The CBO is Wrong on Healthcare


The CBO has released their score on the potential repeal of Obamacare. According to them millions of people would lose their health insurance and costs for premiums would rise. Democrats are upset that Republicans don’t believe the numbers. This is because the numbers do not make logical sense. People have an inherent bullshit detector that can tell when they are being lied to or when certain facts are hidden. For instance for the year leading up to the election economists, the Obama admin, and the mainstream media has been telling people that we are at full employment. No one believed them and people elected Trump instead as well as giving historic majorities to Republicans. When you tell people there is full employment they expect that their wages would go up as well as there would be more competition for limited labor. When that did not happen people figured out it was a lie.


The CBO fails using the same logical standards. The entire reason Obamacare exists is to give people with preexisting conditions insurance. By definition people with preexisting conditions are sicker than the general population. Which is why insurance did not want to work with them in the first place. If you include them in the calculations then everyone has to pay higher premiums to keep the plans solvent. If you remove them from the calculations, like for example by repealing Obamacare, then the premium everyone else pays would get lower as a result.

Benefit of the Doubt

If you read the reports prepared by the CBO on both Obamacare and its repeal you can see why they make this error. Every projection and fact given by the Obama administration was treated as gospel truth and the CBO based their score on this. Since they were heavily biased towards the Obama administration the report they published was proven to be wrong. In contrast the CBO disagrees with everyone of the assumptions used by the Trump administration when it formulated its bill and repeal.

The proof is in the report itself. Hidden deep within the report is an admission that the only reason a lot of people would lose insurance is because they were forced into it in the first place by the individual mandate. If they were not forced to buy the insurance they would not purchase it because of the high premiums. If this were Obama they would have then stipulated that the people who lost the insurance voluntarily would have found their own insurance which would be at a lower cost than obamacare because there would be no one with preexisting conditions driving up the cost.

If you haven’t figured it out yet the CBO decides whether it supports a bill or not and then makes up assumptions to provide the data to reach its predetermined conclusion.


At this point in time Republicans would be crying about the CBO being biased towards the Democrats. That’s not exactly true. The government will always be biased towards giving the government more power. People like George Washington who refuse power when handed to them are incredibly rare. This is why we have a hard time removing any regulations, even redundant ones. Take Dodd-Frank for example. By any objective standard it has failed to rein in big banks as they are four times as large now as they were when the regulation started now controlling nearly half the entire banking industry. Yet government still rates it favorably.

Like any living organism government will protect itself. It will always tell you that it is needed and needs to be expanded. It is up to we the people to hold our elected representatives to their promises.


Fake News in Action: The Kaiser Study on Obamacare

download (3).jpg

For the past couple of days Democrats have been touting a study by the kaiser foundation stating that the Obamacare insurance market has stabilized. The premise of the report is simple. The loss margin was down therefore the insurance companies were doing better. In 2016 insurance companies paid out 86% of all premiums collected in insurance claims. In 2017 they have so far paid out 75% of all premium claims collected in the first quarter. This data is used to claim that the Obamacare market is stable and is not in a death spiral. Second they state that the amount of days spent in a hospital per 1000 patients is similar to last year which means that the health pool is not getting sicker.

Health Pool

Lets take a look at this one first since it is hilarious. In 2011 the average amount of days per 1000 was 20.6 in 2012 it was 21.2 in 2013 it had risen to 21.6 and lastly in 2014 it had gone to 21.7. Over 4 years there was an increase of 1.1 days. By 2016 the amount had risen to 23.8 days and in 2017 it had gone up to 24.7.

The very study that they use to show that Obamacare had stabilized and that the health pool is not getting sicker shows a 0.9 increase over 1 year when it had only increased 1.1 days over 4 years previously.

Premiums and Loss Margin

Can anyone think of something that happened last year that would cause this? That’s right the insurance companies jacked up their premiums massively. Of course the data will show you are paying less money as a percentage of the premiums you collect. It is not because you are paying less money in claims as your health pool is getting sicker as evidenced by your own data but because you are collecting more money.

There is good news though. Insurance companies are already signalling another round of massive increases to premiums for Obamacare plans this year. Some will even go 40-50% higher in just one year. Congratulations. I guess Obamacare will be much more stable.

