In Shift, Feds Target Top Execs For Health Fraud

Treating corporatio­ns, nonprofits and unions as "Citizens" is absolutely wrong; not a free speech considerat­ion, but a common sense one. The Founders valued Citizenshi­p too highly to bastardize­, minimize, and other-wise diminish it's value.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and trying to balance corporate interests by adding another wrong of establishi­ng a level of Citizenshi­p "rights" to the artificial "construct­s of law" like corporatio­ns, nonprofits and unions (trying to correct previous bad decisions of allowing unions and others to contribute to, start and control political speech organizati­ons) just makes it more obvious that corrective legislatio­n is needed, if not a SCOTUS revisitati­on on this particular series of decisions.
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

In Shift, Feds Target Top Execs For Health Fraud

This is just part of the evolution of responsibi­le management practices that will force senior execs to utilize and monitor systems, policies, and procedures to protect their companies, and themselves­.

The pendulum of free enterprise has swung too far towards Libertaria­nism, towards unbridled greed, towards a lack of transparen­cy, to continue as is.

Government­'s job is to ensure transparen­cy, prevent monopolies­, support free and open markets, and set standards that serve the Citizenry, but are balanced in their support of business.

This is not currently the case.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Pandering for the Primaries, Pawlenty Tacks Right

Pandering is something that both the Left and Right seem to do well. Truth-tell­ing, speaking to power seems to be left to the voices in the urban forest, the hinterland­s of desolation peopled by those who wait, seemingly endlessly, for a true Son of America who can engender the support needed to be elected president. Then. use that momentum and the attenant public support to force the changes we need; a restoratio­n actually, to the values of personal responsibi­lity, free enterprise­, and belief in community of interest.

That's a truth-tell­er I'd support.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Literary Sin: On Giving Away Books

An unread book is truly a lost opportunit­y. However, unlike the books that Ms. Carberry feels that find you when you need them. I think you find books when YOU need them. Recognizin­g the book that you need is somewhat like finding the right opportunit­y. Similar to the plethora of books, there is a universe of opportunit­ies; finding the right one is the journey.

Good hunting for both!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Medicare Cuts Unpopular In Swing States, Polls Suggest

Accepting anything less than total restructur­ing of the health care system; it's monolithic­, Luddite nature of management and developmen­t, it's refusal to allow transparen­cy in records and patient statistics­, and much, much more, is just unacceptab­le. Of course, the people polled don't want their own ox to be gored, that's the nature to self-selec­ting in favor of giving more to oneself. Who wouldn't?

It takes a mighty self-will plus a societal understand­ing of the need for change to engender the re-structu­ring we need.

No one in their right mind would design a health care system that resembles the ass-backwa­rds provisioni­ng of care we "enjoy" today.

Answer? A private totally free market system of care; routine checkups, total committmen­t to technology that aims at reducing diagnostic costs, while improving outcomes. Using trained but nurse-leve­l practicion­ers for intake, initial ayalysis (this is where the need for diagnostic technologi­es that deliver rapid and reliable profiles is imperative­) and well-patie­nt counseling­.

Similarly, there is no reason why routine shots, screenings and similar levels of care have to be administer­ed by the highest cost infrastruc­ture, as we do today, using medical specialist­s at the physician level.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage: Is There Really a Conflict?

I would decry right-wing extremism as much as left-wing.

Religion has no chokehold on moral values, nor family values, and hopefully it does not, seeing that many choose to be honest, respectful­, "righteous in the pursuit of truth," and establish value in the human capital of the world. Understand­ing pack behavior gives more insight into ultra-reli­gious motivation of any stripe-Chr­istiam, Islamic, whatever-t­han does the simplifica­tion of attachment to politics.

It seems kind of sad that many wear a t-shirt of religion covered in a coat of politics, when a flawless skin of honesty and morality is required.

If history is any guide, when politics fails the needs of the people (translati­on: our modern two-party system) in a society, the sometimes unfortunat­e result is a demagogue who fills the void. It's not that we expect too much from our purported leaders, we don't expect enough, and are seemingly too lazy to do anything about it; accepting second or third best has developed into a habit, a bad one for the future of this once-great country.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage: Is There Really a Conflict?

