Poyhonen's Blog

stories and commentary

Archive for the ‘Laws and Regulations’ Category

Bills and Regulations should be written for the Citizens

with 3 comments

Our constitution and amendments are detailed in less than 7600 words. We have courts who ‘interpret’ those words – often resulting in a 5/4 split occurring along partisan views, not actual reading ability.  Most ethical tradesman could review our constitution without the application of partisan subjectivity, however, our current laws are now written to avoid any lawyer challenges, but does this really serve the common citizen?
For an example of our current system of laws, check out the ridiculous length of laws/regulations regarding vehicle registration.
We need to change the manner by which laws, to include regulations, are written and reviewed.  We have thousands, (and thousands), of pages of Law – how can you know you are not performing some illegal activity?
Our elected representatives should be required to write the laws but we all know this may not be possible so I suggest the following form that is limited to two pages (12 font):
‘Bundling’ is not allowed.

The Gist:
The desired result of this bill, (I.e., lower taxes for people making xxx to xxx).

The Bill:
This section consists of less than two pages of verbiage describing the law in a common sense manner easily understandable to most citizens without reference to extraneous documentation. This document will completely explain the law.

The Proof, Duration, and Analysis of this bill:
Here is where the sponsors dictate the required response if this bill does not achieve the ‘Gist’. (I.e., Dissolve the bill after two years of demonstrated failure).

If you are an elected representative and find this construct impossible to perform – contact me and I will write the bill for you.


Health Care and the Government

leave a comment »

Not approving Ryan Care was a narrow escape from an increasingly intrusive government that seems bent on controlling every aspect of American lives.

Most people would prefer to see a doctor when they have an illness or physical complaint. They would not willingly take a sick child to an insurance outlet or government building unless they had no choice. (Imagine taking a feverish baby to the DMV for treatment). Yet when you enter the doctor’s office and notice all the busy people that greet you from behind a desk – what do you think they are doing? They are filling out forms and documenting your access to insurance companies and government agencies who dictate the cost of your visit and the care you are entitled to receive.

Countries having high levels of subsidized health care, France and Italy are good examples; require that everyone pay into the government health fund. In America we all pay 1.45% of income, (hiked by an employer tax of an additional 1.45%), into our Medicare system but only people getting Social Security get the benefits. In 2015 the American Hospital Insurance Trust Fund garnered 275 Billion in taxes and spent 646 billion in services for only 15% of the population, (according to AARP).

So the illustration here is that we already have a universal insurance system that is paid into by every worker but the benefits are only distributed to retired people and the outlays for this insurance scheme exceed the inputs by about 371 billion dollars a year. The numbers get MUCH worse as they are analyzed to include every citizen.

Consider, for a moment, what insurance is supposed to provide. Health insurance is supposed to pay for the professional services, equipment, and drugs provided by licensed physicians and hospitals. In order to Control prices and services the government and insurance companies create rules, regulations, and make an effort at price fixing procedures. They require immense databases to achieve these goals and you can appreciate the health code designation of being bitten by a duck as just another line item under their scrutiny. If you think that is a bit complicated, there is another entry for walking into a lamp post. Too much? How about the designation of having walked into a lamp post for the second time?

Clearly we have too many ducks, lamp posts, and regulatory constrictions that are meant to control costs but inadvertently end up controlling lives and behavior.

Since the insurance is supposed to pay for professionals – take a look at what we could do with the 275 billion collected every year:

Give every licensed physician $100,000 …. .90 billion per year.

Give every registered nurse $30,000 ……… 90 billion per year.

Give every hospital $17 million………….…95 billion per year.

I just ran out of Medicare funds at 275 billion but our government spends over 646 billion on Medicare and adds another 546 billion with Medicaid, (2015 numbers). Where does this money come from? The general fund supplies the extra largess – – in case anyone is noticing our country currently has 20 Trillion in debt.

Well what if we doubled the tax rate for Medicare and now garnered an extra 275 billion for:

$75,000 for every licensed Nurse Practitioner…..…..8.3 billion per year.

