Are you better off?

The phrase, "perception is reality" has taken flight among US press organizations, ignoring factual information and relying on public opinion and the viewpoints of the most extreme partisan pundits as the basis for its news coverage.

The founding fathers viewed the press as so fundamental in the political process that they gave it special privilege and protections under the Constitution.  The press is afforded the opportunity to shine a light on the government and investigate claims made by politicians -- and to reveal truths not otherwise available to the average individual.  But today members of the press happily enrich themselves by advancing corporate propaganda on a wholesale level.  Their only measures of success are opinion polls and their bottom line.

Like the media, Congress is merely another operative --  a tool of a corporatist government profiting through propaganda.  But that's another article.

The way the media operates today is an obvious disservice to the country.  It's bad because in this scenario we are not holding a president accountable for his actual performance, but for his (and your) ability to manipulate public opinion.  Wouldn't it be nice if public opinion was informed by actual facts instead of the viewpoints of the loudest voices?

Every time I hear a political news story, I find myself begging the reporter to stop telling me what other people think.  Don't merely influence my opinion with other opinions.  For instance, on the economy, give me objective economic metrics so I can make an informed choice in November.

The only thing polls are good for is to show how well the propaganda is working.  Paid pundits then report cherry-picked poll data that parrots their propaganda, creating the perception of a populist guideline for the people to follow.

The theme for this year's presidential election is the now-familiar recycled catch phrase coined by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 campaign: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

That's not even mildly clever, but for reasons I don't understand, that's now the political measuring stick.  In today's media environment, we now weigh the success of the president by the viewpoints of survey participants and not the actual vital signs pointing to the health of the country.

Mitt Romney is delighted to play this game and is obviously hoping your answer to the questions is no, the people do not think they're better off, that it's time to replace the President.  While that's simplistic, it's probably effective and compelling to the intellectually inept.  This invokes a vision of the man wearing a cowboy vest and a hat fashioned from a cardboard 12-pack beer box sitting in the audience at the 2012 Republican National Convention.

But if we are introduced to nearly any economic metric, we begin to see that the country is actually healthier than it was four years ago.  Unfortunately nobody is talking about that.

The economic indicators were bottoming out by the end of 2008 and have been on a gradual recovery since then.  Unemployment was at 10.2% and that is objectively improved today at around 8.2%.  The job creation index saw a low point four years ago, but has been on the rise since.  Consumer daily spending was at an all time low at the end of the Bush administration and has risen from $59 to $74 over Obama's term.  Even the confidence index is much better; it tanked to -60 at the end of Bush's second term and is now at a four year high at -20.

Corporate media, you are all so quick to slide the soapbox over to paid campaign consultants and party cheerleaders -- people who are obviously not guided by thoughtful and impartial analysis of available information, but by bought loyalty.  What those people have to say is tainted and definitely not useful in the election process.  You would rather set the stage for conflict that generates catchy headlines for the sole purpose of attracting an audience and improving the bottom line.  It's a pity you don't provide a service directed by integrity.

So #usmedia, please report objective metrics comparing the nation's economic state four years ago to today instead of are-you-better-off polls.

The Ryan Compromise

The question Republican voters are left with is this: which of Paul Ryan's beliefs will be compromised now that he's hitched his political wagon to Gov. Romney's Presidential campaign?

One of Romney's most notable traits is that he changes positions with the winds of public opinion, leaving voters confused and confounded by the candidate's ambiguity.

Choosing a running mate that is a polar opposite -- in terms of his explicitly stated positions -- is unquestionably good for Romney, but how badly will this marriage hurt Ryan? What of his values? His moral consistency?

Imagine if you will, in light of the number of times Romney has had to apologize for his own mistakes in positions (abortion), the level at which he will be forced to qualify Ryan's incompatible policy statements.

Rep. Ryan's a spreadsheet guy; he'll always turn to the numbers to inform his own initiatives. The now-infamous Ryan Budget is the elephant in the room. Which parts of that budget conflict with Romney's plan? Which of them will he quietly dismiss?

The one major consistency between Romney and Ryan is the belief that big businesses should not be encumbered by taxes or reguations as they profit from US markets, but instead milking wage earners for all they're worth.

What conservatives don't want to talk about is that wage earners no longer have the spending power that drives economies; poverty creates no demand.