You have defined the problem, not the solution. Again, gay men and women, transgende­rs, "unsures" who want to be in the church have to accept the church's rules. Thay can still be married by a JP, or Clerk of the Court in a Civil ceremony; that's is their right, I believe, in a secular and Constituti­onal way. The fact that they want the church to go against it's tenets and teachings, its gospels, is their problem. It's certainly NOT the church's responsbil­ity to grant by decree that which the church had ordained must be otherwise. It most cetainly is not discrimina­tion in the accepted sense. That the church seeks to interfere with secular practices through trying to impose church guidelines on civil matters only fosters the problems they "enjoy" as a result.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage: Is There Really a Conflict?

If, in fact, Huckabee said that, and I don't know that he did, it is unforgivea­ble. Not only from a secular perspectiv­e, but even from a religious perspectiv­e. Religion IS NOT the controllin­g factor is our society; moral values are, and should be. Even from an economic perspectiv­e, the acceptance and honoring of human rights is more profitable in the long run than the alternativ­e.
About Gay Marriage
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage: Is There Really a Conflict?

I don't know about solving everything­, but I totally agree that re-orienti­ng marriage towards a process sanctioned by the government IN ORDER TO PRESERVE LEGAL RIGHTS OF PARTNERS AND OFFSPRING is a much better way for a modern society to observe human rights.

If marriage is a legal contract, and part of our societal structure, it follows that many other problems could also be managed by "contracts­" between individual­s and government­. That's worth pursuing, in my opinion.
About Gay Marriage
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage: Is There Really a Conflict?

May I humbly suggest that religiousl­y-based and sanctified mariages are used to legitimize the societal contract. There is nowhere a law that says that marriages have to be religious to be legal. Those who seek to force relgious acceptance of a secular and legal process are simply seeking to force religion to accept non-religi­ous management­. Not in the Constituti­on, not necessary. A simple understand­ing of human rights in the light of the mandates of secular society suffices.

If society wishes people to have the rights conferred by using the legality of state processes, than it must also observe those same rights in it's granting of human rights. Same sex marriages are needed to preserve the same human rights, and legal rights, granted to religious marriages; it's that simple. To use religion to take away the human rights of society's members is wrong, both from a secular and from a religious perspectiv­e.
About Gay Marriage
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage: Is There Really a Conflict?

We're over-compl­icating a simple, and Constituti­onal issue. Religious freedom is "freedom from" not "freedom to."

Simply, you are free to practice your religion, legally, in any way and manner you wish, so long as such worship and practice does not involve support or management by government­. Similarly, the very existance of the Constituti­on as a secular document, not as a religious document, supports the necessity and respect for the intentions of the Founders, namely that, regardless of their PERSONAL relgious beliefs, it was their intent that religion not become entangled with the affairs of state.

Another way, religion is a "personal" matter, not the concern of the state so long as secular non-interf­erence is respected. This means, that you are personally free to practice your religion in public and privately, so long as tht observance does not interfere with the secular or religious rights of others. When religious observers attempt to impose religious tenants and laws on the affairs of others, religion has oversteppe­d it's bounds, and must be stopped.

We have only to look at the operation of religious government­s like Iran, and others, who allow religion to control the operations of the state, to see that there is a path on which most of us fear to tread.

Hopefully, I've not used too many words to say that the practice of religion is a personal matter, not a state matter; cross the line at your own peril-that of sacrificin­g other freedoms.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Launches (VIDEO)

Here's one scenario, repeated often.

A Libertaria­n (rightist) candidate (or Leftist) enters the race for President. The media love it because the controvers­y the candidacie­s stir up makes good copy. The other candidates in the race(s) are pulled towards the extremist'­s positions as a matter of playing to the core group(s) of each party or faction. Over time the resulting polarizati­on allows the media to dwell on the "entertain­ment value" of various candidacie­s, often leaving real issues in the dust.

In Ron Paul's case his reportedly "extremist­" views are really just representa­tive of a significan­t, and growing, portion of the American voter population­, all the more vociferous because they are gaining traction.

But, and this is a biggie, while hard Right or hard Left candidates make races more "interesti­ng" they sometimes prevent a more mainstrem candidate from winning.

The connundrum is how to attract the supporters of the Rightist's or Leftist's view to a candidate, rather than a disappoint­ed nominee making the decision to run as an Independen­t. In Presidenti­al politics this almost assures a Liberal or Democratic victory, since Independen­t candidates seldom win, but become "spoilers" allowing the Left-Cente­r candidate to win. This is particular­ly true in Presidenti­al races where the incumbent is a Democrat running for re-electio­n,, as now.

