jobs, we are falling further and further behind. It takes 225,000 new jobs to break even and even more to recover those who lost jobs and graduates of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 classes. (Yes, I could have simply said 2008 - 2012 but I wanted to list them for the effect of how long a time frame we have to recover.) I can only guess what the new jobs figure would have to be to recover those lost people within the next two years while more new graduates continue to enter the economy but it is a safe bet that we won't hit anything close to the required numbers for a long time. "

One thing I failed to mention in that discussion is that the number of graduates is about to skyrocket as many college graduates are "hidden out" in graduate school working on Master's and PhD's hoping the economy will somehow be miraculously better when hey get out in two or three years. But many of those are not having to get out of school and enter the job market anyway and the economy simply cannot take the impact at the current time with the current conditions. 

Now some further analysis of the economy. The question is, how are people surviving? The answer, They Aren't! 

Retirement Savings raided by 35% of laid off workers. 
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/story/2012-07-18/401k-retirement-loan-withdrawals/56280996/1

"Making matters worse, many who have lost their jobs have defaulted on 401(k) loans, causing taxes and penalties to further deplete their retirement savings. .... Displaced workers in their 40s and 50s have median household retirement savings of only $2,300, the Transamerica study says. .... 
For example, if a displaced worker defaults on a loan of $6,542, it would drain $9,934 from his retirement savings, because of taxes and penalties, Singer's report says." 

Their advice to go back to school or move to another less expensive city is meant well but they obviously are not in the same boat and those the article discusses. For a worker 50 - 60 years old, four years of school puts them at 55 - 65 and many firms are not hiring people that age. Yes there are laws against age discrimination but that hasn't helped anybody yet, there always seems to be "another official reason." 

Even if they are fired, they most likely will be in a low paying job as all to many have discovered. To many skilled experienced workers are relegated to entry level jobs even though their life experiences more than qualify them for better position. 

Also, consider the issue that no matter what job they get, after raiding their savings for whatever time to survive, they will most likely not be able to recover that lost savings and as a result will be force to continue working long after. Our economic business model is built upon older workers retiring and spending their savings enjoying life and as they leave those jobs, room is made for people to be promoted and the younger people to enter the work force. Now we are faced with the harsh reality of older workers continuing to work well pas their 65th birthday in lower paying jobs making it difficult if not impossible to "retire". As they stay in those lower paying jobs longer, they effectively block younger people from moving into the workforce. 

One issue I see the author fails to mention is how many people who are not laid off or "unemployed" but are in the great mass of people who are "significantly under employed" are also raiding their savings to make it another month. Too many people are "off the radar" in unemployment figures but are existing in low paying part time jobs that do not pay sufficient wages to live on. Don't say, "They just have to live within their means." Too many jobs now are Part TIme with wither no health or other benefits or benefits that are entirely inadequate. But for now lets focus on making that living. Typical job at a major retail store chain - Store Manager and a hand full of Supervisors are Full time, everybody else is Part-Time paid approximately $8 and hour and allowed to work only 24 hours a week.   $8/HR for 24 hours a week!!! Let's see that works out to $192 a week BEFORE Taxes! Of course taxes will be low as they make so little. That comes to $9984 a year! Try living on that without dipping into savings! Try living like that for long dipping into savings! Unless you have accumulated a very nice savings account, most people are looking at a bleak future. 

The solution? For now, if you are in a management level position, take a long hard look at what you are paying people and remember one important thing, the workers you pay are also you customers. If your workers can't qualify for a store credit card at your store because of what you pay them, what does that say about what you pay them. Could survive on what you pay your workers? Probably not. 

We need to start paying people a decent wage and quit exporting our jobs overseas. Whenever we export a job, we import that countries' poverty. 

A Comment on the economy and unemployment. (No presidential remarks )

One of the most influential people on the US economy has spoken. Not the president, but the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Ben Bernanke. Like his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, Bernanke has great influence with well chosen words. He understands the power, limitations, and authority of each of the government branches as well as the federal Reserve System.

You won't find comments on either presidential candidate here, incumbent or the challenger, but rather a discussion on the economy and Congress. Many people blame the president for just about everything from the price of gas to the traffic jam they are stuck in while the reality is that the president simply does not have that much power. The people that make the changes that affect us are found in other groups, primarily Congress. The recent health care legislation was not passed by the president but Congress. It was the inability of Congress to act in a civilized manner and cooperate in a non-partisan manner that cost this country its valued AAA credit rating as Congress played party politics instead of resolving the major issues to adjust the debt ceiling and have a viable budget.