To summarize the arguments offered by the Kaiser foundation in defense of Obamacare. Our health pool got sicker 4 times as fast as previous years and premiums are going up at unprecedented rates therefore Obamacare is working! lol.


Charlie Gard and Enforced Euthanasia

th (8).jpg

The debate over euthanasia has been going on for quite a while. On the one hand you have an argument that people should have the right to decide when they want to die and giving up the fight is a personal decision particularly when the fight impacts the quality of the rest of your life. On the other hand there is an argument that it is a slippery slope to murder and it would mostly affect the poor and those unable to pay for healthcare.

Both sides have valid points and are united in one thing. Both sides agree that the decision should be left to the patient or his designated representative. While we were distracted with the news media focusing on Trump and his presidency the liberals in Europe have escalated the argument.

Charlie Gard

Meet Charlie Gard. It is his picture at the start of his article. Charlie was born with a rare genetic condition which limits his ability to get energy to the muscles, kidney, and brain. As a result he is brain-damaged at his young age. His parents, the people who are legally empowered to make decisions on his behalf, want to keep him on life support and keep trying to treat the condition. The hospital disagrees. They say that prolonging treatment will only cause suffering for Charlie and have sued the parents to discontinue all treatment and move their child to palliative care.

The courts all the way to the European Court of Human Rights agreed with the argument of the hospital. Yes you did read that right the courts agreed with the hospital. To escalate the matters further the parents asked to bring Charlie to the US on their own dime and seek experimental treatment. All the courts denied this. The parents then asked if it was possible to bring the Charlie home, After all by filing this case the hospital has already indicated that they have given up on the case. The courts refused them as well.

Are you outraged yet?


Before we begin with the legal implications we have to be honest about one thing. The UK runs a single payer national health system. The hospital wanted to stop treatment because they did not want to pay for it anymore as it was not profitable. After all with single payer Charlie can have nearly unlimited treatment and the hospital and the government do not want to pay for that.

This case has implications beyond Charlie. Let us break down what exactly happened. The guardians of Charlie Gard made a decision regarding euthanasia for the child. The courts overrode them. Can you think of any other similar situations?

Other children under the guardianship of their parents, grandparents, or legal guardians are in the same situation. If a spouse were to have an accident or debilitating sickness his partner would be the one making the decisions for him so they would be in the same situation. Elderly people usually have their next of kin deciding for them or if they are prepared someone with their power of attorney.  In all of theses situations the European courts have declared that the hospitals can decide they no longer need to take care of you as long as they can prove that it is not likely you will recover from your illness.

Keep in mind that when your guardian or power of attorney makes the decisions it is the same as if you were making the decisions. Using this same logic the courts can use this decision as a precedent to remove your right to decide whether or not you would like treatment for a terminal disease.

This is not a simple case of a hospital refusing treatment to Charlie. It is the hospital and other healthcare providers asking the courts to let them decide whether or not to give you treatment and the European courts granting them this power.

Charlie Gard is the first victim of enforced euthanasia.




The Great Democrat Con


The Democratic party has run the most amazing con job in political history. For the longest time it has convinced the American public that it is the party that works for the benefit of the working class while painting the Republicans as evil tools of corporate greed. In reality every single one of their major policies have massively enriched the big business they are supposed to be railing against. Despite their demonization from the press and complete lack of effort in defending their viewpoints it is actually the Republicans who pursue efforts that end up helping the poor and middle class citizens.

Lets take a look at a few of the most popular Democrat accomplishments.


I have written about this in the past. According to Democrats this was supposed to protect the economic system from the banking industry being too big to fail and requiring bailouts. In reality it increased the market share of giant backs from 25% to 63% and increased the share of 4 banks from 11% to 43%. It has devastated smaller banks causing 25% of them to close outright and creating a period in the Obama administration where only 3 new banks opened as opposed to 100’s per year under Bush. Of course since there is no competition consumers take it on the chin as well as they have more fees to contend with.

Due to their brilliant marketing consumers still think Dodd-Frank is good for them and major Democrats like Bernie Sanders still want to continue this policy even after seeing its effects.


