Browse Category

social

China: What’s Next?

Will the Democrats help China defeat the USA?        

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (November 24, 2018

Former Virginia Governor James Gilmore wrote in these pages. “America today is in a world-wide conflict to determine how mankind will live in the years ahead.  This conflict engages all aspects of national power: military, economic, diplomatic, and the competition of values.” (October 12, 2018) As Chairman of the Gilmore Commission (1999-2003) which presented a comprehensive study of America’s national security status and options, as well as his current position as head of a Washington think tank, Governor Gilmore is widely respected as an analyst of American foreign policy. On my radio show, he added that America is already in a non-shooting war with China. His opinion is shared by many other keen observers.

Governor Gilmore cites a little-known document published by the Trump Administration called the National  Security Strategy (2017), which enunciates clearly the goals of a successful outcome for the United States in the contest with China for maintaining our position as the world’s primary superpower.

Why do we care? Because America’s status as the most powerful nation in the world has been essential to avoiding World War III, since America took over world leadership following World War II. Prior to 1948, under British leadership, there had been two world wars in the prior two generations, both originating in Europe and spreading to the much of the world because of European colonialism and the industrialization of Asian powers.  Keep Reading

Dr. Larry Show (November 14, 2018)

https://drlarryonline.com/dr-larry-show-november-14-2018/

Discussion with Talk Show Host Larry Friis about the meaning of the 2018 Midterm elections for the future of the Trump administration and the nation’s economy heading for the 2020 election cycle.

Larry B. Friis, MBA, LNHA,  Principal – High-touch Leadership |Author| Keynote – Leadership, Workforce & Motivational Speaker | Advisory Services

Evaluating the Results of the 2018 Midterm Elections

Will the Democrats legislate or investigate?

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (November 10, 2018)

While some contests remain somewhat questionable at this time after the midterm election of 2018, there are some conclusions that seem reasonably certain, even now.

  1. The Democrat Party has been re-established as a legitimate representative of its nominal constituency.
  1. The Republican party has been united under the leadership of the current President.

Up until now, there have really been four partisan cliques in Congress: pro-Trump and anti-Trump Republicans, and “traditional” and far-left Democrats. This election seems to have united the Republicans, partially by the dominant role played by Mr. Trump in the campaign and partially by the retirement of so many of his Republican dissidents.

On the Democrat side, there have been several voices, ranging from the familiar Democrat positions to the socialist positions of the Bernie Sanders clique to the very “far left” of Maxine Waters and her advocates, especially among the newer members of Democratic caucuses. This election weeded out most of the aspiring extremists and re-asserted the Democrat electorate’s preference for the more traditional Democrats. Thus, the influence of “crazy Democrats” has been likewise diminished to some extent by the will of the people. The “crazy Democrats” appear to be disproportionately represented in both houses of Congress compared to the centrist wing of the party. Keep Reading

November 7, 2018 – 2-Hour Special – The Donelson File/The Dr. Larry Show

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qICrPO2VuxEFEeoqgZ32KrvUpf-EpWND/view?usp=drive_web

Podcast of post-Mid-Term Election results — Co-Hosted by Tom Donelson, CoCo Konski and Dr. Larry Fedewa on meaning of the elections with many guests, including Kevin Corke (Fox News), Larry Friis (host, Freedom’s Voice), L.A Batchelor (The Batchelor Pad Radio Network), as well as other friends who dropped in.

Why Vote on Tuesday?

The U.S. Congress must have operational majorities to function

by Dr. Larry Fedewa (November 3, 2018)                 

The USA is facing again a mid-term election on Tuesday. This is being called the most important mid-term election in our lifetime. Why is it important?

This mid-term is important because it may be our last effort to save our Congress’ role in our government. The Congress is the second of our three branches of government. With the Executive Branch and the Judiciary, the Congress was designed to be a vital player in the checks and balances by which our republic is governed. The most important role of the Congress is to limit the ability of either of the other branches to institute laws or regulations which unduly limit the freedoms of the people. Every single Congressman and Senator is elected personally by the people. Keep Reading

Dr. Larry Show with Bob Livingston (10/31/2018)

Former Congressman, author, lobbyist

https://drlarryonline.com/?p=851&preview=true

Robert L. Livingston was elected to the United States House of Representatives in a special election in 1977 – the first Republican to represent Louisiana’s First Congressional District in 102 years. He was re-elected to eleven successive two-year terms.  In 1998, he was chosen by his peers to serve as Speaker-designate for the 106th Congress, but resigned for personal reasons, calling on President Bill Clinton to do the same.

