GPS Navigation Evolution

My posts have been primarily political of late with any real innovation being regulated by the ever swelling government.

Today twitter was abuzz about the release of Google's latest navigation solution that will run on Android phones and soon be available on the iPhone as well. My opinion of Google's superior ease of use may not sway you to trash your Garmin, the fact that the software is free, updates constantly, and will be loaded with Google content will surely sway your opinion when you get to using the device. As one blog suggests, Tom Tom is Toast.

I already use my Garmin for street level directions but I use my Google Latitude app on my blackberry when I need the address in the first place. You cant ask your stand alone GPS nav to look up the new restaurant on 3rd street that opened last week, it's not loaded on your device. Sure you can buy a new Tom Tom that has the ability to download this for you but why when you can get a service free from Google that runs on the phone you already own.

What the hardware and navigation bundles fail to provide is real time access to location aware information. Unless they become advertising providers like Google they can't compete. My prediction, as I suggested in a prior post about location aware ads, is that Google will provide location aware ads on devices that will sell for a premium and consumers will find this a service not a nuisance as the currently find radio advertising or TV commercials. If your GPS NAV can deliver today's lunch special around the corner while your en-route, it will change the way your make decisions and it will drive the market for consumers, handset makers, and advertisers. It is a Win -Win- Win proposition.

Obama Care Dies

Don't Let The Healthcare Debate Flatline!

The current debate over health care reform has only begun, there are basically two possible outcomes, the Democratically controlled government could opt to push through Obama’s plan, OR they could come up with a revised plan.

If they choose the prior over the latter it is very likely the entire political picture will change in 2010 because only 42% of American’s support the president and the Democratic plans. The more likely path will be to modify the bill and then try to push it through as Americans grow weary of the debate and just want something done.

Conservatives agree on certain reforms, and most agree (I won’t use rhetoric like the politicians state such as ALL AGREE, or NOBODY DISAGREES) but the consensus is that tort reform, reduced fraud and abuse, and the ability for medial insurance plans to be purchased nationally like auto insurance will help increase competition and reduce costs. The fact is that most liberals oppose these ideas.

WHY?

Ask yourself some of these basic WHY questions, and also using your basic senses, consider your trust in the government’s ability to efficiently employ it’s policy and, thoughtfully apply the results of the current proposals and come to your own conclusion as to what you support. Send your conclusions to your representatives. With 1/6^th of our economy riding on this legislation nearly 1 of every 5 dollars you likely spend over the upcoming years will be touched by what is going on in Washington. Please get involved; please use your voice, and your vote. Now is not the time to trust this to your government. We the people must take part in our countries future today.

This is a complicated debate so it is difficult to make it simple to understand, what I have done, is taken statements made in Obama’s congressional address on health care and followed them facts and then questions for you to consider. Make you own conclusions. “those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.” Obama reminds us that everyone pays for the uninsured.

The problem is everyone pays for the 47 million (1 in 7) who don’t have insurance. Obama also corrected this number to 30 million by deducting 17 million illegal immigrants during his speech. Dissecting this figure further you find many could pay but choose not to, and some are eligible for existing programs but fail to apply. The real number is estimated at 15 million, a fraction of the problem being suggested. The uninsured include a large portion of illegal immigrants that admittedly costs us all in a “hidden and growing tax” for “charitable care”

Why doesn’t the health reform bill consider any immigration reform?

According to Obama’s own words on the existing medical entitlement system “eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem.”

How does this administration propose creating a bigger government entity that regulates a health care system to reduce our deficit when it admittedly blames the existing entitlement for the largest contributor to deficit spending?

Do you believe the people who regulate Fannie Mae and the banking system that nearly collapsed have the ability to reform our health care system into a more efficient and effective program?

Has the government ever succeeded in reducing cost or improving service in any program it has created?

Even with the previous major flaws in the current proposals, let me quote Obamas own goals for this reform, and ask you questions of each of his goals and if his proposals in fact meet these goals.

“The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:”

“It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. “

Does an adding regulation to insurance companies mandating expensive and risky insurance policy such as insuring pre-existing conditions provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance?

Will providing insurance to those who don’t slow the growth of health car costs?

Will adding mandates like “insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care” slow the growth of health care costs?

Sure it can be argued that preventive care increases early detection and lowers long term costs, but why does this preventive care mandate be forced upon insurance companies? Many Americans choose high deductible auto insurance to save on premiums. This is considered good financial sense, under the current proposals; this type of low cost insurance will be made illegal in the medical insurance business.

Obama spoke of a way to provide affordable coverage for those who currently don’t have coverage “We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.” This is a complicated way of creating a government run and regulated national insurance program, conservatives have pushed and been denied a simple private sector solution, allow insurance to be nationally sold, and not restricted to state regulation. Why is it OK for the government to control this plan and not the private sector?

Another point made it the debate has been made that conservatives have not offered any solutions to the rising costs and the plight of the uninsured. While these claims can be countered with many bills and amendments that have been struck down by the liberal majority, some facts remain. Medical costs have increased primarily because we have technology and medicines that we never had 20 years ago. Unless we try to treat illness with fewer tools and without the benefit of our advanced medical system and the latest drugs costs will continue to climb. You could argue that the price of new cars have exceeded the increase of our wages, yet would you want a new care without all the latest comfort and safety innovations? Sure there is waste and abuse in the system but this has not been the focus of the debate. To frame that subject it would call attention to the fact that Medicare has many times more the rate of fraud than private insurance.