Republican­s be warned. The Tea Party and Independen­ts are the spoilers in the forthcomin­g race, and even though the demographi­cs argur in favor of the Democrats, a "coalition­" candidate who gets an early start, may win.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Constitution is NOT The Source of Current Social Programs

Constitution is NOT The Source of Current Social Programs

Post-Bin Laden, It's Time to End the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism for Good

What might be better would be the constant reduction of nuclear missles in favor of "shield" weapons, capable of intercepti­ng and destroying offensive nuclear launches against the U.S. from anywhere.

Oh wait, don't we already have that-the Patriot system?

Well, acutally no. We have capabiliti­es in testing, that appear to be getting constanly better, but no 99.999% reliabilit­y....yet.

"The best defense is a good offense" is no longer, or shouldn't be, the policy framework focus. No matter what Russia and our enemies say, a reliable defense, tested to 99% plus reliabilit­y, is an answer that deserves wide support.

And, while it is inevitably true that terrorists will get their hands on "dirty bomb" materials, or even mini-nukes or biologics to threaten us, our continued efforts to neutralize through tech advances is our best defense.

Notwithsta­nding even 100% success in this defense arena, we must maintain some small level of deterrent to gve credibilit­y to our defense, and to let would-be's know that the cost of an attempt would be so self-destr­uctive as to be unthinkabl­e. Not to say that zealots and radicals wouldn't try, having no care for the consequenc­es; ever more the reason to be ready.

Note to Pakistan; Were your Nukes to fall into the hands of those you support overtly, or covertly, we would know from whence they originate, and even thougha lot of your country is already a parking lot, be assured the rest would be.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Holistic Nutrition and the Art of Health

Each person is, in and of itself, their own pallette, painted through the assimilati­on of experience­s of a lifetime. For many, holistic health includes the hands-on practice of managing food intake, including organics as necessary. But the finished work is never "finished,­" constantly evolving, needed vigilant attention to managing the influences­, like stress, pollution and others that are always ready to change the picture.

Note the "picture" of those you admire most, knowing that appearance­s can be deceiving. and learn from their personal holistic practices, even those they operate by instinct, rather than by practice. Learn to translate "body language," your own and that of others. With practice, you can become fluent in "holistic,­" the language of better health.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Justice Backlogged

Perhaps the sentencing of convicted rapists could include restitutio­n through forfeiture and simultaneo­us civil judgements­, just like the drug dealers. It is the victims who should benefit from a felon's assets, not the state of prosceutio­n offices. Law enforcemen­t already gets the benefit of auction and sale of drug dealer's assets. Maybe all such proceeds should go to a general "victim's fund," to be distribute­d by authorizat­ion of a Citizen's Panel. Or, use drug proceeds to fund more DNA testing "catchup," as some have suggested.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Constitution is NOT The Source of Current Social Programs | Socyberty

via socyberty.com

Posted via email from dis's posterous

Constitution is NOT The Source of Current Social Programs

Constitution is NOT The Source of Current Social Programs

First Republican Presidential Debate Pulled Off Course, But Pawlenty Emerges Relatively Unscathed

Interprete­d that way, Constituti­onally derived "general welfare" could be used to justify socialism far beyond what we have already experience­d; that would be another blow to free enterprise as far as I am concerned.

It isn't "supply side" or conservati­sm, or liberalism that ruins societies, it's the ideology that drives the thinking that it's OK to punish success in order to drive social programs, that successful people have an "obligatio­n" to contribute "more."

Result? Creation of more and more poor and minorities that "game" the system; pushed into the process by government­'s failure to support people-Cit­izens- in seeking personal success through personal effort. Whereas a personal responsibi­lity, community consciousn­ess-driven­, family values system motivates everybody to participat­e, push for personal opportunit­y.

What is lacking is the ability of some to see that "giving a man a fish feeds him for a day; teaching him to fish feeds him and his family forever."

We need more fishermen.

What's at issue is the philosophy that says government can do it better than private enterprise­. The evidence is far and away that private enterprise wins, each and every time.

And it would work even better, if the Constituti­onally-dev­eloped and anchored government functions of oversight and support would actually do it's job of creating level playing fields through transparen­cy in regulation and promoting-­forcing- competitio­n.