Obamacare was billed as a way to deliver affordable quality healthcare to every man , woman, and abortion in America. It was supposed to lower all premiums, let everyone keep the same doctor, and let people with existing illnessess benefit from insurance. The insurance companies complain about Obamacare but in reality they have more than doubled their profits under this system. In exchange for their doubled profits they have delivered massive premiums and sky-high deductibles. People were indeed covered but deductibles are so high very few people could use their insurance effectively. After all there is no incentive to provide quality insurance when the government holds a gun to your head and forces you to purchase it. In most cases you are forced to buy it from an effective monopoly.

Illegal Immigration

Democrats have always been big supporters of illegal immigration. The cynic in me says they do it for voters. Others will say because they want to help the poor citizens of South America and other places. Whatever the reason the policy depresses income for those who make the least.

Labor like anything else is a commodity. As with any commodity when there is plenty of supply its value drops. Illegal immigration increases the supply of labor massively undervaluing the labor provided by citizens. The concept is similar to plantations importing slaves in the past because they could not make the same profit paying citizens fair wages.

It is very sad that Republicans are too shy to point out these failures of Democrats enabling them to continue misleading their public about their image.



The Truth About the Medicaid “Cut”

th (7).jpg

I originally meant to write this article last week when the AHCA came out but things got in the way and I only managed to find time to complete it today. As always it is very important that these points come from the administration and highly visible Republicans. Independent bloggers like me only have so much time to devote to writing.

One of the most consistent talking points used by Democrats is that President Trump and the Republicans are slashing Medicaid. This is then usually accompanied by a story about a senior or some other ill person left to die by the cruel Republican.

The Truth

A quick look at the headlines will show a lot of similarities. “Trump’s budget to slash medicaid by 800 billion” or “AHCA cuts 600 billion from medicaid”. No mention about a time frame or anything like that. Just a massive cut by the greedy Republicans. In the previous year the budget for Medicaid was 378 billion and the budget for Medicare 593 billion. If you were to actually cut the 800 billion and the 600 billion from that there would be nothing left. Fake news anyone?

In reality if you look at the HHS website the budget for medicaid and medicare is increasing. In fact it will be increasing every year for the next 10 years. This continual increase qualifies as a massive budget cut to the left. What is happening is that there is a projection of how much money medicare and medicaid will need by a certain date. The amount that the budget of President Trump sets aside for it is actually similar to what is needed by medicaid for the next 4-5 years. The only time it drops off is after that. In the official estimates Medicare would need 1.19 trillion by 2027. Under the Trump budget they would be getting 1.16 trillion by 2027. That is the only difference. If you are getting medicaid or medicare you will be receiving the same services for the coming years. You will not be left to die , driven out of your retirement homes, or anything else the media would have you believe.

This is a perfectly valid thing to do. Essentially there are some experts who say that no matter what we do the number of people dependent on medicaid will increase at the same rate as they have been in the past. The Trump administration is saying that our budget and tax reforms will increase the income of all people therefore less people will require aid in the future. There is literally no risk in doing this. Budgets can be proposed every year. If after 4-5 years we find that the number of people who need aid are increasing then we can just increasing funding levels again.

What They Don’t Tell You

The experts that came up with the estimates for the money that Medicare and Medicaid would need also came up with another estimate. By 2044, less than 30 years from now, 100% of the federal budget will be taken by mandatory spending. Everything else from defense, to education, to arts programs, and school lunches will be financed entirely by debt.

Both sides agree that some sort of entitlement reform is necessary. The only true way to achieve this is to create an economy where people have more income. If we continue down the same path we are now then we are headed for some very hard choices in the future. President Trump has not only made the correct choice he has made the responsible one as well.


The Truth About the AHCA

th (6).jpg

The senate has recently come out with its version of the AHCA. Since there are still no provisions about price controls on drugs I do not support it. Despite that it is important that the truth about it be told. Democrats have said that this bill is nothing but a massive tax cut for the rich. The truth is that Democrats will always say that no matter what Republicans do. We have to take a look at the actual taxes that have been repealed to see what happened. Obamacare delayed a lot of the most harmful taxes it required to run until Obama left office so some of the taxes I list here that have been repealed have not taken effect yet. They are mostly scheduled to take effect in the next year or two. As usual it should be the Trump administration and its Republican allies doing this but since they cannot be bothered too it falls to independent bloggers like me to do so.

