TrumpCare Dissected & Explained in Plain English

To understand TrumpCare we have to first go back and redefine the insurance industry. It used to be that insurance was essentially a large scale, calculated group gamble. A group of 10 people each put in $100/month, with the expectation that of those ten people, 8 of them would probably only use about $100/month, give or take a few dollars. One person wouldn’t use their insurance at all, but would purchase it just to be safe. And the final person would likely need to use far more than $100, but the unused portion from the other nine people would cover the difference.

But then healthcare got more expensive and the pooled amount from the ten people didn’t cover everything. So the insurance providers raised the rates to $200. And then for the people that needed more than the $200/mo, they asked for more money. And lowered the rates for the group of people who barely used it.

To the business mind this makes sense. The person who uses more of the resources should have to pay more. But in reality what this really did was actually take money out of the system when they lowered the rates for the lower users.

And so they raised the rates on everyone. Again.

So people complained. And rightfully so. They were paying a lot more and receiving the same amount of care. And more and more people couldn’t afford insurance.

And then came ObamaCare, and the idea that access to healthcare was a right.

ObamaCare created more access to insurance by creating mandates, and tax credits. Mandates is just a fancy word for penalty. Fail to get insurance, pay a mandate.

Tax credits were not as easy to understand. To put it in simplest terms, pretend you receive a tax refund each year of $1,000. ObamaCare took that $1,000 and put it towards your insurance premiums for you, in theory, lowering your monthly insurance expenses. It also did away with all pre-existing conditions. You no longer paid more if you used more. Basically it used your own money to subsidize your insurance premiums.

It also greatly expanded Medicaid.

The problem was it varied from state to state, and didn’t always work the way it was planned. It raised taxes, and users no longer received tax refunds. And in many cases, at the end of the year, owed more money to the government to cover their tax credits.

Opponents of ObamaCare didn’t like the mandate or the higher taxes, or the poor administration and application of the program, which unarguably, was full of faults.

Which brings us to TrumpCare.

TrumpCare does away with the general pool and calculated gamble idea of insurance. And instead takes the “business is in business to make a profit” approach. The majority will pay a calculated, evened out sum. Some will pay less, and get less. And the higher risk, higher use pool will pay more.

And Medicaid is scaled back dramatically.

Mine-golia Mongolia

I recently read a fascinating [to me] article in Bloomberg Markets magazine regarding mining in Mongolia. To sum it up in simplest terms, a very large multi-national corporation has a very large copper mining project going on there. (And some other smaller companies too.) The company, Rio Tinto, stands to make a great deal of money over many years off this project. It is one of the largest known copper deposits, if I recall correctly.
In an interesting case of corporate responsibility and working with the government and the people of the country, Rio Tinto not only paying the country for permission to be there, plus paying taxes, and employing many local nationals, they are going a few steps beyond that. For instance, Rio Tinto paid taxes in advance.
Did you know Mongolia is a democracy? It's true. It is. And that's what makes the next part more interesting.
Mongolia has been giving money to its citizens. Forget taxes. Rio Tinto is paying all of that. The government is just giving money to its people. Payments, free money, cash. For nothing. This is the "payment" Rio Tinto makes in exchange for taking their copper.
Keep in mind this is a country where most people outside of the large capital city live in yurts with no electricity. They have retained their nomadic, hunting, and gathering lifestyles. And now the government is giving them an extra $11,000 a year.
And following the history of pretty much every case of free handouts ever, now the people want more. They were given money, and they liked it. And now they want more free money.
This is a democracy. The president has to run for re-election. So naturally he's campaigning and telling the people what they want to hear. "We're going to make that big bad corporation pay up! Give us more money! They can't just come in here and strip our land while our people live in yurts! No!"
The president even held a big special legislative meeting where he gave a chilling speech. He made it clear that the government was going to move in and have more control over the mines. And that the companies would pay up. And the government would give the people more.
A few days later, he had the bank accounts of Rio Tinto frozen. He claimed it was because they didn't pay their taxes that year. The company pointed out he was right, they didn't pay them in that year, because, at the country's request, they had paid all of their taxes in advance! Their accounts were then unfrozen.
A president had that much control. No checks or balances. No oversight. So one to remind him of this large multi-national contract and its details.
Or maybe he knew full well what the contract said. (Not knowing about the millions and millions in advance taxes that the government relies heavily upon is a pretty big "oopsie.") And he was just campaigning.
Granted his campaigning and presidential style have a strange Hitler and Stalin propaganda vibe to them.
This situation (which may have progressed further by now- I was reading an article from May) is a fascinating one.
This isn't a case of a big bad company coming in and taking advantage of a poor, undereducated country. In fact, if what I have read is true, the company is actually doing things right. It has employed many of the locals, provided education opportunities for locals to go abroad, is showing environmental safety concern, and let's not forget those advance taxes. Those taxes which are pretty much just straight to the pocket payments of every citizen of the country.
Has there ever been a case in the history of the world where a government has moved in, taken over commercial operations (particularly ones that have proven to be lucrative), forced its people to become dependent upon them (the government), and it turned out well?
Where does this leave the corporation? Do they cave and let the government take over? (Hand over the keys and say, "Sure, you drive!") Has any company ever done that? Sold out to a government and walked away from profits?
There are some interesting similarities to copper and Mongolia to oil in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. In Saudi the people do not pay taxes. The government makes so much money off of oil that it gives money to its citizens. It's true. Just for being a Saudi male, you are given money. Plus they have family money. This (combined with other cultural issues there) has led to an interesting problem with laziness and education. What incentive do the men have to work or get a decent education if the government is just going to give them money? (And these are not people living in poverty. These are wealthy people.)
There will likely never be a war with Mongolia over copper the way there has been with government controlling oil and lands in the Middle East.
But it is an interesting discussion.
What responsibilities does the corporation have to make the government happy? Many investors have been looking to Mongolia as the next big pay day- what is their moral responsibility? (Or is it even a safe investment anymore? Does anyone think the government won't ruin the situation?)