$45,000 for every Physician Assistant………………3.2 billion per year.

Drug subsidies………………………………….….263 billion per year.

There – everyone in the USA would now be covered to some extent and to receive the subsidies all the accepting parties would have to do is not turn away any citizen from medical services. The government would no longer be in an insurance business where they have proven to be incredibly inept. The Government involvement would be relegated to a disbursement of collected funds to health professionals. The savings in paperwork, regulating, and oversight would actually save about 30% over current medical costs dictated by insurance. If the extra taxes are too big a burden consider paying the extra 275 billion from the general fund while still reducing the overhead by over half a trillion dollars per year.

Nothing is free, however, and the amounts mentioned will still not cover the total expenses. An average doctor’s earnings are about 160,000 per year and how will they make an income – not to mention the pay of specialists who spent years in getting certified?


Let doctors, hospitals, drug venders, and specialists charge whatever they desire in the form of co-pays. Some doctors in Kansas are charging $50.00 per month for adults and $10.00 a month for children to cover all medical services and they negotiate a discount of over 80% for drugs used by members who pay the monthly service fee. (Only 100 patients would be needed to add 60,000 per year but facilities and staff are still an expense that requires income). Catastrophic insurance can be purchased to cover the large co-pays that may be demanded for major medical services like cancer treatments, transplants, significant surgeries, expensive drugs, or continuing services like dialysis.

In the future, one might see catastrophic health insurance ‘bundled’ with car and home insurance plans. Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare would be gone. Only the Medicare tax would remain. Paperwork would be an addition to the IRS tax form.

There is more the government could do of course – Allow health employees, doctors, assistants, etc. to pay minimal or no taxes for example. Tax free health saving accounts and catastrophic insurance sales across state lines could be allowed and perhaps, someday, be offered by employers that allow employees to carry the account privately or onward to new employers.

And what about the poor people who get sick but have no job, pay no taxes, and have no catastrophic health insurance? The poor will always be with us – that is why we paid the doctors up front. No citizen will be denied service by those who promise first to do no harm.

This style of funding should also spur an interest in more people willing to become doctors which are currently predicted to be 90,000 short by 2025.

Concrete and predictable medical costs have proven to be elusive when payments are made by governments and insurance companies. If someone else is paying – the billing is of little consequence to the patient. In this subsidized system, transparent costs would allow patients to seek the best service at the lowest co-pay. No two hospitals charge alike and most patients only get solid costs after services have been rendered.

No one would like to take a car to a mechanic, who never provides an accurate estimate of charges unless they knew someone else was paying, (insurance company). Fortunately, mechanic mistakes can be expensive but are not usually life threatening. Medical services, conversely, are given very little latitude where judgments fail to achieve desired results. Complex problems are weighed in terms of outcome and risks to the patient vs. costs, profits and risks to the insurance providers. Health providers do make mistakes but such errors are often the product of being human where, in the end, we all return to the manufacturer.

How to Repeal and Replace Obamacare and Avoid All the Complaints

leave a comment »

Think about the complaints and concerns instigated by the dire thought of repealing Obamacare:

People would lose the free services provided by Obamacare.

The Government would lose tax income provided by Obamacare taxes.

Democrats will complain and spin any replacement concepts as insufficient – and probably racist.


My suggestion is to consider Replacing Obamacare before repealing the act, mandates, and taxes.

Replacing Obamacare with a concrete system would allow all supporters and detractors to review the efficacy of the replacement – before – dissolving Obamacare.  The concerns of replacement aspects will be answered, improvements can be made, and costs can be determined so that health services can be available before the ACA collapses due to an inherent poor design seemingly created for income redistribution rather than health care. The added bureaucracy is astonishing, (and adds about 30% to the cost of health care).


The largest issue in this method is cost.  The government would be paying for two health systems during the SHORT time allowed for a comprehensive review.  Still, the added cost can be justified as the price of getting the new system right.  One might note that paying for the medical costs of disadvantaged folk is likely to be a cost in both systems so that should not be considered an additional expense.