You can give all the tax and regulatory advantages to big businesses that you want, but unless they can convert those advantages into advancing sales, the economy will continue to stall.

This idea that it's now more fashionable to weigh down the buyer's spending power and pump up the nation's debt is a relatively new one -- driven buy greed and sustained by ignorance.

War on Wage Earners Gets a New Lieutenant

Like stealing the weak kids' lunch money, the corporate class is constantly figuring new ways to enrich themselves on the backs of the working class in this country. And today one of the color guards of that movement has been selected to be the number two man in a new government.

Paul Ryan, whose budget proposal would have given every advantage to commercial interests while the middle class would be left to pick up the load, is Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential pick.

Like a recent Supreme Court decision, Romney and Ryan believe corporations are people, too, which is code for freedom to amass unlimited funds to derail the peoples' choice for public office. But the Romney camp goes one further; the way they see it, corporations should not be saddled with taxes imposed on the poorest of families.

Ryan will fit right in. He's for gutting government programs that help the people, but ensuring the elite keep their power positions and riches.

Isn't it ironic how one political faction claims to hold moral high ground on family values while turning a blind eye to the suffering caused by unemployment, depressed wages, oppressive taxes and the mortgage crisis? All that talk of conservative trickle-down economics served to line the pockets of the richest and most powerful while pushing America so far into debt that there's no possibility it can be paid back.

Elite of any stripe would say I'm stricken by class envy, but that's only an attempt to divert attention away from depressed wages created by cheap labor and offshoring of production.

Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives of the ruling class are all in the pockets of the speculators, coordinating to shift economic advantages away from the actual producers of American output -- the wage earners. Ryan is now in the fight to keep this dynamic just as it has been for generations.

US Drought: an untold tax story

We've been told most grain producers have crop insurance to cover their losses during catastrophes like drought. And that might lead some to believe all's well in the heartland. But it's not good news.

Even if farmers are made whole by their insurance policies, the grain shortages are going to ripple through food and fuels markets in ways we can't imagine. And nobody's talking about it.

Many of us rightly believe the drought will increase food and fuel prices at a time when unemployment is at its highest level since the Great Depression -- and those that do have jobs have seen their wages stagnate at generational lows. That is indeed difficult to swallow.

But that's not the scary part. Did you know that taxpayers, not insurance companies, hold the lion's share of the exposure to crop insurance liabilities?

Iowa State University economics professor Bruce Babcock has said that 50 percent to 80 percent of underwriting losses will be shouldered by the federal government through a federal backstop ag subsidy program.

This is yet another alarm bell sounding for the wage earners of America.

We can have the debate about whether it's economically feasible to produce ethanol, that the energy expended to create the gasoline additive is a wash in relationship to the energy it can produce when combusted in car engines, but the facts tell us that the price of gas at the pump does not reflect the true cost to the people.

It's not enough to know that with all the layers of government subsidies and road use taxes added on, the actual price for a gallon of petro could be closer to $15 or more.

There's much more to this story.

My paranoia tells me there's dark chapter in this downturn story. Between ponzi schemes and accounting fraud we learned we'd been tricked into thinking government regulated financial instruments were adequately capitalized to endure the kinds of catastrophes we're seeing today, and likewise my fear was that insurance companies are not ready for the havoc this drought will wreak on their financial standing.

I'm sure that's another shoe bound to drop, but after realizing it's the government whose underwriting most of these policies, my fear has turned to panic. There is no taxpayer money in the federal coffers, not to mention funds to cover crop insurance payouts. Zip. Zero. There's only debt for as far as the eye can see -- more than wage earners can ever hope "grow our way out of".

Our worst nightmare comes when it becomes fashionable to admit our money has no value. That's anarchy. That's when the grocery store, gas station and utility company closes its doors because the workers have all been let go. No electricity, no water and the sewer's backed up. Infrastructure quickly crumbles. Police are gone, so crime is ramped; whatever food and gas is left will be a target for theft, and those that would try to stop it are in grave jeopardy. For a decade or longer we'll live in squaller, much like the conditions witnessed in public service commercials of third-world poverty.

You could say we'll all be -- in a word -- fu__ed.

The mini pad

I want a a super-handy, single-handed device that's more usable than iPhone & iPod.

