VETERANS HEALTH CARE

The Veterans Health System is very complex, and, perhaps because the issue has become politicized, it has not been noted that there are many options for veterans to receive health care beside The Veterans Administration (!)  As seen in the figure, more than 30% of veterans in 2010 said they do not plan to use VA services at all and only 29% of post 9/11 veterans say they plan to use the VA for their primary medical care.  The total pool of veterans as of March31, 2014 was 21,973,000.  As time goes on the number of surviving vets is estimated to decrease to 19,604,000 in 2020, 16.777,000 in 2030, and 14,463,000 in 2040 as the Korean War and Vietnam War veterans pass away..  In FY 2013, there were a total of 8.92 million vets in all parts of the VA Health Care System.

Some of the other options than the VA for vet health care are Tri-Care For Life mainly for Veterans age 65 and over who also enroll in and pay the fees for Medicare B.*  Veterans are also eligible for the ACA (Affordable Care Act) benefits for which they pay nothing if they earn less than 135% of the poverty level for four and pay reduced fees in a sliding scale above that.**  Quite a few veterans work for the civilian government after their military career and are eligible for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHB).

The VA also pays for care outside the VA program in some cases.  "VA officials did not provide an estimated cost of the initiative but said in fiscal 2014, it already has paid for health services of 904,714 veterans at non-VA facilities at a cost of $3.38 billion."***


* http://www.military.com/benefits/tricare/retiree/tricare-for-life.html
** http://www.va.gov/health/aca/EnrolledVeterans.asp
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Health_System

AFGHANISTAN NEEDS MILITARY TRAINERS?

There is talk about keeping some military trainers in Afghanistan for two more years after we have been there for 13 years.  After 13 years of training, wouldn't you suppose that Afghanistan knows how to train troops?  After all, a child of 5 yrs when we first got there is now of military age - 18.  But the President says we will keep some military trainers there for another two years.  If the Afghans don't know how to train troops after 15 years, when will they?  Other troops will aid in helping Afghan troops against terrorists.  But it seems all military people feel we should have more troops there indefinitely and the number they seem to like is 13,500.  Supposedly, we will only leave some troops in Afghanistan to guard the American Embassy by the end of 2016.

Actually, I am guardedly optimistic about Afghanistan.  They just went through an election that, by-and-large, was peaceful and the next leader will not have the name of Karsai and, so far as I know, is not a relative of the Karsai's.*  I don't know how this will work out, but the next leader apparently will have an advanced degree (Abdullah Abdullah, about 54, is a Doctor of Opthamology;** Asraf Ghani, 65, has a Ph.D. in Cultural Anthropology***) , even after the run-off.  In the history of the U.S. I think we have only one president who has had a Ph.D. - Wilson.  But will such a person be able to relate to the people?

* This is different from Iraq where the recent election, though peaceful (many Sunnis did not participate, however), showed the frontrunner to be, ta ta, Nuri al Miliki, sound familiar?  Yes, it is that Miliki who is the current prime minister.  In fact he won bigger than the first time around, getting three more seats in parliament than the first time.  Of course, he will have to form a coalition government because he did not get a majority of the delegates.  Recall that that the city of Falluja has been in the hands of al Qaeda since early this year and parts of Ramadi are in insurgents hands. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2014/05/iraqs-election)
** I must say he has an impressive resume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Abdullah)
***  I must say that he has a particularly impressive resume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashraf_Ghani_Ahmadzai)

FREEDOM IN OUR BEDROOMS?

One of my favorite sayings is: Democrats want to get into our pocket books and Republicans want to get into our bedrooms.  Republicans seem obsessed with sex (i.e. Women do not get pregnant from rape. etc.).  Not only are they anti-abortion and insist that life begins at conception (Wow!), but anti contraceptives and anti homosexuals all while preaching that they are for freedom (sic).  But the latest takes the cake.  There is this suburb of Atlanta, GA, called Sandy Springs where: ...customers are suing the city of Sandy Springs over an ordinance that requires people to have a prescription, or a medical or scientific reason, to buy a sexual device.Melissa Davenport [who suffers from multiple sclerosis] and her attorney, Gerry Weber, filed the suit because they want the government out of the business of regulating private lives. (http://m.ajc.com/news/news/weird-news/woman-files-suit-over-sex-toy-law/nfx25/)

What won't they think of next.

PLIGHT OF AMERICAN WORKERS

In capitalism it seems like a large group of people need to be relatively poor because a lot of low-cost labor is needed in most industries. Why do you think that a certain party voted in congress to increase the child tax credit to $1,000 where you deduct this $1,000 from your income taxes in addition to getting a $600 deduction on your income? Does one think that wealthy people will have a child for a crummy $1,000 decrease in their taxes? No, it is to try to get workers to provide more low-cost workers.

