I say we begin [...]]]> Since we do not know yet how the Supreme Court will rule on the Healthcare Mandate, I think we need to prepare ourselves that this might stand.   If it does, it is time for Conservatives to figure out how they will deal with this, when they eventually return to power.

I say we begin to push a mandate on firearm purchase and proper self-defense and military training.   The continuing and increased government expense to offer police services, to those that are not protecting themselves, is a tax burden carried by the rest of us.   Military spending needed to get citizens to a basic fitness and skill with firearms, slows our ability to respond in an emergency and distracts resources from necessary higher value services.

Like healthcare, many people will require police protection at some point in their lives.   Some more than others and some may not need it at all.   But because you cannot predict when the proper use of a firearm may be required,  every citizen must be protected and insured against that eventuality.    The improper use of a firearm can be very destructive and therefore proper training to insure proper use is a necessary element of this right.

Unlike healthcare, the right to bear arms is an actual right in the Constitution.   The need for “a well regulated militia” is directly recognized.   Therefore, those that are not properly executing this right, need to.    Based on the current healthcare argument this conservative mandate should pass unanimously.

This “FACT” stated by the headline is torn apart by the article itself.

The US produces 2% of worlds oil today.   So if we increase our production by 10%, the impact on world Oil [...]]]> ABC News proving that their “fact check” needs a new headline:
FACT CHECK: More US Drilling Didn’t Drop Gas Price

This “FACT” stated by the headline is torn apart by the article itself.

The US produces 2% of worlds oil today.   So if we increase our production by 10%, the impact on world Oil reserves is 1/5 of 1%.   This supply can be easily offset by shifts by OPEC or the Saudi’s.    They do touch on this basic truth, “That’s because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. ”

“Unlike natural gas or electricity, the United States alone does not have the power to change the supply-and-demand equation in the world oil market”   Now oddly in this article it states that we supply “11% of the world’s output”.    This would seem an odd contradiction to the President’s “2% of the world’s oil.”   But it is not.     The 2% number is based on the amount of oil under drill heads available for removal.   The 11% is based on the actual removal of oil and places onto the open market.   Neither of these numbers represent the actual amount of oil available to be tapped and used.    Numbers very based on type of oil and industry versus government estimates.  But the numbers are probably somewhere near 1Trillion barrels of oil (or 200 more years at current levels).

“ if the U.S. were to increase its oil production by 50 percent it would at most cut gas prices by 10 percent.”   OK, the math is close (11% increased to 16.5% would impact the world market by about 10%).     But this is flawed in two ways.   First,  if we were to double or triple our production so that we were a player in the market, then our impact would be felt much greater on the world market.    But if you understand that markets are more dynamic than basic linear math, this even fails.   If the US were to show it was serious in increasing it’s share of world markets the competitive countries would drop prices to try and keep us from attaining market share.    Keeping us at 10% on the world markets allows them to control prices.   The US being a player limits their independent control over the market and forces the prices to a lower level.     Think about any other free market and the impact of a growing competitor.

More so, within this country, where the employment of high wage jobs, huge profits and taxes from oil sales would flood the country in money.   How much of a lift would our economy get and how much good could we do with that money being here instead of in the Middle East deserts?    How much less environmental impact would their be and free trade in not shipping the oil across the Oceans and through the Suez Canal?   Why shouldn’t we be an oil provider in world markets?

It is kind of amazing that after having the rights for twenty years or so for a book that is 1000+ pages the movie really seems rushed.

The overall movie seemed to jump from scene to scene trying to get through the story but not really settling in on the main plot.   I [...]]]> In summary, rushed.

It is kind of amazing that after having the rights for twenty years or so for a book that is 1000+ pages the movie really seems rushed.

The overall movie seemed to jump from scene to scene trying to get through the story but not really settling in on the main plot.   I liked the shift from the 1950s to a much more modern version of the story.   But this was left lacking, simply mentioning the headlines and moving on into the story.  Continual reenforcement of the overall theme was sprinkled throughout but it seemed a background and none of it left a lasting impact.

The character development was lacking, almost believing that anyone that saw this movie already knew and therefore who cares.   Dagney was stiff early on, seeming caught between just bad acting and trying to ply the stiffer stodgy persona of the early Dagney.   Rearden was not as I would have cast him, but was likable.   He seemed to be the focus of this film and did get a bit more development through family as well as business associations.

Though the character development was weak a few people stood out.  Rearden’s wife Lillian was perfectly cast.  And, though not a fit for my minds-eye, Ellis Wyatt was absolutely wonderful.

But the one on one interactions that cement the books themes in your mind were lost.  Fransisco’s character was not as intriguing and mysterious as he needed to be.  Though not key to this section, he needed to draw the interest of the viewers.   And important scene with the professor connecting Fransisco, Ragnar and the yet unnamed was important enough to put in, but lacked the sadness and disappointment to connect it to the audience as valuable.

Readen’s defense in front of the court completely erased which surprised me.   Maybe they could not do it justice by cutting it down and figured it was best left unsaid.