Tax on Retiree Prescription Drug Coverage

Remember when Democrats tell you that Republicans want to push granny of a cliff? Democrats actually removed some of the benefits seniors had to push thru Obamacare. Seniors used to be able to recoup 28% of what they pay for prescription drugs and companies used to be able to take this as a deduction encouraging them to take on more seniors. This is especially important as seniors could have unique illnesses that generic drugs would not treat. The Republicans returned this benefit to seniors.

Chronic Care Tax

There is a tax deduction available for Americans who have high out of pocket costs. In order to pay for Obamacare Democrats reduced this deduction was reduced. Wealthy people are less likely to have high out of pocket costs. They would already have very good insurance that covers them. It is poorer people that have worse insurance that have the potential to get bigger costs. President Trump and Republicans returned this benefit to them.

HSA Withdrawal Tax

Democrats doubled the penalty to withdraw money from Health Savings Accounts for non-health related expenses to 20% from 10%. The AHCA bill restores the penalty to 10%. Wealthy people would have other sources of funds to draw money from instead of the HSA as that is already going to cost a minimum of 10%. The only people who would need to use this are those who have lower income. Trump and the Republicans return this to 10%.

Tax on Prescription Medicine

Over and above the reduced deductions for seniors the Democrats also levied a tax on prescription medicines. As mentioned seniors and others may have needs that generic medicines cannot fill so this is a direct tax on them. The truly wealthy would also have very good insurance which would probably cover those things already. Republicans have lowered this tax on the poor and middle class.

Surtax on Investment Income

This is the only thing that can be truly considered a tax break for the wealthy. At this point I would ask you to remember that Trump has already proposed that investment income from people who invest for a living be treated as income tax instead of capital gains tax. That already represents a massive increase in the tax liability for investment income. This is something that Republicans proposed not Democrats.

Medical Device Tax

Democrats levied a tax on medical devices to pay for Obamacare. The entire premise behind Obamacare is that when hospitals are given a cost. Like the uninsured packing emergency rooms they would then pass those costs on to the public. Using the very same logic Democrats used to justify Obamacare then this would be a tax on the public as the hospitals pass the costs on to the final consumer. Republicans have repealed this tax.

Medicine Cabinet Tax

As part of their suite of taxes to pay for Obamacare health saving accounts and flexible savings accounts were restricted from purchasing non-perscription over the counter medicines. Health Savings accounts are not limited to the very wealthy. Most of the people who use them are middle class. By limiting their accessibility to medicine Democrats have made healthcare more expensive for them. The Republicans have repealed this.

Individual Mandate

This is the biggest tax on them all. A tax on all people who do not have insurance. Who is more likely to have insurance a rich person or a poor one? Who is more likely to pay this tax? I think everyone knows the answer to that. Republicans have repealed this and instead rely on insurers to provide competitive options to attract customers.

Employer Mandate Tax

At first glance removing this tax only seems to benefit employers with more than 50 employees. When we take a closer look we see that the number of employees insured from work did not increase after Obamacare took effect nor did the companies pay any new taxes. The companies were already offering health insurance before or were structuring their new hires in such a way that they would not need to be offered health insurance through work.

As you can see most of the taxes that are repealed help the middle and lower income classes. The one thing that does help the rich has been addressed in tax reform. Democrats and their allies in the media hope that everyone is too lazy to look up what taxes have actually been repealed and instead rely on them for the information.


The Myth of ObamaCare


With the repeal of Obamacare by the Congress yesterday the Democrats are now pushing a new message. 24 million Americans have lost their health insurance due to Republicans. I have no idea where they got that number from but it ignores the main issues surrounding Obamacare. The number of insured is not the only metric to judge insurance by. For most people the quality of the insurance matters more.


Any discussion on insurance has to begin with Obamacare. Obamacare essentially made a very small set of the population very happy and a larger set angry because it did two things. First off it made the people who had pre existing conditions very happy as it allowed them to purchase health insurance for the first time. Second it made the rest of the people angry as it screwed up their health insurance. This is not surprising as the sicker costumer base made the risk pool worse.