Breaking news now is that Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve indicates that if Congress fails to act quickly , the US economy is likely headed back into another recession (I thought we were still in one based upon the current economy and job situation).

  http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/07/18/2218402/bernanke-recession-likely-if-congress.html

"If Congress doesn't take action by the end of the year, a package of tax cuts adopted during George W. Bush's administration expires, while deep spending cuts kick in. If that happens, the economy would go over a "fiscal cliff." { Note that it was the administration i.e. Congress, not the president.}

Note that Bernanke recognizes the limits on authority on both the Federal Reserve System and Congress. " Bernanke stopped shot of telling Congress how to proceed. He challenged them to think broadly. 'Congress in in charge here, not the Federal Reserve,' he said."

From other sources, " Bernanke noted what the Congressional Budget Office has warned: A recession would occur, and 1.25 million fewer jobs would be created in 2013.


A word about job creation for those that don't appreciate the numbers. It is generally acknowledged that it takes between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs EVERY MONTH to offset immigration and graduates entering the work force. A quarter of a million new jobs every month JUST TO BREAK EVEN! So when the news reports that last month the economy grew by 115,000 jobs, we are falling further and further behind. It takes 225,000 new jobs to break even and even more to recover those who lost jobs and graduates of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 classes. (Yes, I could have simply said 2008 - 2012 but I wanted to list them for the effect of how long a time frame we have to recover.) I can only guess what the new jobs figure would have to be to recover those lost people within the next two years while more new graduates continue to enter the economy but it is a safe bet that we won't hit anything close to the required numbers for a long time. 

As we approach the elections, it is imperative that we vote wisely for people who will speak their conscience and vote according to the issues. All too often today we see votes at both the Federal and State level split along party lines. THAT is what upsets me so greatly. We the people (Nice phrase) voted for representatives to represent US, not a particular party. I am not aiming this at either political party but rather at both. Both sides consistently fail to carry out their sworn duties to represent the people.

Ben Bernanke clearly recognizes that it is on the back of Congress to secure the future of this country. The problem is that Congress is failing at their job. They are so wrapped up in their efforts to have their particular party prevail that they ignore the needs of the people they represent.

Now is the time for people to put serious effort into voting not for one party or another but for people who will vote to represent their people, no matter what the party says. It does happen and I greatly respect those who do so even when I disagree with them.

If we continue voting in party politicians, we have only ourselves to blame for the continuing mess we find ourselves in.

[Note: While I welcome and encourage discussion on both sides, all comments are moderated and political comments in reference to Obama or Romney will not be published so don't bother going there. This is about the economy and Congress.]

What's Wrong with the Affordable Health Care Act

Oh I have tried to ignore the political things and keep focused on the more interesting things to make "Comments on Life" about but I fear I must venture forth into the political realm. Let it be known that I am non-political, I care for neither side of the spectrum. The book, "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America" is an excellent resource to begin an understanding of current political affairs. But to today's discussion, "What is wrong with The Affordable Health Care Act".

To analyze it, we must take three main perspectives.

1) The Business Owner - Two main problems of the Act in terms of the business owner.

First, the government allowed exemptions for businesses to not provide coverage. The problem is that it was meant to address places like McDonalds that hie a lot of teen-agers. Instead, every major corporation applied, and apparently got, the exemption. While I cannot be absolutely sure, I strongly suspect that this is a major reason businesses will not hire pull time employees anymore other than managers and supervisors. Besides the obvious payroll saving, having the exemption allows the business to not provide benefits. Bottom line: by obtaining the exemption, the business avoids providing health care.

Second, the government did not require health care coverage but instead set penalties (taxes, whatever you want to call then, that is not the point). In doing so, it allows the businesses to simply choose to pay the penalty tax without providing health care coverage to the employees. It will be cheaper for companies to pay the penalty than to provide health care coverage. Bottom line: by paying a small penalty tax (small compared to the cost of insurance), the business avoids providing health care.