Once the movie shifts from the early stages to the building of the John Galt Line, the pace of the subject seems to catch the pace of the film.   Though, I think it too could have been slowed.  More detail on the impact of the men who vanish, the hoops jumped through and nearly impossible task.  Make us want them to win, make it seem that they might fail.   The relationship that builds between Rearden, Wyatt and Dagney was finally evident at Wyatt’s house but the story did not take us on that journey and therefore it was not a climactic as it could have been.

The ending at Wyatt’s torch was powerful but it too seemed to jump and cut too quickly.   The suspense of what had happened, where he was and the ultimate realization that he had done this himself should have shocked to audience.  They seemed more confused and then remembered (those that read the book).  The signpost was there but a tighter focus on Dagney’s realization, reading the sign and then a cut to the fire and then fade (or zoom) into the sign standing alone could have really driven it home.  Another powerful moment lost.

Overall, I am glad the film was made, it needed to be done, I just wish it was more to my liking.   My friend that was with me said that it could have been as powerful as the Godfather, or filmed like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction.  I had to agree.  It had the potential and missed it.

Not one to leave an opinion without a solution, I will endeavor to explain how it might have been improved.   Many will say why, too late, leave the review and move on.   I say no for two reasons.  First this is only part one of three and improvements should be made to draw more crowds to the remaining films and not less.   I also believe that there is still time to improve on the first film.  It will have a DVD release.  This could have scenes added or updated in an enhanced or editors version.   This improved and longer version could then be released to theaters to coincide with th release of part two.  Hell, if Lucas can change Star Wars, surely this could use a little refining on the edges.

1.  Reshaping the overall environment.

One of the elements from the book that seemed to be deeply lacking was the disparity and destruction of the country and the need for men (and women) of great value.   It was shown in the city street scenes but never really addressed directly.   The government was interceding but those seemed more directed at Rearden then for the more altruistic social good.

a. One direct and powerful scene knits some of this together.   The scene when Dagney is talking to the magazine stand owner.   He talks about the economy, the busy people in the train station and their movement.

“I don’t like the thing that’s happening to people…I’ve watched them here for twenty years and I’ve seen the change.  They used to rush through here, and it was wonderful to watch, it was the hurry of men who knew where they were going and were eager to get there.  Now they’re hurrying because they are afraid.  It’s not a purpose that drives them, it’s fear.  They’re not going anywhere, they’re escaping.  And I don’t think they know what it is that they want to escape.  They don’t look at one another… I don’t know what it is that happening to the world.”

b. Another important moment is that the magazine stand owner gives her a cigarette.   This one, then one with Fransisco (also dropped from the movie…or maybe that scene is later), ties together with the one being smoked by Hugh Akston.  That linkage could have been shown to the audience with tight focus on the cigarette (or cigarette butts) letting them connect and be pulled in by something yet unknown.

c.  They included the scene when, as the line is being built, the union boss tries to stop it from being run.  But they left out her getting all of the volunteers.  Could have been altered into a very short scene of her and Eddie walking towards the room talking about the need for volunteers, entering a room full of men ready to help, despite the unions wishes.  A few handshakes and reconciliatory nods woudl have sufficed to enhance the need for these people.

d.  When the train was pulling out of the station the tracks should have been lined with people.  This was vivid int he book.  Though the government had said it was not safe, people needed the line to work.  They needed success.  Bums, families, other workers, everyone along the line waving, holding signs to set the mood, then turning into a blur as the train came up to speed.

2.  Concentrate on the one on one conversations.

I mentioned a few scenes above that I felt were lacking.  The court scene and deeper understanding of Fransisco were the most glaring.   But even the scenes that were present in the film did not pack the power and tension required.   A slowed down deeper confrontation would help to draw the viewer into the scene and the characters.   In a sense, it seems that the directors tried to change a deeply philosophical drama about political tensions into an action film.  Thinking Godfather or Hitchcock for elements on how to do this well and draw you in.

The answer is two-fold and in both parties: Corporate crony-ism and votes. Corporations want cheap labor and political parties want votes.  People would not vote for higher prices and percieved “racism”.  Therefore, politicians have no reason to fix the problem… or should I say “had” [...]]]> I want to go a different direction. Why has illegal immigration not been fixed?

The answer is two-fold and in both parties: Corporate crony-ism and votes. Corporations want cheap labor and political parties want votes.  People would not vote for higher prices and percieved “racism”.  Therefore, politicians have no reason to fix the problem… or should I say “had” no reason?

Crime in border cities has grown, kidnappings and killings were profiled, debt became a major issue and unemployment doubled.   Now, the voters that were willing to turn a blind eye to “cheap labor for cheaper goods” have seen the impact of their own selfish decisions.  They are finally demanding accountability of their politicians and corporations. There are no jobs Americans will not do (watch Dirty Jobs a few times). There are millions of people here legally that need work. Those here from other countries will lose their “work visas” without “work” and students are graduating into a dead market. The costs of cheap labor are now hurting our economy and forcing us to rethink that which we ignored.

