The Trump Border Crisis Address and the Democrat Response

The problem of a porous southern border which our politicians have done nothing about has been festering for decades. President Trump has now brought the issue to a head and has started a real national debate. In actuality Mr. Trump is just a vehicle for bringing this situation to the forefront. The peculiar circumstances of his election was the result of large masses of U.S. citizens being disgusted with our dysfunctional federal government. The real instigators of all this fuss are the people who voted for him, the people who are increasingly concerned about the enlarging numbers of illegal immigrants among us along with drug traffic and the influx of some truly bad actors, the people that finally want some action about this fundamental federal government function.

Mr. Schumer and speaker Pelosi argue that a barrier would be ineffective, which defies common sense. Border walls have been shown to work dramatically in Israel and Hungary, and for that matter in our own country where they exist. Their idea that the present request for $5 billion is too expensive is laughable, considering the way billions are thrown around by their colleagues, not to mention the national expenses that would be reduced by truly controlling the border. Mrs. Pelosi argues that a border wall is immoral which is silliness. If that were true we should tear down the effective border walls we already have, such as in San Diego and El Paso. For that matter why would all our other efforts to prevent unauthorized entry such as the Border Patrol not then be considered immoral.

They argue that the President should sign their budget bill, and allow the federal government to fully function and then they will seriously address border security. How dumb do they think he is? The veto power is the one serious tool that the President has been given by the constitution to serve as a check on the congress. The obvious truth is that the main reason for the opposition of the Democrat leaders to principles they vigorously espoused in the recent past is to avoid giving Mr. Trump a political victory. I suppose that's understandable, but in doing this they are also thwarting the strong will and desire of those who put him in office. In truth I believe that a large majority of our people see the need to control our southern border, and indeed fix our broken immigration system generally, and are ready to have something serious done about the matter. Mr. Trump has put his plan on the table and it seems like a reasonable start. The Democrats offer us – opposition!

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Cost of Government, and Especially the Federal Government

 

Since I now have the time, I've been using a software program which tracks and broadly categorizes all my personal income and expenses and it's enlightening.

 

One thing that's notable is that the largest expense category of all is taxes. And that doesn't even account for added on taxes like sales and gasoline tax. Breaking that down further I found that federal taxes amounted to more than twice the amount of all other types of taxes combined together.

 

Now despite what it may seem I'm not an anti-government anarchist. Government is essential in human society for protection, settling of differences and as Jefferson put it, for the pursuit of happiness. And for these United States a federal government that's strong enough to carry out its essential functions is important. Our founders determined that point after observing the results of the weak federal government embodied in the original Articles of Confederation. The U.S. Constitution which they devised was truly a work of practical genius, world-changing really. They established the principle that governmental authority is derived from the consent of the citizens and they laid out a simple framework in which this principal could be expressed in practice. They came up with a system dividing up specific functions, balancing each with specific powers over the other, and accommodating regional differences.

 

There are essential services that belong at the federal level and these are timelessly spelled out in general in the Federalist Papers. That must have been a remarkable time when there was a real national debate on whether to accept the new constitution. The Feds are needed to protect the general integrity of the country from outside forces, to interact with foreign powers, to settle differences between the States, to establish a common currency, and importantly as a general protector of individual rights. On the other hand the principle was established that governing should be done as close to home as possible, where we can get our hands on it if need be, and where its services pertain specifically to the community. I like especially the 10^th amendment to the Bill of Rights which states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

So back to taxes. We certainly have to provide the funds for all this necessary government functioning. But I ask myself, should it be the largest expense category? Well then I look at what I'm getting in return. It's significant – roads, schools, garbage pickup, the courts and so on. But then it strikes me that most of that stuff is all fairly local, paid for by local and state taxes, plus the added on sales and gas tax. To be sure there are some important federal services that are not so evident, like the military and the ambassadors. But are these enough to justify federal taxes that are more than twice all the other taxes combined.

 

Then I look at the statistic about half of all the richest counties in the U.S. being with an hours drive from Washington and the $20 trillion dollar national debt, and it makes me wonder what's going on here. No real answers but it's worth thinking about.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Bizarre World of Hospital Charges

I'm involved in a minor financial battle with a hospital where I stayed overnight back in July. Being what's called technically an "observation" admission, my Medicare covered everything but "self administrable" medications. Why the distinction is anybody's guess. These are meds you normally take at home, but in the hospital they're provided for you and you're never given the option to bring them from home, and I don't even know if hospital policy allows it.

 

In any case, while I was in the hospital a nice lady from the business office came by and briefly mentioned the charge along with other details. I was feeling fine and everything was hunky-dory.

 

Three months later I got my bill for $200 for the one day supply of my meds. I take a few, and one expensive one, but nothing even close to that price. So I wrote back that I thought the charge was unreasonable and requested an adjustment. I recently got back an itemized bill listing the individual meds and the charges and sure enough they were all anywhere from 5 to more than 20 times  their out of pocket cost from the pharmacy, that is, not the discounted cost that the hospital would pay.  I won't go into the details, but for example 1 baby aspirin for $5.50.

 

So it brings up the whole subject of medical prices which is a great mystery, since no one pays for anything directly. We get letters from Medicare monthly in 20 different languages explaining the unexplainable, what the charges are, what Medicare approves, and what we may be responsible for, which is of course the only thing we're interested in. But that leaves out the secondary coverage which adds to the mystery.

 

At least now I have the actual charges detailed, after the fact of course which is a bizarre aspect of the whole transaction. I mean how many restaurants do you go into without prices listed on the menu and you find out when the bill comes. If you're in the rare one with no prices, you shouldn't be unless you are a multi-millionaire or a Washington politician.

 

So I wrote them back, thanked them for their service, which was good by the way, but still contended that the $5.50 baby aspirin, etc. was pretty absurd and I still want an adjustment. After all, I could just as well have brought in my pills from home and taken them with no problem.

 

Hospitals are a particularly byzantine component of the high cost of medical care. The ins and outs of the finances of these "non-profit" institutions is a great mystery, even for someone who worked in them for many years. It's true that they must write off a lot of services that they're obliged to do because they get federal financing. So they shift the cost to other payers, and that's where things get really complicated. But the bottom line is that they're a big player in the medical care cost picture. These "non-profit" institutions pay their CEO's big salaries, are presently in the process of buying up doctor practices wholesale, and are a bright spot in our somewhat shoddy infrastructure picture in that they seem to have the dough to build shiny new high tech buildings all over the place.

 

If you think handing over medical payments to the government would solve the problem, think again. One big reason for the present comfortable status of such mega health care institutions is that they're hand in glove with the federal government.

 

So it's going to be interesting to see how my little battle works out. The service was done, the hospital was out of town, so I could just blow it off, but I like to pay my bills. I just don't like getting caught up in this shell game. Emily says I should just pay the bill, but I'm too stubborn for that. Medical consumers should fight back, but it's hard to do when everything is a secret until you get the bill.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10