If there is one thing that Obamacare consistently did is that it constantly increased the Premiums and deductibles of the plans under it. Year after year these went up which is why Democrats lost so much ground in the government. This then begs the question. If the insurance you is so bad can you really be said to have insurance? Does quality matter? The purpose of insurance is to provide quality healthcare. If you have “insurance” with deductibles so high that they never help in making your payments for health services do you really have insurance? Or do you have a piece of paper with the word insurance on it costing you more and more money in premiums every month?

What Democrats do not want to tell you is that insurance had gotten so bad under Obamacare that people who were paying for insurance could not use it. I am not even going to go into the fact that doctor choice was more severely limited under Obamacare as well. There was no indication that this was going to get any better. The Democrats say 24 million people would lose their health insurance. You cannot lose something that was already taken away from you.


I am not a fan of Trumpcare. I have already stated in the past that my primary requirement for a healthcare bill is price controls on drugs. Every other first world country follows their national interest and puts price controls on their drugs. The US citizen is left behind as he is fleeced to pay for the research costs of new drugs.

That said Trumpcare is better than Obamacare. At the very least it represents a chance to fix the healthcare system that the Democrats broke. There is one fact that Sanders, Clinton, or Obama will never mention. Under Obamacare the insurance companies have increased their profits by more than 200%. Let this sink in. They are required to cover a sicker pool of people. They increase premiums and deductibles by saying they are unprofitable. Yet they have increased their profits by 200%.

It is not difficult to imagine why. If the government holds a gun to the head of the citizens and says they must buy your product or suffer the consequences, and then compounds this by saying that you are the only one they can buy insurance from, then it becomes very easy to make money. You can offer whatever crap you want and call it service and people will be forced to buy it. Removing the individual mandate and forcing the companies to compete may actually improve services for everyone. The insurance companies may even be forced to lower profits.

At the end of the day Obamacare is failing already. We may as well find an alternative solution while we still have time.

Trumpcare is Better than Obamacare


I wanted to wait for some time before giving my reaction to Trumpcare so I can take a look at the actual proposals instead of making a knee jerk reaction. The truth is that Trumpcare is better than Obamacare. Unfortunately it is not that much better than Obamacare so I cannot support it. It does do away with the worst portion of Obamacare but it does not fix the main issues causing our healthcare costs to rise. There is little point to replacing a flawed system with a slightly less flawed system. It would be better to just let Obamacare implode.

The Good

Rising Uninsured 

Believe it or not this is a good thing. The main problem with Obamacare was that it forced everyone to get insurance. You did not have to want it or find it particularly useful but you were forced to get it. This meant that the insurance companies, many of whom had a monopoly in their individual markets, could offer you whatever it wanted and you would be forced to purchase it. It was your tough luck if the product they offered had a deductible that was too high or doctors you did not want to visit. In a regular market the consumer would be able to correct this behavior by the company, by refusing to buy the product. Under Obamacare if you did not care for the product offered Obama would hit you with his tax or penalty until you gave in and purchased the inferior product.

Trumpcare gives the power of choice back to the consumer. If the product is terrible then you can refuse to purchase it. The insurance companies will have to offer a better product to get these consumers to purchase it again instead of having a literal captive market. It turns out that if you actually offer people a choice some of them may opt not to purchase insurance and this is a perfectly valid and rational choice depending on what the product actually offered is. Theoretically you could mandate one insurance company to have a monopoly and provide insurance to everyone in the US. They would be worse than Obamacare plans with deductibles of 200k and one doctor available in the middle of nowhere but they would cover everyone with insurance they can’t use. Quality of insurance matters as well.  As a general rule the life expectancy in the US goes up every year since the 1980’s. In 2016, under Obamacare, the life expectancy dropped.

The only people who would lose insurance under Trumpcare are those who did not want insurance in the first place. They are those who were only forced to buy substandard insurance by the gun the government pointed to their head. It is important to note that the provisions that allowed previously uninsurable people to get insurance are still there. If they want to continue their older plans they still can. The rest should get better plans as the insurance companies are forced to compete with each other.

Age vs Income

ANother important change is that subsidies are now based on age and not on income. All things being equal the younger person will have a lower premium than the older person. The younger one tends to be healthier and use insurance less than the older one so the insurance company charges a lower price for them. Restructuring the subsidies means that they reach the older people who would need them more. The younger ones who pay less will get lower subsidies and if they still needed more help they would most likely qualify for medicaid, medicare, or some other program.