I agree with all the costs, the crime, the risks to our security, etc. But all of this was allowed to happen to keep cost of labor down. Let’s be honest about it. If we want cheap goods and cheap labor, create a worker program. But the cost of education, crime and unemployment may not be impacted by this in the least. We simply need to harden the border to illegal traffic, find the new normal and then create a managed worker program to satisfy the “need” within the constructs of our economy. Just like we do with legal immigrants today.

Note: Suggestions for a worker program are not restricted to Mexico. Why are all all the race-bating Democrats so against all other races and nationalities? Why not a worker program from Haiti, South America, Africa, the Western Block, China and or billions of other poor people throughout the world? Why do the people of Mexico, that are willing to ignore or sovereignty, get to benefit simply from their physical location? Let them compete on the world market in a guest worker program and you will be amazed how many millions want to be here, legally and work for a decent wage.  In this case; crime, drug use and education will likely be improved.

I am not talking about GOP arguments against Obamacare, their promises to repeal it or any new plans.   I am talking about passed (past) legislation that can be reviewed in practice.    I am talking about [...]]]> The short answer as with many large policy issues is “Absolutely and to the core of their policy direction.”

I am not talking about GOP arguments against Obamacare, their promises to repeal it or any new plans.   I am talking about passed (past) legislation that can be reviewed in practice.    I am talking about a comparison between the GOP HSA Healthcare plans and Obamacare.    I talked about this before when I was investigating HSAs.    I have since joined my HSA compatible plan and linked up my Health Savings Account.

Simply reading through the documentation, I was struck at how different this is from the discussions and legislative language of Obamacare.   I think a side by side comparison of the basic philosophies in these two models is worth noting.

Health Insurance; what’s that?

At the core, an HSA is Health Insurance not a Health Plan or Health Coverage.   In an HSA the premiums are low (mine less than $200 a month) and the deductibles are high ($3000).      It covers only yearly exams until you reach that $3000 maximum and then it covers you 100%.  Some plans have a 80/20 split window to another maximum out-of-pocket.   I elected for the 0/100 to 100/0 option.

Obamacare and the health exchanges are Health Coverage with higher monthly premiums and co-pays.   You pay each month into a pool to cover the majority of expenses.  That pool is then used above and beyond your co-pay , 80/20, 70/30 or 50/50 split to pay the medical practitioner up to your out-of-pocket maximum.   In most cases the total out-of-pocket maximum exceeds the $3000 I selected.

Tax Deferral

The HSA term itself  really refers to the bank account (Health Saving Account) that you link to a high deductible (HSA compatible) health plan.   The money that you put into that account can be used to pay medical expenses, buy prescription drugs,  other medical services and over the counter medications.    You can put whatever money you need into the account but the first $3000 is tax deductible (or pre-tax in the case of a payroll deduction).    Note that the deductible and the maximum contribution are the same… this is not a coincidence.   The short strokes:  You use tax free money to pay your medical bills.

In traditional health care plans your monthly premiums and Flexible spending account contributions where also paid tax free.

Obamacare did not leave this untouched.    The total cost of your health care plan is now part of your paycheck and you will be taxed (as income) on the coverage that exceeds the government regulation.   Though this may not directly tax you on the payments you are making, it can have a tax impact if you have elected high valued coverage options.

Who is swimming in my Risk Pool?

In my case the HSA is individual insurance.    If I have a huge outlay of expenses, I draw against my savings until the $3000 and then insurance covers the rest.   If that expense has ongoing repercussions, my premiums could be raised or I could be dropped.   This is simply a fact that my potential to repeatably cost the insurance company money in excess of my $2400 premiums has now been increased.   Same as car insurance and those with frequent accidents.

Side note: I approve of  the Obamacare goal to limit insurance companies from dropping people outright due to increased usage.   I believe that some cap on year over year increases (due to usage [not inflation]) should be put in place.     When I entered into this agreement with the insurance company, they agreed to take on some risk.  They should not reserve to right to cancel at any time when that risk does not pay out.    However, I also understand that they are a business and cannot be required to lose money year over year simply to benefit me.    I think a simple 25% usage-based premium increase cap and a 3-5 year contract period should be in place.   If after that time I am still a losing proposition they can set me free.

I also believe that some sort of shared risk pool should be created among insurance companies to mitigate these outlays (aka insurance for insurance companies).    This will protect their business models, they likely do this today in some form.

I know it is possible to have HSA compatible plans in a corporate structure.   This is a slightly larger to much larger pool that mitigates risk.     This mitigated risk pool is usually a social contract entered into as a benefit* of employment.

*It is a benefit to those in the high risk area and a increased cost to those in the low risk pool.

Obamacare hopes to set up a larger more public risk pool among millions of US citizens.  Asking healthy citizens to pay more to give coverage to the poor and provide coverage at a huge discount to the unhealthy and the currently uninsurable.

Basic Truth

In the final analysis the basics are this:  Freedom and Individual choice (with individual risk) versus Government control and shared risk (with shared expense).