But keep reading, as I put a lot of thought into it. I hope to get some creative thinkers out there to help me out. Might need some research completed, too....also, there are many facets of captialism and economic structure that need delving into, so understand that this is pretty broad. I believe much of it can be accomplished, though. LET THE READING BEGIN (AND THE SUBSEQUENT CAGE MATCH)
I have been putting a lot of objective thought and research into this matter. I acknowledge that I lean more towards the evolution of our country and believe we should refuse to be the only western democracy not to embrace the idea that every citizen, regardless of their station in life, deserves to have the right to receive the best health care.
That said, I have struggled with the current debate and how it is going down, as the winning party needs to use the leverage they have, and stop the political posturing this is a politically unpopular issue in our current environment, but I dont think it would be long implemented before it was hailed for its success(for example, regardless if you like Medicare and Social Security, you want the security of them being there, and are in the mindset of they need to be fixed, not scrapped however, both at the time of being passed initially were also hotly debated issues).
I think Obama should buck politics and force through the right solutiona public only option, regardless of the political fall out and I truly believe, if you read on, that this will help our cause with e-cigarettes in the long run. I have spent time putting my thoughts together to try to make this as concise a post as I can, and I feel strongly about this.
Current issue : FDA (a regulatory authority that is politically appointed, but should be a watchdog for what food and drug products are approved for use based on the safety and common good) wants to ban sale of e-cigarettes.
Current players: Big tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Health Care
What would the public option of health care mean? A huge shift in the corporate and sector base in which companies are the leaders in the capital markets, and thus a big shift in who the largest donors to political campaigns would be.
Why? The players above would be less profitable under a pure public option (certain business lines would be eliminatedprivate health insurance sales, for example).
What else would be the result of a public option? Each taxpayer would have a vested interest in the health of their fellow taxpayers. Pressure would be huge on smokers, for example, to quit, based on the sheer numbers of health issues associated with them. Therefore, a safer/healthier option would be more admirable than smoking. Harsher laws on tobacco could be passed, but only if the success rate of quitting were higher than the current abysmal levels. If were right, and it would seem we are by the number of folks that have quit a long term addiction to cigarettes via the usage of PVs, and our theory is correct that these are healthier for you, we have a very strong argument.
Why the posturing? Right now, politicians cant afford to piss off the players without a severe reduction in their campaign war chests. This is why the FDA cannot truly follow its charter, because if the politician that appointed me isnt in office, Im out a job. But, if the landscape is changed, the new leading industry could take up the slack (this is one option which doesnt include the next part of the circular argument).
Rest of argument requires some thinking about tax base and here is where I may be able to swing some of those leaning more right politically than me.
Taxation vs. Voting vs Political clout
The USA was established, at least in part, because formerly we had taxation without representation. Well, thats where we are now, too. Although corporations cannot vote in a traditional sense, I believe that they actually have more political clout, as they choose the candidates that the individuals get to vote on.
How do we fix?
Well, technically if corporations pay taxes, they should get some clout (taxation with representation). So, we reverse the rules on taxes. We remove corporate taxes. This should have a huge effect. It should give corporations the means to increase salaries, bonuses and other compensation to its employees (voters), along with the lack of a need for corporations to pay any health insurance premiumsa large expense, just ask your boss or business group head. Yes, some profits will go to the shareholders, but this would be severe trickle down economics. Also, you would immediately increase the base of employers, as foreign corporations would flock here for the lack of taxationincreasing jobs in the US. If done properly, this could be a win-win-win, as more would be employed at a higher wage base. The individual tax rates wouldnt need to increase, as the tax base would be higher both on existing employees as their income rises, and on newly employed as income starts. Second, the lack of the employee to pay health care premiums or health care costs would increase their amount of disposable income, and that would flow right back into our economy (which is 70% consumer driven).
Now, we reduced corporate stranglehold on our elected officials, so our voting means more, as we are the tax base, and the government is more vested in working for the people, and not the corporations. Govt can even increase minimum wage as corporate stronghold is gone, thus assisting in the above working, as opposed to just making the fat cats fatter.
So, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma are no longer in a corporate position to make political pressure (at least not as much). Big Health Care is pretty much gone or severely changed and doesnt have its clout anymore. So, the politicians can campaign on a more level playing field. All facets of govt (including the FDA) are now less susceptible to the corporate sponsorship, as I see it if the corps arent being taxed, they can also no longer contribute to campaigns. (no worries about taxation without representation as the taxation part goes away). All Self Regulatory Organizations should be more effective and efficient under such an environment. So in reality, if properly implemented it could make government smaller, tax the individual at the same rates, reduce the taxation on all those business owners and corporations, increase jobs, and increase spending.