2) The Insurance Industry - The main issue here is that insurance companies are in the business to make money, as any business is. They make money by charging based upon statistical averages and charing accordingly. this is why individual policies are always much more expensive than group insurance which spreads the liability out and is more statistically meaningful. The current Affordable Health Care Plan requires / demands that the insurance companies provide coverage of everyone even though they have pre-existing conditions. Traditionally insurance companies allow pre-existing coverage if there has been no lapse in coverage from the previous policy for more than 30 days. The liability is traded off from one company to another and in the end it works out for all the companies. BUT NOW, a person can find out they are sick with some serious (expensive) illness and get coverage. This is akin to applying for flood damage as the television station reports on hurricane force winds and flooding three blocks away. Currently insurance companies would not provide that coverage but under the current law, they would have to in terms of health care coverage.

b) The government says they cannot raise rates significantly (more on this in a moment). If you owned health care insurance company and you were faced with these demands, what would you do? How long would you expect to stay in business? The business model demanded by the current health care act  is not sustainable by businesses. They will have to raise rates significantly or go out of business ( a distinct possibility).

(Side note: A complicating factor is that people tend to be less healthy as they get older and currently the Baby Boomers which are the largest block of our population are just now turning 64'ish. Demands upon the health care system are about to be the greatest they have ever been! Back to the question, would you want to own a health care insurance company under these conditions?)

3) The Individual - Many issues here. First, Cost have to be covered somewhere, if not by the insurance company, then the patient. we all laugh or groan about how much doctors and hospitals make. We have all heard the stories about the $50 aspirin but if you think like a business person instead of a patient, consider how you pay somebody to receive the shipment on the loading dock, un-package the boxes, distribute the aspirin to various locations, maintain inventory controls and monitor status. All that has to be figured into the cost of the aspirin. Plus there are the miscellaneous charges like janitorial staff and other things that have to be covered in the final bill. We have all seen this at the auto repair shop as they charge various miscellaneous charges for "rags and cleaning materials" or some such charge. Is is simply a way of tracking expenses. Consider how stores offer "Free Shipping" Its not free, its covered somewhere (likely advertising) but it is not free and is built into the cost of the product in some way.

The point I am driving to is that costs have to be covered in some manner. If insurance companies cannot raise their rates (supposedly) then those costs will have to be addressed by the patients when the insurance companies disallow certain costs as they exceed preset limits.

Second - The Act does not say insurance companies cannot raise rates. It says to the effect they cannot raise rates excessively and there is no precise definition of what that means. In  other words, they can raise rates. To be realistic, they have to the minute they have to cover everybody with pre-existing conditions. Expect health care rates to rise. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Define excessively."

b) The costs of the sick has to be amortized over the entire group, meaning the healthy help cover the cost of the sick. That is nothing new as that is the way it is today, that is what group rates are all about. But now we will have a lot of sick coming on-board. You may ask, what about the healthy, won't those that don't have coverage now but have to come on board and even things out? Not really. The healthy tend to be the younger people in our society (not always but usually). They also tend to be those without well paying jobs or have priorities that are on other things than health and life insurance. (Hey, young people never get sick, hurt, or die right? So they think.)

Third - The Act does not necessarily provide ADEQUATE health care coverage. I have held jobs that offered health care coverage (especially seen in part-time positions) that are woefully inadequate. Having health care is one thing, having adequate health care is a completely separate issue. I know many people who have health care but with deductibles and co-pays so high that the coverage is almost worthless unless they are seriously hurt in an accident of something.

Fourth - What will be the impact on availability of quality health care if insurance companies tell hospitals and doctors they won't pay the high rates they currently cover. ( I think we can all agree rates are way too high.) Hospitals will lower coverages and eliminate units to maintain efficiency. Students in med school or even prior to that may choose to enter a different profession. If doctors and nurses cannot eventually cover the high costs of medical school, who would choose to enter that profession?

Fifth: What will low income people (most of what used to be called the middle class) do? Well, the Act does not actually require insurance coverage. It simply charges a penalty tax for not having it. The penalty is something like $450 in 2014, $950 in 2015, and $2100 in 2016. Considering that the cost of individual health care with adequate coverage and decent deductibles and copays cost in the area of $700 - $900 a month (yes a month) it will be cheaper to simply pay the penalty tax. than buy coverage. Remember that most people that don't have it lack it because they can't afford it. BTW, i sued to have a friend who had individual health care coverage and when Conseco discontinued writing individual coverage policies (see insurance companies do quite writing policies) he had to get a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and his rates were $1500 a month! (yes a month!) Another friend in the military couldn't afford to get out as his wife as his wife has serious health issues and he couldn't afford the outside world.