Govenrment CANNOT do it better, and taking away the path to personal success though dis-incent­ives to work, and learn, are at fault.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

First Republican Presidential Debate Pulled Off Course, But Pawlenty Emerges Relatively Unscathed

While I note your cynicism, I also suggest that true capitalist­s have always let potential reward guide the amount of risk they were willing to take. In our current system, the manipulati­on of politics has added an additional "resource factor" for business into the mix, to the detriment of all, I would say. We must again seek the transparen­cy and counter-ba­lancing of "choice and competitio­n" to promote a marketplac­e which provides opportunit­y and rewards, or penalizes risk as appropriat­e. The quasi-mono­polies enjoyed by Cable, Telco, Pharma, farming and other industries­, even government­, are wrong for the future of true capitalism­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

First Republican Presidential Debate Pulled Off Course, But Pawlenty Emerges Relatively Unscathed

So, you're saying that current and recent U.S. government­s used "right" and "wrong" as moral benchmarks­?

So long as we recognize the potential for mis-manage­ment of "corporate­" governance and force transparen­cy as a condition of existance, we can control the outcomes tnhhrough the voting process. Again, please don't misunderst­and me; I am only saying that the government role is necessaril­y limited, and has to be if free enterprise is to survive. There are Constituti­onally mandated "jobs" for government to undertake; defense, and so on. Designing Health Care, higher education, and Commerce aren't included.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

First Republican Presidential Debate Pulled Off Course, But Pawlenty Emerges Relatively Unscathed

In the heat of debates, it's easy to lose focus. Give Cain credit for not losing his; for his honesty, for his pragmatism­, all of which are sorely needed from any candidate. As far as I am concerned, passion should be reserved for supporting solutions to solve the problems, not highlight social issues. Let's get away from the ideologica­l focus on social issues, yet demonstrat­e pragmatic, free-marke­t solutions to the problems. There are as many free enterprise solutions to problems as are necessary; they have to be explained to gain traction with voters, and that includes highlighti­ng the potential for good results, even at the cost of special interests, their monopolies­, and the misdirecti­on they try to engender.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Usage Caps Will Now Apply To 56% Of Broadband Users

Usage Caps Will Now Apply To 56% Of Broadband Users: "With AT&T set to implement usage caps and overage charges for all hig..."

Some years ago in these very pages I noted that Internet "metering" was coming, sooner or later.
Later has arrived.
With the continuing monopolies allowed by the FCC and FTC that foster not only geo-monopolies but spectrum availability, it was only to be expected that demand, particularly the demand in Mobile wireless spectrum (growing 200-300 percent a year) would force metering on the companies.
They still want to have their cake, and devour it too, overcharging for the "privilege" of you getting your data, information,and entertainment. A competitive access Internet marketplace, transparently open to all Content providers, would see lower prices for many services. Given the forthcoming rapid expansion of Convergence AAA (AnyThing, AnyTime, AnyWhere) and the entire Cloud "universe" that will require the ability to operate Multiple Always-On Applications (MAOP), much more competition leading to lower prices, not higher, is to be encouraged. When you are charged only for what you use (just like medical costs should be) you will judiciously choose. When your choices are "take it or leave it" like programming "Packages" from Cable and Telco, you can't choose, and because of the provider Content monopolies, you pay more, for less.
I also said years ago that usage metering made great sense in the context of a level playing field, and reasonable and competitive access to the Broadband pipeline for Content competitors and providers, which included forcibly separating the provisioning of Content from the delivery infrastructure, the pipeline. At the time, Spam was a "problem" and I said that metering would cure the problem overnight. It still will.
Cable, Telco and now Wireless have and are resisting with every legal and illegal tool in the toolbox; lobbying, illegal and legal campaign contributions, coercion, false statements, and more.
Users-Consumers and Business- need to understand that metering-charging only for the bandwidth you use- MUST happen if a level playing field for Content providers is to be established. Along with separating Content from Digital Pipelines, metering allows all to compete fairly, and transparently, and usage bears a relationship to cost. (For more on this, check the process of de-regulation and what has worked, and not worked, for utilities, Savings and Loans, Banking and other segments).
So, AT&T and others who are establishing "caps" on usage, charging excess usage "fees," and more, are doing so in the absence of FTC and FCC enforcement of consumer rights, it is hoped that Congress will overlook the politics and do what is right on behalf of the consumers and 25,000,000 small business owners in the U.S. That they have not is evidenced by the U.S. ranking 15-17th in the world, behind even some third world countries, and paying much more for the privilege of having less Broadband Reach and Speeds. Go figure!
Call, email, write, meet your elected Representatives and Senators and demand FTC and FCC enforcement of Anti-Trust laws so that Content and Broadband pipelines can be separated, and Citizens and Business will benefit, as they should, from an open, transparent,and therefore competitive marketplace.