 

Following his departure from Congress in February 1999, Mr. Livingston established a successful lobbying firm known as The Livingston Group in both Washington, DC and in New Orleans, LA.    His recently published memoir, The Windmill Chaser, is receiving enthusiastic acclaim.

 

The Caravan(s) — What to do? Elmer says, “Honduras is Hell!”

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (October 27,2018)

Elmer and I were talking about the Caravan from Honduras. Elmer knows a lot about Honduras. His family migrated from Honduras to the United States when he was fifteen, and went through all the steps to citizenship, which was granted a few years later. Elmer now has his own business, employing three/four licensed plumbers, his wife (who runs the office), and a couple of apprentices. All are from Latin America, either citizens or on the way. Elmer voted for President Trump and intends to do so next time as well. But he doesn’t know what to do about the Caravan.        Keep Reading

Is There a Trump Master Plan to Eliminate the National Debt?

by Dr. Larry Fedewa (September 29, 2018)

The Threat

The greatest threat to the long-term security of the United States of America is the $21 trillion (and growing) national debt. There are many possible outcomes of an uncontrolled national debt – none of them good.

Gradual outcomes have already begun in the form of efforts to undermine the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The chief force behind this move is China, with serious support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which, with the support of the Obama administration, invented its Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s) as an alternative to the dollar for international trade.  Keep Reading

The New Left in American Colleges

Academic Freedom or Academic Censorship?

by Dr. Larry Fedewa

Many Americans have been shocked and dismayed by the lawless behavior of students on several campuses protesting conservative speakers, harassing conservative students, and censoring student publications. What is going on? What has happened to the university as the bastion of free speech?

Two Keys

There are two keys to understanding these demonstrations:

  1. First, these student protests are flourishing in an environment fostered by the faculties at these institutions; and
  2. Second, the faculty preaches dogmas which mark a generational shift in values.

The fundamental analysis therefore must begin with the faculty. Student behavior is primarily an acting out of faculty teaching. Administrators, while generally sympathetic to the students, are caught between angry students and their Boards and other supporters demanding a stop to these outrageous demonstrations.

What is the faculty teaching and why? Keep Reading

What about a Free Market Health Care System?

Shrink insurance and government down to size! Patient-centered medical care is possible.

 