Summary: So what's wrong? The Act actually does not require businesses to provide coverage. They have two ways out, the exemption and the penalty tax ( or whatever you choose to call it). It will be cheaper to not provide coverage than to provide it. They will simply continue to have part time employees instead of dedicated full time workers and will pass the costs of penalties along to the consumer. With rising demand and lower coverage on insurance, hospitals and the medical profession will have to pass along those extra costs to the patient (you and me). Also, no matter what you hear, expect insurance rates to rise, significantly. For the individual, we will should expect higher rates. Also expect those higher rates to come with significantly lower coverage via higher deductibles and higher co-pays. (Read inadequate health care coverage). There is no free lunch, even if the government requires it. People will pay penalty taxes because they don't have insurance instead of buying the things they need in this on-going recession.
   Let's see, business will be paying more taxes, individuals will be paying more taxes, people will have no better coverage than before, potentially less and the government rakes in lots of money!


Solution: I have always been taught that you shouldn't identify a problem without having a solution. So here is mine. (At least a stab at it).

First do we need health care? Yes! Cost have gone through the ceiling literally and it is insane and criminal that in America, one of the world's leaders and political powers, that we have people suffering due to the lack of adequate health care. Other countries outshine us in taking care of their citizens and that is a national disgrace to our country.

The solution? Try the  Nixon Health Care Plan. I know Democrats will hate it because a Republican thought it up just like the Republicans hate the current plan that Democrats thought up and it will never see the light of day due to partisan politics but it is a good start. Not familiar with it? Here is the link to the article, " Nixon's Plan for Health Reform in His Own Words".

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

Something needs to be done. The Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care) has serious issues as discussed above. I am sure there are those wingnuts (see above reference) that say nothing should be done but I would hope that some sane and rational educated thought would prevail rather than the emotional rhetoric that is all too prevalent. What happens next is up to us as we go about electing our representatives in Congress.

Life is Funny - Dealing with Socks

A little light hearted but in a way serious thoughts tonight. I was out walking my dogs the other night and talking about things as we walked. I thought about how they walk in bare feet whereas people walk in shoes, a much more preferable way.

But they looked up at me with a puzzled look as if to ask, "if shoes are so comfortable, why do you wear socks?" So I explained that the socks are to help our feet feel better as the shoes protect us form the rock and things on the ground, the socks protect our feet from the roughness of the shoes.

But they looked at me as if to ask, "Is this like those commercials on television where the medicine causes more side effects than the disease?" They gave me that look that made it clear, "If socks are so good, why to you have to wear the rough hem side inside against your feet and the soft smooth part on the outside where not only does it not make you foot feel good but nobody can see it anyway?"

We hear people say, "Its a dog's life." usually meant in a negative way but as I reflect, they don't worry about bills or money, they don't have to worry about where they left their iPhone charger or rechargeable batteries. They eat, sleep, play and all they ask for is a belly rub and some love with an occasional walk. Yep, they sure have it rough.

Father's Day Gift Ideas - 2012

A few comments before I get started. I have noticed that "Comment on Life" has been negative at times and so I will take a more positive approach.

Second - No, I get no kickback for this, I merely want to pass along some ideas that I have enjoyed and might help others out as Father's Day approaches.

So, let me set the stage so to speak. I used to use the standard aerosol shaving cream , like most men. The problem is as it runs low, it gets more and more watery. I have also used the gel shaving aerosol. I find it too slippery and too easy to slide off my hand. Also, you never get any warning that you are about to run out. Where the standard aerosol gets watery, the gel aerosol simply and suddenly quits.

So what is a man to do? I remembered using a shaving brush and shaving soap many years ago and so I began to look at it again only this time I didn't get the cheap drugstore brush. There are two kinds of better brushes - Bagger hair and Boars hair brushes. After some looking around, I decided upon this one.

Deluxe Boar Bristle Shaving Brush with Rosewood Handle & Free Shaving Brush from Parker Safety Razor.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004DEXE48/ref=pe_175190_21431760_cs_sce_dp_1

Next I needed so shaving soap. So I started out with Col. Conk Bay Rum Glycerine Shave Soap
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002JKSP38/ref=pe_175190_21431760_cs_sce_dp_2

So the $64,000 question, How did I liked it? Simply put, I have requested more indifferent fragrances for this Father's Day as I am almost out. Why do I like it so over the "traditional aerosol soaps?