The second largest issue is also cost – in terms of lost revenue gained by ACA taxing of citizens already taxed by Medicare.


Politically oriented complaints and accusations, name calling, and reports comprised of misinformation and ‘spin’ will be provided by many politicians and media pundits more concerned with gaining self serving power than serving citizens.  Such is the divisive state provided by the last decade of politicians and this proclivity will not suddenly disappear, however, logical and sincere debate should be encouraged for a short period.  Creating another 2000 page series of laws crammed into an Act cannot be allowed.


Sounds simple – well, no – but I believe the concept is more reasonable that Repeal and Replace.

What do you think?

Ideas to Support Draining the Swamp

leave a comment »

  1. Delete 30% of all civil service positions.
  2. Limit new regulations and laws to only 2 pages of documentation.
  3. Move the United Nations to a Montana wilderness area. Beautiful setting and a boom for construction in Montana. Attendant countries, diplomats, and administrators would have to pay the local economy for buildings, homes, airports, transportation, and energy. (The current UN building can be employed as a homeless shelter).
  4. Many of those laid off civil service workers can be temporarily employed by deleting or reducing existing written laws to conform to the two page rule. All federal laws should be written so any common citizen can understand the content and desired results of the laws and regulations.
  5. Combine Homeland Security with the FBI and reduce/replace the two top management tiers of most agencies, (CIA, NSA, FTC, EPA, FCC, DIA, DEA, etc.).
  6. Delete BLM, and return 80% of all current Federal lands to the States.
  7. Make English our national language and stop printing other languages at taxpayers’ expense.
  8. Fund inner city Pod transportation for an infrastructure upgrade that will be the envy of the world. (The construction will also provide good jobs for depressed areas and one way to improve inner city problems is to offer a method of escape not provided by local government).
  9. Curtail Request for Changes in existing and future government contracts and ensure that knowledgeable professionals perform design, (not necessarily some military ranking officer with little or no understanding of technical issues). Review the contract process in its entirety. I would suggest a review of the Lockheed Skunk works process that built the SR-71 in 20 months, (1962 and it is still the highest flying, fastest man operated airplane ever built).
  10. Cut existing agency contracts by 50%. Seems harsh but there really is a LOT of fat and it is growing. The personnel cuts in suggestion number 1 will help in this regard. Some contracts may expire under this edict. Good. Rewrite the requirements and issue another contract at a more reasonable price.
  11. Sell unused government buildings or give them away – stop maintaining them.
  12. Exile many criminals instead of incarcerating them – (violence related crimes). Rehabilitate others that demonstrate merit. Long prison terms deserve exile instead of incarceration.  This ‘out of the box’ list comprises only twelve areas of potential improvements. Such changes cannot all be accomplished immediately or simultaneously because of the massive disruption that will be caused by thousands of people losing jobs but when the draining begins, it must be done with a full commitment to lowering the cost and adverse effects of a bloated government. Many more bipartisan opportunities exist. What are yours?

Justice for All

leave a comment »

A suggestion concerning justice:
At a time when American justice is openly defined by political and financial power, why can’t we decide to offer succor to poor people trapped in a system where capable legal representation is far too expensive? Public defenders are often overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases they try to support and the advice of pleading is often the most expedient alternative to significant incarceration. When the entire weight of our ‘justice’ system is brought to bear against an individual who cannot afford a capable attorney the result is often a documented legal record, loss of livelihood, home, and family, that leads to a downward spiral of behavior. Who can afford a lonely fight against charges levied by the ‘state’?

The Ideologue Commitment

leave a comment »

Climate is changing and we argue about the cause; one side provides scientific studies to establish that the man caused element of climate change is a hoax while the other side purchases science to report an existential threat to all of humanity. The arguments of either side can be quite convincing but observations of the ideologue commitment to man caused global warming can be reviewed by the actions of its proponents who proclaim what we must do in order to curtail imminent destruction. Unfortunately the ‘we’ portion of their solution falls upon ‘you’, while their adherents make fortunes spreading gloom and doom, building sea side resorts, and flying private jets about the world in order to spread their philosophy that demands you to stop using energy. Their solution is ‘Stop’.