The Bad

While Trumpcare does force companies to compete for their customers it still does not solve the structural issues which raise the cost of healthcare. Earlier on I wrote another article on the alt right view for Obamacare. I understand we will not be getting everything on the wish list as we are just one component of the Trump coalition. At a bare minimum I would expect there to be price controls for drugs or price transparency between hospitals for any bills to get our support.

Price Controls

Americans pay ten times more than other countries for their medicines. Drugs make up around 10-20% of total medical costs. Pharmaceutical companies have gone on the record and said that they need to charge Americans this outrageous amount to make up for the costs of developing new drugs. There is no reason why American citizens should bear this cost alone. The whole world benefits from new drugs and other countries must step up and bear their portion of the cost.

I understand if it is too difficult to set a whole set of prices out of the blue therefore we can include a standard set on the average of other countries. For example the price of a certain drug x cannot exceed the average of the selling price of the drug in Britain, France, Germany, and Japan. If the government is able to negotiate lower prices then great but at the very least Trumpcare would set a ceiling.

Hospital Price Transparency 

Everything gets cheaper with more competition. We want the insurance companies to compete with each other to lower prices. We want to remove the monopoly of drug companies in the country and get prices for medicine from the rest of the world. Hospital care and procedures would be the next price point that can be lowered with competition.

As things stand it is next to impossible to get a quotation from a hospital for procedures done. Most, if not all, hospitals will not even give you a list in their websites of what they charge per procedure. You usually only find one right before or right after the things are done to you. How can competition exist when customers are not aware of the price of the items? As part of Trumpcare we would like to see a requirement where hospitals are forced to list their base prices in their websites and give quotations upon request.

Reducing the cost of healthcare is not limited to insurance. We can actually reduce the cost of the components of healthcare. Either or preferably both of these in Trumpcare would lower the bill for everyone.

The Alt-Right View: Obamacare


For my second article in my series introducing the positions of the Alt-right. I will discuss Obamacare and healthcare in general. Since the Alt-right is less moored in conservative or progressive ideology and instead looks at things from a nationalist point of view we do have more freedom to look at things objectively.

Like anything else there are good parts to the law and bad parts. To sum it up in one paragraph the positive  is that the sickest part of our population can now be insured. The negative is that premiums are rising for everyone else. It has also proved to be unsustainable as insurance carriers are dropping out of the markets at a rapid rate. We do support President Trump’s call for a repeal and replace of Obamacare as it is obvious to even its most ardent supporters that it cannot continue as it is. We have a set of proposals that I will outline below. By having an America first mindset instead of one that puts global interests before national ones we believe the system can function.

Individual Mandate

We do agree with the conservatives members of our coalition in the GOP that the individual mandate must go. People should have the freedom to choose whether they get insurance or not just like they have the freedom to pick and choose whether they get any other service. We do want to highlight personal responsibility. Since people have the choice not to get insurance then they must also accept the consequences of not having insurance. Emergency rooms and other areas must not give healthcare to those without insurance or other means to pay. It does sound draconian but we are providing an affordable means for everyone to be insured so there is no reason not to be. It would also help with illegal immigration as they would be denied healthcare.

We do realize that the individual mandate is important for the risk pools to remain healthy but we believe other measure we outline can solve that.

Drug Price Controls

In 2015 prescription drugs represented 10% of all healthcare related costs. According to pharmacutecal companies  they recoup the costs for researching new drugs here which is why they can survive even if other first world markets have put up price controls. The Alt-right believes that there should be no legitimate reason for America to bear the brunt of the cost of new drugs for the world’s benefit. The costs should be shared.

We do take a break here from the conservatives in our coalition as we are outright calling for more regulation. We believe it is necessary in this case. By putting price controls on their drugs Britain, Canada, and other countries are harming American citizens as we are forced to pay more to compensate. In cases like this the government is necessary to ensure a fair playing field for all countries.

Remove State Barriers

Nearly every Republican candidate this election cycle called for the removal of state lines. We support this as well as it means more competition and choices for the consumer. Removing the state lines would also mean that more people can sign up for each individual plan as the market would be bigger increasing the risk pool which makes up for the loss of the individual mandate.