We seem to be in a trend here in the U.S. where the wages of American workers are decreasing to find some sort of parity with workers in low-pay foreign countries like China. Factored in is the price of natural gas in the foreign countries, shipping expenses, and no doubt a number of other items. Yes, jobs are being brought back to the U.S. but at lower wages than before the job was off-shored (jobs restored since they were lost in 2008 pay about 23% less*).  Note added in December of 2014: the wages of the American worker also must be less than the cost of automation so the American worker has a double bind.  The Golden Age of the American worker may be over.

Amazingly, American auto workers will even vote against their personal interests and refused to unionize at the VW Chattanooga auto plant (712 against to 626 for unionization) even though there was no opposition from VW management.  As a result, workers at this plant are lower paid than at other VW plants:
In Germany, for instance, auto workers at VW plants get paid an average of $67.14 an hour. That's more than double the average hourly rate for an established unionized worker in Detroit, and it's more than three times what the non unionized workers in Chattanooga can hope to earn. According to a company spokesperson, new hires at Chattanooga start at $14.50 an hour, a rate that gradually increases to $19.50 an hour after three years on the job. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/19/vw-uaw-tennessee-auto-workers-stupid-or-coerced)

* http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/11/us-usa-mayors-jobs-idUSKBN0GB1T920140811

WHY WE ARE CAREFUL IN SYRIA

There are numerous examples now of the difficulty in conversion of nations that have long been under dictatorships to any sort of democracy.  Certainly Egypt is a good example where they have elections and then in maybe six months have the winning party overthrown by the mob.  Certainly a part of the problem is in the poor economics of these countries, including Egypt.  Recall that the original mob overthrow of a dictator had American sympathies (West friendly Hosni Mubarabk), but is the country really better off?

We did even more in backing the mob to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya, after we had promised not to try to overthrow him if he gave up nuclear weapons, which he did.  We did not put "boots on the ground" in Libya, so far as I know, except for "trainers," but we did give the mob air cover as well as training and other war materiel.  The problems of Libya are much more than the Benghazi incident,* much loved by some American politicians.

This increased engagement has come at a continuing cost. When the US and other allies intervened in 2011 to aid in the ouster of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, for instance, it helped set off a chain reaction that led to a security vacuum destabilizing that country as well as neighboring Mali. The latter saw its elected government overthrown by a US-trained officer. The former never recovered and has tottered toward failed-state status ever since. Local militias have been carving out fiefdoms, while killing untold numbers of Libyans—as well, of course, as US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in a September 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, the “cradle” of the Libyan revolution, whose forces the US had aided with training, materiel and military might.**

Another case where we have supported the mob against the government is, of course, the Ukraine where there have been two revolutions within 10 yrs, ousting legitimately elected leaders.  The Ukraine might have done better if they had broken into two counties like Czechoslovakia did as voting patterns in the Ukraine elections are quite clear.  But as in Egypt, a large part of the problem is in the poor economics of the Ukraine.

Thus I think we have been wise in Syria not to precipitously support the revolutionary parties (note plural) against the dictatorial government.   Should they overthrow Assad, then the real civil war would start between the islamists and the secularists.  As the islamists have more fervor, it is supposed that they would win resulting in another Iran type government, though the Iran government may be slowly evolving into a more democratic government representative of the people.

* In response to trying to prevent more diplomatic attacks, we have finally, quietly, developed rapid response teams in the military to counter extremist and al Qaeda attacks on our diplomatic posts:
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/05/african-war-on-terror.html
** http://www.thenation.com/article/179883/how-benghazi-birthed-new-normal-africa?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20%28NEW%29%2020140515&newsletter=email_nation_tuesday

AFRICAN WAR ON TERROR

Since posting the Drones Of War* just yesterday( I have read a most important article about the war in Africa 'How 'Benghazi' Birthed The New Normal In Africa.**  I find this article to be a MUST READ!  It not only gives credence to what is said in The Drones Of War, but adds considerably to it.

A rapid response team seems to have saved an embassy attack in South Sudan, for example

Here is an excerpt:
"While daily US troop strength continent-wide hovers in the relatively modest range of 5,000 to8,000 personnel, an under-the-radar expansion has been constant, with the US military nowconducting operations alongside almost every African military in almost every African country andaveraging more than a mission a day."