1) It feels better. On those occasions that I have had to go back to aerosol when I travel and don't take my shaving soap, I have found that aerosol shaving creams feel sticky and unpleasant.

2) I love getting a hot shaving cream on my face. After soaking the crush in hot water, I have a hot shave. Sometimes I "treat myself" to a second shave by merely tipping the brush back in the hot water and lathering up again. Sort of a skin relaxer?

3) I can tell when I am about out with no side effects - i.e. no sudden loss of cream or going watery.

Why did I go boar's hair instead of bagger hair? Cost mainly but I love the boars hair brush. Do get a stand as you don't want to set it down with the hair upward when you are though.

Other kinds of soap? Plenty of choices out there. Experiment.

While you are out there, get the shaving cup for the soap also. I improvised with an old mug but it is a little too deep so this year I am asking for the shaving bowl. http://www.amazon.com/Kingsley-Shave-Soap-Bowl-Natural/dp/B00161BEO8/ref=pd_sim_hpc_1

Some may say it is like going back to your grand-gfather's days. Yep. A nice hot relaxing shave. Takes no longer and is always hot. What did I do with the unused aerosol shaving cream cans? They are for when I travel. And they make me appreciate the brush and mug every time I use them.

By the Way - I photography article I read recommend the boar's hair brush for brushing off a DSLR when out in the field. Adorama and B&H Photo even carry one in their photography section.

Adorama - http://www.adorama.com/CPDB.html

B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61515-REG/Visual_Departures_DB1_Dewitt_s_Boar_Bristle_Brush.html

Rights of Bicyclists on the Road

Perhaps an old on-going issue but as I sat and read the comic strip Frazz today (and the past several) they have delay with bicyclists. (Link to GoComics and the Frazz strip. you can click the left arrow at the top to see previous days of the strip).

So the question is, do you feel bicyclists should have the rights of the road? I would say yes only if they obey ALL the rules. My biggest irritation is that bicyclists tend to "be a vehicle" when they want and "not be a vehicle" when it becomes convenient. In the Frazz strip, the group of bicyclists are blowing through a stop sign, apparently because they are "only a bicycle".  Bicyclists want to ride on the sidewalks and do other things vehicles of the road cannot do (motorcyclists start to fall in this group as they and bicyclists both will weave between cars to get to the head of the line at a stoplight.)

Are all bicyclists bad? No! There are good ones and bad ones just as there are good vehicle operators and bad ones. Sometimes the problem is that the roads are simply not built to accommodate bicycles. In the photo above, there is not enough room for two cars and a bicycle side by side and the cars on this road tend to travel about 55 mph (limit is 50 I think).

As I type this I realized that even I have made a distinction between bicyclists and vehicles, on the road they should all be the same.

Made in China a problem? Whose fault is that?

I am in a position to oversee returns at my job. In the course of the day I have noticed some returns being made solely because of their point of origin, in particular, China. "Made in China" is a sore point for some it appears. I do not want this to be taken as a China bashing post but rather a post asking the American public to look at themselves and their values that drive the market. I have reflected upon that fact and in my musings, I would like to make some observations.

- If made in China is a problem for somebody, why don't they check the point of manufacture BEFORE buying the product and not after?

- How do you survive without products made in China? It seems a large preponderance of products, especially electronics are made there. Either entire assemblies or major components or subassemblies come from there. No televisions are made in North America anymore. Curtis Mathis in Canada ceased operations years ago. and this leads me to the real question -

_ Why did it happen? Why did China become the major manufacturer of so many of our products especially electronics? Many will jump on the cheap labor and the slavery conditions allowed there and in other countries overseas and various economic policies But I want to look at the side of the coin so to speak that nobody really wants to acknowledge.

The reason the Chinese have taken so many of our jobs (as well as other countries) is that the American public / consumer cares about price over all else. I know we are in the midst of a long hard recession and that especially makes consumers look for the biggest bang for their buck but the recession is world wide. One way to help this country is to stimulate jobs in this country. Part of the problem is that the CEOs and Boards of Directors have exported our jobs overseas in order to maintain the greatest return for their stockholders. Greed is the appropriate word for it. Remember, "Every time we export our jobs, we import their poverty."