The counterarguement is that it creates a race to the bottom as insurance companies race to put their headquarters in the state with the least amount of regulations. First off we must realize that the current state of obamacare is a race to a monopoly as each market is headed to a situation where only one carrier services it. If we had a choice between race to the bottom and a monopoly then the bottom is always best as there is competition. That competition would also solve the problem as each the consumer would select the provider with the best services.

Foreign Aid

The government spends billions yearly in health related foreign aid to poorer countries and to the United Nations, Red Cross, and other entities like that. This foreign aid would not be an issue if we were able to provide quality healthcare to our citizens first. With the failure of Obamacare we have shown that we cannot. This aid given to the rest of the world should be temporarily halted and put into something like a Health Savings Account given to each citizen to be used for their insurance premiums or deductibles. Once our own healthcare system is stable and fixed we can then resume giving worldwide.

The democrats and republicans have not proposed this or brought it up. We are proposing this as we believe the first responsibility of the American government should be towards American citizens.

Foreign Medical Tourism Tax

There are a lot of procedures that can only be done inside the United States. This happens due to medical skills, hospitals wealthy enough to purchase special equipment, patents, and a whole host of other things and we propose to leverage this to our advantage. There should be a new tax for foreigners who travel to the US to get medical procedures done. This money would then be put into the same Health Savings Account created in the previous bullet and be used as a subsidy by the American people to pay for their premiums or deductibles.

It does need to be pointed out for our liberal friends that the people who would end up paying these taxes would be among the wealthiest worldwide. The primary consideration of the people who need these services is availability not cost. I am not advocating for a 100% tax on this but even doubling the cost would not decrease the demand for these highly specialized services.

Doctor-Insurance Streamlining

One of the things doctors and hospitals hate the most about insurance is that it takes 6 months and sometimes a year for them to recieve payment for services they already rendered. Of course this is a trade-off as with insurance more people can afford their services. It does come at a massive cost to our doctors and hospitals however as that money is sitting in the bank accounts of the insurance industry instead of being invested by the people who earned it to earn more money.

What we propose is a bargain between the doctors , insurance industry, and the government. The next numbers I am going to give are theoretical and could change but provides the framework of what we want to happen. The healthcare industry agrees to give a rebate of 10% of anything they charge to be put into the Health Savings Account previously discussed. The Government then imposes additional regulations on the insurance industry to force them to release the funds within 2 months of when the service was rendered. The hospitals can then invest this to make up for the 10% rebate. The faster turn around time also means that more doctors would want to be involved in the process increasing available choices.

We believe that by taking the best from both liberal and conservative points and applying them with nationalism or an America first mindset we can fix our healthcare system.

Progressive Globalism : Boarding the Trump Train



One of the hallmarks of progressivism is that it asks more from the rich to help out the poor. On a local level I have no problem with that. I have written about a trickle up economy here and believe that the best way to stimulate an economy is to give the tax cuts and benefits to the people most likely to spend the money inside the economy creating velocity of money and providing more jobs and employment.

On a local level that is good. It is a disaster on a global level. This is my main problem with Bernie Sanders as a candidate. He wants a lot of good things but they can only be achieved by a nationalist like Trump. You are probably thinking that Sanders is a nationalist too right? Whatever label he gives himself his ideas are that of a globalist populist. Basically you try to do what is best for everyone on the globe instead of everyone in the nation. This is why his stances to the refugees, illegal immigration, and his lack of understanding on the issue of healthcare.


In its simplest form progressive policies takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor. Who is the rich though? Is it China? Britain? The EU? If you haven’t figured out yet it is America. Progressive Globalism is at its heart a transfer of wealth from the US to every other country in the globe. The country is already poor and struggling but we are about to make everyone poorer.


One of Sanders main arguments is that other modern countries provide healthcare for all their citizens yet the US cannot. Why is this? Well the other countries have a limit on how much companies can charge for drugs and the US does not. The answer seems to be simple right? Place a limit on the drugs prices of the US. Well the companies recover their research costs in the American market. Without the American market then there would be no new drugs available. In effect the European countries can have good healthcare because the American healthcare system is bad. Once you fix the drug prices and crack down on illegal immigration, thereby lowering the total number of people who need healthcare and most likely cannot pay healthcare cost will be lowered.

Would a progressive globalist change this once he sees the impact of his policies on the rest of the world? I have my doubts. I have no doubt that a person who puts America First would have no trouble doing it.