They want you to stop using, transporting, or even collecting any carbon based fuels. You should be compelled to do this based upon past ‘science based’ predictions of events that have never come to pass. Yet the climate change community continues to push their agenda, promising more and even greater doom unless you turn out your lights, stop using electricity, and stop driving an automobile.  They promise that the next prediction will indeed, turn out to be true – or perhaps the next one.

So what is one to do? One suggested resolution concluding that all the arguments can be resolved by simply surrendering to the self proclaimed wisdom of the ideologue and adhering to the actions proposed by the proponents of man caused global warming. Farmers should stop using fossil fuels to feed ideologues. Food transported to the ideologue grocery using fossil fuels needs to stop. What components make a battery that ideologues desire? How are iron, nickel, and lead mined? Are any solar cells made without the use of fossil fuels?

Merely using more efficient devices is not enough of a submission to ideologue demands. Building clean power plants and providing safe pipelines is an inadequate capitulation – not using fossil fuels in any capacity is the primary only solution. Unfortunately, the ideologues want you to stop using electricity, heating your homes, and feeding your children from groceries stocked by trucks travelling from farms that use tractors and modern production concepts, while they enjoy the lifestyle provided by plentiful energy. Their lights remain on, while you pay for their commitment.

Can global warming advocates be asked to adhere to the principals they demand to place upon the rest of humanity before a complete surrender of civilization is condoned?

The arguments will be quickly resolved when the ideologues commit themselves to their own philosophy.

Obama’s Success

with one comment

Our nation has become increasingly more divided during this president’s term in office but few conservatives really grasp his motivations. They erroneously think he hates America.

Obama has tried to remove what he considers to be, an American foot, pressing on the neck of the world.

His, so called, Apology Tour, was an opening salvo – telling the world that America would no longer be involved in imperialistic activities. It only makes sense that he would view England and Israel in the same imperialistic light and his animosity towards such activity is demonstrated in his actions.

His fundamental change philosophy is an attempt to ‘fix’ all the past indiscretions performed by the United States. Indeed, there have been a lot of tragic mistakes made during the forming of this American culture and a litany of condemnations were eagerly indoctrinated into a young mind by communists, anarchists, terrorists, and race provocateurs – but his indoctrination is not very different from what is preached and taught every day to children watching television, attending some Universities that are staffed with terrorists, or listening to religious sermons performed by clergy who hate American society. The news media also supports a negative view of our culture and laud the efforts of a president willing to do anything to redress the many wrongs performed by this nation. Many feel that the world’s greatest problem is a racist, Christian America, ruled by greedy capitalists.

Obama is successfully employing the tactics taught by Saul Alinsky in an effort to redress the wrongs of American society by rewriting history, redistributing wealth, indoctrinating children, and regulating every aspect of each citizen while making the general public more and more reliant on Government social care and feeding. Any approach is viable because “The Ends Justify the Means” and the control and domination of society by a large enlightened government is absolutely necessary in order for changes to take place without having a violent revolution.

Gun confiscation would be desirable if a majority can be convinced it is a good idea. (Terrorist attacks create a crisis that actually helps propel propaganda that demonizes weapons).

Obama’s actions are fundamentally changing America and his legacy will go on in schools, media, and in the progressive social dogma preached by indoctrinated parents, clergy, and politicians long after his term of office is relinquished.  Millions of followers believe his interpretation of history and the desire for change is not expressly hateful, regardless of how his realm is painted by protagonists. His large successes can be evidenced by the millions of supporters who will violently fight against anyone trying to remove the prescribed chains of regulations, control, and entitlements that they willingly put upon themselves and their children. Change can be good and while it is inevitable as a law of nature, the methods we employ should be questioned and evaluated before the process destroys the subject.