I've been very seriously considering buying Google's Nexus 7 tablet because it has a larger-than-iPod screen and its Android implementation is not crippled like the ones other retailers are pushing.

Then, today, seemingly reliable reports that Apple is definitely announcing a mini version of the iPad with a 7.85-inch screen that'll sell for significantly less than iPad's $499 tag. That's according to "several people with knowledge of the project who declined to be named discussing confidential plans." Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris said, "No comment."

Invest in the Cayman Islands

Whether you're a non-profit or a presumptive GOP Presidential nominee, the conventional belief is that you put money in Cayman Islands accounts to keep the prying eyes of the U.S. government away from those investments, which is only important if you want to avoid U.S. taxes.

The reason United States Senator Charles Grassley (R-Ia.) distinguishes between a non-profit and a Presidential candidate escapes me. Wouldn't such a practice be slimy in either case?

Sorry, Senator. I hate to throw your own words back in your face, but if those words were meaningful for a non-profit, then they are also fair game for anyone running for public office.

I get it. My ex wife hated it when I'd repeat her words, mainly because she preferred I'd forget about her inconsistencies.

I don't see the dishonesty in taking Grassley's remarks made in 2010, disparaging offshore investments made by a non-profit, and applying them to an offshore investor who wants to lead this country. Senator, as you know, someone with the kind of wealth and wherewithal to leverage such artful tax shelters is clearly not someone with whom wage earners would relate.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll stop calling lean, finely textured beef "pink slime" if you and Gov. Branstad will admit that shit is disgusting under any moniker.

Healthcare: we're missing the point

The problem with the healthcare conversation in this country is the way we make presumptions about what it is and should be. First and foremost, medicine has become a profit center for large corporations and the super rich.

I heard a political pundit last Sunday suggest it's a problem that sick people are showing up at the doctor's office without healthcare insurance. There's never even a remote possibility that the patient might pay for services rendered. And that's a new dynamic that took hold in my lifetime.

In 1958, when my mother gave birth to my oldest brother, the doctor and hospital bills combined equalled two weeks' of my dad's salary. That reveals two major changes in medicine in the last half-century: costs have tremendously outpaced inflation and the patient-as-the-payer model is dead.

Secondly, health care professionals have resisted modern technology that would improve both the quality and accessibility of health care.

In the tech and statistical realms, we understand that the higher the granularity of collected data, the higher the resolution of the system or model.

There is no shortage of devices that can collect and store a patient's vital signs. Heartrate, blood pressure, respirations, temperature and other diagnostic information can easily be collected and studied by a patient (or family & friends of the patient) by devices and appliances that can and should be widely available to consumers.

The collection and storage -- and subsequent analysis -- of this data is not a complex thing, yet the established routine remains a personal visit to your doctor's office to establish these.

Imagine that. Someone under 50 years old sees a doctor maybe annually, and usually much less than that if he's a man. We rarely know what our heartrate is at any given moment and may only see blood pressure readings at the Walmart pharmacy while playing with their sphygmomanometer.

From a statistical standpoint, that's a pretty awful data sample.

With today's technology, people could potentially increase their awareness of their state of health to levels never before seen. I don't mean merely increasing vitals collection to monthly or weekly, but minute-by-minute.

Imagine pulling out your phone and opening your health monitor to see idiot-proof gages and alerts and trends based on your vital signs. Add the ability to to take high-resolution photos of areas of concern, sonograms and personal observations -- all over a period of time (showing changes) and you can begin to predict with much more accuracy the internal workings of a person's body.

This would undoubtedly modify one's behavior -- and provide invaluable diagnostic data to a health care provider, who now has access to a gold mine of information from which to assess and treat ailments. Together, between the patient's input, the collected data and the doctor's observations & expertise, a patient would then have the best possible chance for a positive outcome.

But today, we needed a President to tell the health care industry that they suck at record keeping and overall patient care. It takes a Supreme Court case to expose just how broken the health care industry is today. It takes people of a certain age to remind the country that it hasn't always been this bad.

I've always said that if Apple was in the health care business, everyone would carry a health monitor capable of managing their own health -- cheaper and more reliably.

Doctor's would always have an established baseline from which to judge the meaning of tell-tale changes in vitals. Patients would always be able to glance at the monitor and make more informed and objective decisions about their own health care needs.