But the problem is also in part due to the American public's desire to get something "cheap". We want the best looking but not the best value. Artificial Christmas decorations are made in China. Why, because they are cheaper. I am thinking of a company whose name whose name I cannot mention that seems to make a lot of Christmas decorations and other electric products that don't seem to hold up well sand I see a lot of returns. Their products are made in China. I saw one return of a Christmas lights decoration that the consumer wrote on the box, "MADE in CHINA - Give Me a Break!" Couldn't that decoration have been made in America? Sure. Considering the cost of overseas shipment and import duties etc, it seems it could have been made in America at less cost (but not necessarily 'cheaper') with a better quality and have been very competitive with the "Made in China"product. But its not. I am sure somebody will point out start up manufacturing cost etc that make this prohibitive but my point is, we want what we buy cheap and in the end, we will buy at the lowest price whether it be Christmas lights or iPads made under labor conditions that are currently drawing media attention.

We cry out over human rights and work conditions but only so long as the price of our consumption does not go up. Several companies have tried to go the "Buy American" route (Wal-Mart comes to mind) but it doesn't seem to stick. The demand for cheaper goods rules as king over all.

Basically China is becoming a major manufacturing force because that's what the American public wants, the cost be damned. For the moment China needs us desperately. They are building a hydro-electric facility that is capable of supplying electricity far beyond any current or near term needs. News commentators have discussed how it seems intended for a developing manufacturing explosion. China needs us for the moment to buy for them so they will have money. As their manufacturing base is established and grows, their own population will have better jobs and more money and they their need for us will greatly diminish. They are on their way to becoming an economic superpower.

Why? Because the American public wants it. The American public wants the cheapest goods. That pressure is felt at the highest levels as CEOs and Boards of Directors approve using Chinese products to ensure profitability of their products. The GM tracker used to be built in Canada with a Chinese built engine. Chevy didn't advertise that fact too loudly in the midst of Mom, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet commercials.

The bottom line? Made in China is a way of life and the only way to change it is for the American public to change their values. Americans need to be willing to pay a little more for American goods. Forget tariffs, tariffs are band-aids, not solutions. the solution is for the American public to demand quality and made in America and I mean as more than a slogan on a wall or a 10 minute advertising commercial It needs to be our way of life because in the end, what is at risk is our way of life.

If you want to see America be the major economic force in the world that it used to be, then we need to demand American quality. We need to be willing to sacrifice the way Americans sacrificed to win the big wars. After all, we are at war right now, a war fought not with tanks and bombs but dollars and yen - and currently, America is losing and the future is not encouraging. It is up to the American public, not the government and politicians to ensure victory.

Why the quality of jobs is suffering.

As I write this, I know the jobs report says unemployment is decreasing just a little bit (hey, its better than going up!). But, I struggle with those reports as they ignore the quality of the jobs people are getting. Far too many people are working part time jobs, in many cases multiple part time jobs. In talking to various people, a lot of us are questioning why people can't get over 24 hours a week. I think I have the answer.

An acquaintance of mine is working part time the same approximate 24 hours a week mentioned above. Recently he was asked if he wanted some extra hours. Wanting the hours and pay and also to show he was a team player, he agree. Later when the schedule came out, he still had 24 hours that week!! In talking to his supervisor, he was told that if they let him get over 24 hours, Obama Healthcare regulations would kick in. I am not well versed in the particulars of Obama Health Care and I don not want this to turn into a political war but it amazes me that the government is trying so hard (supposedly) to create jobs for people (voters) and they have these regulations that are keeping people from getting a Decent job!

So the current situation is employers are hiring people but only for 24 hours a week. BUT they want you to be available 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. They don't care if you have a second job (as if anybody can survive on 234 hours a week) but THEY want to be top priority over the other employer!!

Meanwhile I myself work 40 hours week at a seasonal job 4 days a week (no benefits, its seasonal) and approximately 18 hours week the other three days (until they cut hours about two weeks ago!!). Again, no benefits.) OK, there is a heath care plan for PT employees but ask anybody that cares about heath care and is PT and they will tell you PT health care plans are worth the paper they are written on - high deductibles, low coverage.

Bottom line, the corporations have made an end run around the health care plan and have circumvented it and in the process kept people from getting a decent job. We have better heath care options when there was no government heath care.

Solution: Fix or eliminate the health care plan but as is it is killing this country. It is keeping people from getting jobs (decent ones at least).