But Who Wore it Best?

From  the Washington Post's Reliable Source column:
Michelle Obama has been criticized for not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game Friday night at an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace. The first lady wore a very fancy J. Mendel capsleeve jacket — “white viscose techno crepe tailored jacket with overlapped side panels and silver embroidery” from the 2013 Resort collection, according to a press release from the company. It’s not in stores yet, but high-end retailer Moda Operandi listed the jacket at a princely $6,800. The White House declined to comment.


From the Washington Post's "She the People" column when Ann Romney wore her shirt:
The very wealthy Mitt and Ann Romney have often been painted as out of touch with average Americans. Ann’s pricey shirt will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s daily itinerary.
On Tuesday Ann wore a colorful silk T-shirt with a large bird print by Reed Krakoff during an interview with her and her husband on CBS’s “This Morning.” Fashion blogs quickly tracked down the “The Reed Audubon Silk Shirt” and noted the whopping price tag.
A representative of the fashion house told ABC News that the shirt is off-the-rack and it had not been a gift to Ann Romney from Krakoff...
Some Americans might be thinking that the $1,000 spent on one shirt could help them out with a house payment or buy necessities at Walmart. Others are counting exactly how many T-shirts that amount would buy at Target, where first lady Michelle Obama said she often shops.


Just a little case of media bias maybe??

And could no one have at least mentioned that the $6,800 jacket is not doing Mrs. Obama's back end any favors??

The Men, the Money, and the Companies Supporting the GOP

Check out my article for the Motley Fool-
The men, the money, and the companies supporting the GOP nomination race.

The Republican nomination race is in full swing, with more money being spent on ads and activities than ever before. Millions have been spent in radio and televised ads in targeted states across the country. Because individuals can only donate up to $2,500 directly to a campaign due to Federal Election Commission regulations, wealthy donors and corporations wishing to make larger donations contribute to political action committees (SuperPACs). The superPACs operate independently with campaigns, and do not take direct instructions from campaigns. In many cases, a few key individuals or associations affiliated with corporations are behind the money fueling the SuperPACs.
Investors may not realize that their shares are indirectly contributing to the publicly traded corporations, individuals and associations, assisting the campaigns.

Read the rest at http://beta.fool.com/erinannie/2012/03/04/men-money-and-companies-supporting-gop-candidates/2564/

Should a POTUS be just like the common man?

Forgive me as today I go off completely on a personal musing. While I never apologize for my bias on this site, I normally stick to events or news as a topic. But today I'd like to just think aloud as it were. I'm not going to condemn or condone Mitt Romney today, but instead, just analyze him from a distance.
I've noticed in the past the media calling upon Romney to own up to his wealth, and to not act like he's not a wealthy man. They have asked him on multiple times to be more genuine, and say he has a connectivity problem. Even as a Romney supporter I have noticed this as well. There is always that question of when he is going to let loose and just be a regular guy. I'm wondering why this is so important to voters. Do we have to identify with the President? Why do we feel this need for him to be our best friend? I think part of it, a large part of it, comes from Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now President Obama. Clinton really changed the face of the presidency with his southern drawl, aw shucks personality, and approachable style. Even as his weaknesses were exposed during the scandals, it made him less elite, more normal. If he could reach the presidency beginning with his humble footsteps out of Hope, AR, anybody could. He clicked and connected with middle America. George W. Bush obviously ascended with a legacy. But again, many people identified with the father-son legacy, and that made people like him. And maybe he wasn't the guy next door, and he sure made a lot of gaffes, but, who hasn't said few dozen stupid things in their lifetime? Again, his weaknesses subconsciously made people like him. And then there is Obama who pretty much runs on the common man platform. He drinks beer, goes to his kids' basketball games, and his wife is photographed at Target. People identify with him.
And then there is Mitt Romney with his wealth of millions, perfect wife, perfect sons, and perfect hair. People don't identify with him, or at least, very few people do. There isn't a story line there to grab on to.

Disclosing Interests

Mitt Romney coming over to give my grandmother a hug and a kiss (Source: my cousin)

As all presidential candidates must undergo many personal interest disclosures, I hereby give my own personal political interest disclosure- I'm proud of my uncle. You can read about my uncle, Dane McBride, and his personal friendship with Mitt Romney in "Romney and Roanoke ally have a history." In further disclosure, I don't believe my uncle is even truly aware of this blog, and I am certain that I have received no inside information because of their relationship.

In further political and financial interest disclosures, you can read my latest post for the Motley Fool about the financial interests of the GOP candidates here.