There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to their fellow man? Not at all.
The reason is lack of money! Medical education is so lengthy and so costly in this country    that very few students can afford to go to medical school. This situation has created a national crisis.
One very good use of taxpayer funds would be to offer medical and nursing school students free tuition, open to all qualified applicants. We do it for the military, why not for doctors and nurses? The cost would be miniscule compared to the Department of Defense or agricultural subsidies.
This policy would have a massive return on public investment. More doctors would increase coverage of the population (perhaps there should be a requirement for a graduate M.D. and R.N. to spend two years in a “no-doctor zone”). More doctors would increase competition for the patient dollar. More could devote themselves to research. New people, new ideas, new openness to change. The quality of care would go up, and the cost would go down – a mantra we have been hearing a lot lately.
This program would also assure continuing support for U.S. medical technology which is already the envy of the world.
b. Inadequate funding
So how do we provide for adequate funding? Where does the $3 trillion we now spend go? The money flow starts with the employers who pay the insurance companies out of profits. It then goes mainly to the vast bureaucracies in the insurance companies which distribute the money, the government which oversees the money, and the hospitals and practitioners who must respond to the companies and the government. Only about one-third of the $1 trillion spent on healthcare gets to the practitioners. So how can this labyrinth be simplified?
1)       First, take the employers out of the picture. The added financial and personnel burdens on businesses of paying and accounting for employee health care is a double disaster. It is a drag on the efficiency of the economic system by vastly increasing the cost of starting and staying in a business, and on the healthcare system by removing from individuals the responsibility of seeing to their own health needs.
2)      Next, reduce the role of insurance companies. They are not chartered or ordained by God to be judging the value or disvalue of medical procedures. They are supposed to know about money, not cancer! The decisions about medical care and the balancing for costs versus therapies should be in the hands of the patients where they belong. When the ultimate decisions of life and death have been left with the patient, we will have come a long way toward patient-centered medicine. Face it, there is no way for the patient to become the main arbiter of his or her fate unless the patient is the source of the money which runs the system.
3)      This free market system would be much better and much cheaper. The individual works for the money; the individual chooses the doctor, makes the final decision as to spending the money, and pays the doctor, hospital, physical therapist, and pharmacist. So where does the individual get the money? From his or her own health savings account with enhanced income from fewer deductions, also from voluntary insurance or cooperative membership, or from family, friends or philanthropic sources. Since the money is the patient’s own, the patient is far more likely to become very cost-conscious – unlike today’s insured patient, who is always spending someone else’s money.
c. Insurance Companies and Government
A patient-centered system also reduces the role of federal and state governments (46.9% of health expenditures, NCHS, 2016). The patient doesn’t need the insurance company or the government. If both the government and the insurance companies were completely eliminated from the system, about two-thirds of the cost of American health care would be gone. Of course, there will always be some need for both, so assume that half of that cost would be gone. At today’s rates, that would be about $1.5 trillion. This is a gross number, but it shows the potential.
1) There is still a place for insurance companies in this system, although dramatically reduced. The most obvious place is for catastrophic insurance. A safety net for when something very expensive happens to someone in the family – or the church, or the credit union, or whatever assembly of people the individual chooses to participate with.
And this brings us to the role of governments.
2) The first federal government act should be to lift all interstate commerce restrictions on insurance companies, so that they are free and invited to offer policies in any or all the states they wish without the necessity of creating a separate bureaucracy for every state they enter.
3) The second federal reform should be the creation of a program for financial aid to qualified students in the medical professions. My suggestion would be a free education in exchange for a period of service in underserved areas of practice as determined by a federal government body, such as, CDC or NIH or HHS.
4) A third federal reform which would dramatically reduce national health care costs is tort reform. Everyone makes mistakes, including medical practitioners and hospitals. It is the federal government’s role to protect both the treatment sector and the patient. But the current practice of unlimited liability has led to “defensive medicine,” that is, exhaustive tests and treatments used far beyond medical purposes. These extras are done to provide a defense against the inevitable lawsuit in case anything goes wrong. This uber caution has become a major cost driver in American medicine. Congress should set reasonable and realistic limits on the monies which can be given to the victims of everything from malfeasance to honest mistakes. No more windfalls for injury lawyers.
d. Universal Coverage
The larger issue is care for the poor and the other underserved members of our nation. The concept of universal care is a noble and worthwhile goal. But socialized medicine is not the only or even the best way to achieve universal care. We have government programs to feed the hungry; to provide health care for the elderly; to protect the innocent. We can provide health care access to the poor and the underserved, whether because of poverty or location. We can also do better than the COBRA coverage for those who lose their jobs, or those who are excluded because of pre-existing conditions.
It is very tempting to design a system in which no government plays a major role. However, the most efficient way to care for the poor would seem to be a State-run program which levies a small per capita fee on each pool of insured to be placed in a designated fund, administered by the State, for the benefit of qualified citizens. A model for such a program might be the Medicaid programs in each State. Another model is the Uninsured Driver programs administered by the states.
               e. Medicare
We have now discussed the entire healthcare cycle without mentioning Medicare. There is a moral and legal mandate involved in Medicare which does not exist elsewhere. Medicare works reasonably well as a medical insurance system for those who contributed to it all their working lives. The most prudent and honorable way to approach Medicare would seem to be to leave it alone for those to whom commitments were made, even while moving the system slowly toward a patient-centered system for those just starting out, with free choices developed for those in mid-career. The pressure of the free market system we have been describing here will undoubtedly alter and reform Medicare as the new system matures in due course.
So here is what a free market system might look like. It would fulfill all our goals for an American system that is:
1. State-of-the-art;
2. Available to all in need;
3. Affordable;
4. Abundant; and
5. Well-financed.
To get there, we need to:
1. increase the supply of medical practitioners,
2. create a patient-centered system by letting the patient spend his or her own money on healthcare;
3. create state-sponsored safety nets for the poor and underserved.
 
These proposals, of course, seem radical today, even in America’s free market culture. But sometimes the most obvious solution is indeed the best. The fact is that the employer-based system we have today was initiated because the elite of another day considered average Americans too irresponsible to handle their own health and welfare. Not true today.
© 2018 Richfield Press, LC (All rights Reserved.)

Keep Reading