American’s need to decide, do they really want to choose the type of insurance or do they want to increase the governments regulation and restriction on our health care choices. That is the root of this debate, now you decide.

Sincerely,

Ben Roche
http://Bensviewpoint.blogspot.com
Send comments to themud@gmail.com

9/12 Tea Party March on Washington

An Honest Debate?!

Empathy Kills

Empathy, the understanding and entering into another's feelings, according to Webster, is being used today to peddle everything from judicial activism to nationalized universal health care. The problem is empathy sounds great, but in the wrong hands can kill you.

The health care debate is heating up and the opponents are accused of greed and lack of empathy, while the backers believe the only way to care for those who don't have insurance is to give it to them freely. As if all of those without health insurance just can't afford it. That last part is the biggest of the lies, but without it, you the people will lack the empathy to support his radical and final turn to communism.

Yes, I used the word communism, because that is exactly what is being proposed. Government ownership and control of our economy. Don't take my word for it, that is not the subject of this post, but it is real and it is here.

Back to empathy, you will notice that Obama picked Sotomeyer because of her empathy. He uses empathy to stir up emotional accounts of folks without health coverage going bankrupt and not able to care for their kids illness, ignoring facts that most states already have provisions for these people. The illusion that government will fix the problem is fueled by your fear of being labeled greedy and lacking empathy.

Empathy by definition is understanding someone else feelings but the rising costs of health care is partially the result of jury's empathy towards patients in malpractice suits that result in obscene judgements against doctors and hospitals. The cost of malpractice insurance had annual increases at times as much as 25%, and the trial lawers who profit as much as 50% on these large settlements then blame this on greedy insurance providers. Let's be clear, insurance companies compete for business to keep costs down. Lawyers don't have to compete for plaintiffs, they pick and choose the most profitable cases and then use the system to win big. John Edwards made his fortune and fooled the whole nation that he was driven by empathy not greed, while he cheated on his cancer ridden wife during his presidential campaign, but enough about trial lawyers.

Let's get back to more lies about empathy, health care, and insurance. Congress has empathy, but they won't sign on to the same health care they propose to give the people. Several years ago the talking points of the DNC was that every American should be able to have the same coverage that they have, but they then wrote into the law the exclusive exclusion of congress from conforming to the plan. While law will dictate what health coverage you must have, they get to keep theirs as is and paid for by you and me.

Now for my final point, and this is where the words matter. We don't' need everyone to have the benefit of health care coverage. We need to create incentive to purchase insurance not hand out free benefits. Benefits are services you get for free, a 20 something healthy student needs insurance in the event of an injury or catastrophic event, not regular Dr. visits, and coverage for everything from mental health to chiropractic care. There is no way congress can draft legislation to both cover those who need it without paying for those who don't. In the end we will be paying for 'benefits' to those who will suck off the system, while then having to ration needed care for those who may require immediate and live saving treatments. Cancer mortality rates are much higher in nations with socialized medicine precisely because free health care is not sustainable. The private sector and a safty net approach is a rational answer but while congress has full power to create more government programs, and control another 20% of our GDP. That's what this is about, CONTROL, not empathy.

Most younger American's pay more per month to have internet access and a cell phone than what a catastrophic health insurance premium would cost. What is the incentive to be responsible when you can use the system that exists, and get that care for free or worst case file bankruptcy.

If we open the door to government provided care it is a door we cannot close, just like Canada, and the UK, the care will be rationed, waiting lists and reviews will slow the system down, and when we are talking about medical issues, it is LITERALLY a life and death decision.

Federal Medical Malpractice

National universal health care sounds so appealing. My employer provides coverage but I pay a big portion of the cost, and the cost keeps increasing. Why wouldn't I want the government to bail me out of this expense too?!

What the media and your power hungry representatives fail to show is how this model has failed in nearly every place it was attempted, and on top of that, the current plan is designed to force out all all other forms of health insurance and medical coverage.

To sum up what is going on, imagine if you were offered a free car insurance program that covered all your liability and comprehensive needs regardless of your driving record. You would jump all over that, cancel your current plan and be driving all over the road with no concern about your rates because, your not paying for it! Now imagine that to get this program affordable, the insurance program only paid a fraction of the actual cost of the body work or claims made on your insurance. Who would accept this insurance policy as payement? Nobody right? Well not if your the government was to force everyone to accept your coverage, and mandate all claims be covered at the terms the governments program dolls out as payment in full. Government run car insurance may be a fantasy but government run health insurance already exists and Obama plans to make it universal.

This is the latest wealth redistribution plan being pushed and everyone has a hand out ready for it. Insurance companies are eager to get the subsidy to look the other way. Hospitals are eager for a solution to pay for losses they get for caring for the uninsured so they have a hand out the the government. Dr's are stuck ither not practicing or accepting insurance terms. It's already the model used in Medicare & Medicaid, Dr's, hospitals and clinics just pass the losses they suffer off on other patient care costs pushing up eveyone elses costs and premiums. It is unsustainable, and once the private insurance plans are bankrupt, then the government steps in to take them over next.

While with one hand the Obama administration pushes "Green" and "Sustainable" living, the other blowing through the green on unstustainable policy and programs that will destroy our country, our world class medical system, while bankrupting our nation. Did we not learn a thing from the fall of the soviet union?

If you really want to understand this issue talk to your Dr. chances are he knows what would happen if we nationalized our health care system. Or read this blog, it has solutions not just rants. (Unlike Here!)