People will be surprised to see this on the list. Isn’t Sanders the champion of 15$ minimum wage and Trump say we may have to lower it? It should be a no brainer right? My own personal view of minimum wage is that 15$ may work for California and New York who have economies so different from Iowa, Michigan, or Alabama that they may as well be from another country but it will not work for the poorer states who will not be able to afford it.

On to Sanders, you can legislate whatever minimum wage you want. You can say it will be 100$ it does not mean that it is good for the country nor does it mean that businesses will necessarily follow it. I would like to remind everyone that illegals exist and Sanders is the one most in favour of them. They can be hired like they are now to bypass the minimum wage.

Lets look at it without the promises. What keeps wages down? Well the scarcity of jobs and the excess of workers. More workers mean that they lose the ability to negotiate a good wage because they are easily replaceable. Given this data the only way to increase wages then is to increase the frequency of jobs and remove the excess of workers.

Let us take a look at what Sanders offers. He has offered citizenship to illegal aliens and has said he would not deport any. The gist is more incentives for illegal immigrants. The pope one of the biggest proponents of this has effectively endorsed him. What does illegal immigration do? Well it increases the available pool of workers. What about companies then? Currently after all the loopholes we have a 15% interest rate. Sanders would close the loopholes so we are back at 35% and then increase the tax so we are we effectively triple their rate. I am all for taxing corporations but at some point it is better to stop doing business in the country. You also don’t hear about tariffs from Sanders because that would hurt other economies who depend on selling to the US.

Wages are low because of scarcity of jobs and too many workers. Sanders adds to both fronts.


Well what about Trump? The person who says the national minimum wage will be lowered or left alone. Lets take a look using the same standards as Sanders. Trump has made it a central piece of his platform to aggressively go after illegals. Removing benefits, installing e verify, and then deporting them faster. This of course reduces the pool of available workers.

Trump has also made the wall a central piece of his campaign.  A lot of people see the wall as an anti – immigration program. Which it is, but it also doubles as a jobs program. After all does anybody think the wall will build itself? That adds to the frequency of jobs by itself. Trump also proposes to lower the corporate tax to 25% and close all loopholes. Corporations who can afford armies of lawyers will see their tax rate rise but small business who can’t will see it drop. The tax rate increase though is more modest than Bernie’s proposed one and combined with the Tariff Trump is threatening increases likelihood of companies remaining in the US.

Trumps policies increase the frequency of jobs and reduces the available workforce giving more opportunities for workers to negotiate a better wage for themselves.


Here both sides agree. We have to get our partners in alliances to foot the bill for more of their own defense spending. Right now because of globalization the US is paying for everyone spending facilitating the transfer of wealth from the country to outside.

The difficult thing then with Sanders position is he wants to cut the military whereas Trump wants to rebuild or spend money on it. On its face cutting the military may make sense. After all we are strong enough and we spend more money on the military than a lot of our competitors combined. If you live in a big city you most likely do not see the downside to this but there are so many small towns and cities across America that need their local base or manufacturing plant to survive. If you remove them then all of a sudden you get more Flint’s and Detroit’s. Of course the displaced citizens need jobs as well. What do you think a huge influx of unemployed workers will do to the negotiating power of labor? What do you think it will do to the demand for labor in the service industries in the affected areas.

I wrote earlier about the need for a trickle up economy but the military industrial complex is a roller coaster that we are on that we cannot get off until we have employment for the people displaced. The military is also unique in that due to security reasons they spend their money onshore. I would rather they spend all of it onshore but they spend such a high percentage that im convinced that it’s not totally wasted. If we want any hope of raising the wages we have to keep military spending as is at least for the meantime.


I feel that this article has gone on too long already so I am cutting it here. Trump does not set a high minimum wage instead he creates a condition wherein wages can be raised. As opposed to setting a wage which businesses will not be able to meet without hiring illegals. If you want quality healthcare and a higher wage I urge you to support Trump it is really the only way. Supporting someone with globalist principles, even progressive ones, just brings the standard of living of the US to the level of other countries.

If you have any other points that you would like me to address as to why only someone with the philosophy of Trump can achieve the goals of Sanders put it in the comment section below and ill make an article for it in the future.