There's a wealth of knowledge about the human body available to all of us and there's no good reason the health care industry should shroud this critical information and medicine-as-a-profession behind enormous pay-walls and bureaucratic bullshit.

How did this system get so badly broken? Easy. We let insurance companies transform medicine into a profit center. And they did so insidiously and gradually. Big Hospital and Big Pharmaceutical leveraged Congress to advance health care in a way that restricts access to only those doing business with the big pockets of big insurance.

It's one of the country's worst morale failings since slavery. Withholding medicine except to the highest bidder is legalized extortion, and the only ones that can stop it are too busy engaged in partisan bickering or playing video games.

If we use common sense and follow the money, we usually find out it's about money and greed. This case is no different.

I said that there's no good reason to shroud the health care system behind paywalls and bureaucracy, but there is a reason nevertheless. It's much more profitable to extort money from sick people, a dynamic facilitated by the insurance companies' promise to pay the bills for us.

Along with that promise comes sacrifice and a lawyer-rich environment.

We continue to see Washington trying to fix symptoms of the health care system, one of which is the litigious nature of the business and subsequent limits on lawsuits called tort reform.

There wouldn't be a need for tort reform if there wasn't this enormous pool of money from which to draw million-dollar settlements commonly referred to as "deep pockets".

You're starting to see how the insurance companies are at the center of the healthcare problem and issues surrounding it. Litigiousness is the symptom of the problem and the fix isn't restricting meaningful lawsuits. Washington politicians and lobbies know it, but none of them will ever want to talk about it.

The fix is insurance reform and rule changes for doctors and hospitals.

• Absolutely no risk pool should ever be used as a profit center under any circumstance whatsoever
• Malpractice insurance should be abolished to eliminate frivolous litigation
• All risk pools should be tightly regulated and monitored by the state.
• All financials should be reported to the public on an ongoing basis, down to the individual claim (identified by number known only to the insured).
• There can be no criteria for coverage and absolutely no personal medical information can be supplied to a pool manager (insurance company).
• No health care provider can use coverage as pricing measure and all pricing must be published in clear and plain language, accessible by any prospective patient.
• Patient information is owned solely by the patient and cannot be released to any third-party or face imprisonment.

Using medicine as a profit center is immoral and will always lead to legalized extortion committed on the elderly, sick and injured -- the weakest and most vulnerable of our society.

To fix health care in this country is to reform risk pool management and to force health care facilities to become transparent with patients with regard to their business and medical practices and policies.

I'm appalled at the restrictions placed on frontline health care providers -- the truly good-spirited, kind and giving souls we want to see greeting us in our hour of need. Doctors and nurses and technicians are the heroes, but have given way to impositions that restrict their ability to provide quality health care. It's practically unheard of to see a doctor that isn't bound by government regulations that enslave him to large corporations, like Big Hospital, Big Pharmaceutical and Big Insurance.

There was a time when the most important insurance decision you had to make was deciding whether it was worth letting your insurance company know all your health issues in exchange for having them pay your medical bills.  Now there's no choice whatsoever; it's no optional but assumed that you have a health insurance plan -- and they get to make all decisions about what care they'll pay for.

And the government seems to have it out for you and your doctor.  The clinic is stifled under the weight of regulations that make it difficult at best, not to mention very expensive, to meet all the legal criteria imposed on them.  All of these compliance measures mean more employees and third-party vendors who specialize in government compliance consulting, drives up the cost of health care -- and drives many smaller practices out of business altogether.

There's no way you can tell me that today's restrictive health care environment is better for patient care under the current set of rules. There would be less suffering through better access and higher quality diagnostic methods and treatment and medications if we were truly on a level playing field.

Medicine is a field that should be occupied by caring, generous individuals who want to do good, reduce society's suffering and serve their communities.

The corporate tycoons that are driven by greed, whose only concern is enriching themselves over the good of patients' health, should be sent packing on their Leerjets to their private islands to die a horrible and lonely death.

Finally, if you fix the culture in a way that embraces Silicon Valley, you'll see product development in consumer-targeted medical devices and instruments skyrocket, which will give doctors and patience an incredible advancement in diagnostic medicine that will transform health care -- and human behavior itself -- in unimaginable ways.