In the meantime, our voice is heard more clearly with the FDA as we are pushing a safer product than cigarettes, and then an option can be available for smokers to quit while we pass increasingly harsher anti tobacco laws.
I have been putting a lot of objective thought and research into this matter. I acknowledge that I lean more towards the evolution of our country and believe we should refuse to be the only western democracy not to embrace the idea that every citizen, regardless of their station in life, deserves to have the right to receive the best health care.
That said, I have struggled with the current debate and how it is going down, as the winning party needs to use the leverage they have, and stop the political posturing this is a politically unpopular issue in our current environment, but I dont think it would be long implemented before it was hailed for its success(for example, regardless if you like Medicare and Social Security, you want the security of them being there, and are in the mindset of they need to be fixed, not scrapped however, both at the time of being passed initially were also hotly debated issues).
I think Obama should buck politics and force through the right solutiona public only option, regardless of the political fall out and I truly believe, if you read on, that this will help our cause with e-cigarettes in the long run. I have spent time putting my thoughts together to try to make this as concise a post as I can, and I feel strongly about this.
Current issue : FDA (a regulatory authority that is politically appointed, but should be a watchdog for what food and drug products are approved for use based on the safety and common good) wants to ban sale of e-cigarettes.
Current players: Big tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Health Care
What would the public option of health care mean? A huge shift in the corporate and sector base in which companies are the leaders in the capital markets, and thus a big shift in who the largest donors to political campaigns would be.
Why? The players above would be less profitable under a pure public option (certain business lines would be eliminatedprivate health insurance sales, for example).
What else would be the result of a public option? Each taxpayer would have a vested interest in the health of their fellow taxpayers. Pressure would be huge on smokers, for example, to quit, based on the sheer numbers of health issues associated with them. Therefore, a safer/healthier option would be more admirable than smoking. Harsher laws on tobacco could be passed, but only if the success rate of quitting were higher than the current abysmal levels. If were right, and it would seem we are by the number of folks that have quit a long term addiction to cigarettes via the usage of PVs, and our theory is correct that these are healthier for you, we have a very strong argument.
Why the posturing? Right now, politicians cant afford to piss off the players without a severe reduction in their campaign war chests. This is why the FDA cannot truly follow its charter, because if the politician that appointed me isnt in office, Im out a job. But, if the landscape is changed, the new leading industry could take up the slack (this is one option which doesnt include the next part of the circular argument).
Rest of argument requires some thinking about tax base and here is where I may be able to swing some of those leaning more right politically than me.
Taxation vs. Voting vs Political clout
The USA was established, at least in part, because formerly we had taxation without representation. Well, thats where we are now, too. Although corporations cannot vote in a traditional sense, I believe that they actually have more political clout, as they choose the candidates that the individuals get to vote on.
How do we fix?
Well, technically if corporations pay taxes, they should get some clout (taxation with representation). So, we reverse the rules on taxes. We remove corporate taxes. This should have a huge effect. It should give corporations the means to increase salaries, bonuses and other compensation to its employees (voters), along with the lack of a need for corporations to pay any health insurance premiumsa large expense, just ask your boss or business group head. Yes, some profits will go to the shareholders, but this would be severe trickle down economics. Also, you would immediately increase the base of employers, as foreign corporations would flock here for the lack of taxationincreasing jobs in the US. If done properly, this could be a win-win-win, as more would be employed at a higher wage base. The individual tax rates wouldnt need to increase, as the tax base would be higher both on existing employees as their income rises, and on newly employed as income starts. Second, the lack of the employee to pay health care premiums or health care costs would increase their amount of disposable income, and that would flow right back into our economy (which is 70% consumer driven).
Now, we reduced corporate stranglehold on our elected officials, so our voting means more, as we are the tax base, and the government is more vested in working for the people, and not the corporations. Govt can even increase minimum wage as corporate stronghold is gone, thus assisting in the above working, as opposed to just making the fat cats fatter.
So, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma are no longer in a corporate position to make political pressure (at least not as much). Big Health Care is pretty much gone or severely changed and doesnt have its clout anymore. So, the politicians can campaign on a more level playing field. All facets of govt (including the FDA) are now less susceptible to the corporate sponsorship, as I see it if the corps arent being taxed, they can also no longer contribute to campaigns. (no worries about taxation without representation as the taxation part goes away). All Self Regulatory Organizations should be more effective and efficient under such an environment. So in reality, if properly implemented it could make government smaller, tax the individual at the same rates, reduce the taxation on all those business owners and corporations, increase jobs, and increase spending.
In the meantime, our voice is heard more clearly with the FDA as we are pushing a safer product than cigarettes, and then an option can be available for smokers to quit while we pass increasingly harsher anti tobacco laws.