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-drones-of-war.html
** http://www.thenation.com/article/179883/how-benghazi-birthed-new-normal-africa?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20%28NEW%29%2020140515&newsletter=email_nation_tuesday

THE DRONES OF WAR

The U.S. is actually involved in a world war against terrorists, but since there are few 'boots on the ground" there is little notice.  The effort has been going on in Africa for many years,   Our principal military base is in a small country in Africa called Djibouti.  Though our main effort has concentrated particularly on Somalia from Ethiopia and within Yemen,* the war effort is greater than that.  Apparently in 2014, we are getting ready to build a new drone base in Niger to provide reconnaissance support for the French in Mali and it is admitted that this base could also be used for attack drones.**  As the war effort in Afghanistan winds down, the war in Africa is still heating up.

The use of drone attacks has been controversial in that they have been used to kill American citizen terrorists in Yemen and there has been significant "collateral" deaths and injuries of citizens.  It is said that these drone attacks are leading to recruitment of people by the terrorist groups.  As I have said elsewhere, however, would American helicopter gunships or boots on the ground be received better and wouldn't there be collateral deaths and injuries as well?***

In the past, airpower was not decisive in wars and many boots on the ground were needed to finish off an enemy.  In some cases even hundreds of thousands of troops were not successful, as in Vietnam.

The drone attacks on terrorist groups may be having a significant effect in that on 9/11/2013, there were no terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions (There was no inflammatory video against Islam either to stir up the extremists.).  This does not mean that there may not be planning underway by terrorist groups to do something spectacular in 2016 to disrupt the American presidential election just as the American Embassy hostages captured by Iran disrupted the 1980 Presidential election and led to the overthrow of President Carter by Ronald Reagan.  Curiously, shortly after that election, the Iranians released the hostages.  I've never understood why the Iranians preferred Reagan over Carter.

I don't know that Boko Haran in Nigeria is a terrorist group, but seems to be more of a political insurgency bent on taking over the country and converting it to an Islamic sharia law state, isolated from the West.  Thus is Boko Haram a terrorist group or is what is happening in Nigeria a civil war?  Think of Syria?  Are the rebels terrorist groups or is it a civil war going on to displace the current President Assam?  Some of the Syrian rebels are Islamic extremists, maybe with ties to Al Qaeda.  Though their former leader of Boko Haram says some weird things. In a 2009 BBC interview, Mohammed Yusuf, then leader of the group, stated his belief that the fact of a spherical Earth is contrary to Islamic teaching and should be rejected^[50], along with Darwinian evolution and the fact of rain originating from water evaporated by the sun.^[51] Before his death, Yusuf reiterated the group's objective of changing the current education system and rejecting democracy.^[52] Nigerian academic Hussain Zakaria told BBC News that the controversial cleric had a graduate education and spoke proficient English.****  But is this any more weird than some American politicians claiming that women do not get pregnant from rape or if they do, it is God's will.  And I suspect that being against Darwinian evolution is as much accepted by many American Christians as it is by some Islamic groups.

* http://www.wired.com/2012/08/somalia-drones/all/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Yemen
** http://tune.pk/video/2704833/us-to-build-new-drone-bases-in-africa
***
****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

MONICA LEWINSKY STILL WITH US

We all remember Monica Lewisnsky and her affair with President Clinton 18 years ago when she was 22 (It was also not her first affair.).  Now 40 yrs old and a nice looking lady and after 10 yrs of silence has published an interfiew in Vanity Fair where she says he took advantage of her but that it was consensual (sic).*  As I remember the story, she was walking ahead of the president and flipped her blouse up to reveal her bra strap.  We all knew that Clinton was a womanizer and this was like handing a martini to a recovering alcoholic.  You could say that a man old enough to be her father should have known better, but they had oral sex in the Oval Office, but apparently not intercourse.

I learned long ago that I didn't want to know too much about the messy lives most people live.  Back in the days of another womanizer, President Jack Kennedy, the women kept quiet.  This is a new age and women don't keep quiet about their affairs.  The big problem was that Monica blabbed about the affair and blabbed to the wrong person who started a political campaign against the president.  I believe it when Clinton said that he didn't have sex with that woman, because I believe sex to him meant intercourse, but that was a fine point with the public.  At any rate this exploded political outrage and Clinton ended up being impeached though not convicted.

Though I knew Clinton was a womanizer, I thought he wanted to accomplish certain things so much as president that he would keep his pants zipped, at least during his presidency, but he couldn't do it and as a result failed to accomplish much of his agenda.  In addition, there were bad things going on in the world, and this affair distracted politicians from doing their jobs.  To some extent we are still paying the price for this distraction.

I'm surprised that so many women had sympathy with Monica Lewinsky at the time and feel that President Clinton took advantage of a girl, a child of 22.  I am reminded, however, that age 22 is considered an adult with the full privileges of voting, drinking alcohol, and smoking.   It is hard for me to understand that a woman of 22 doesn't know that she is not supposed to have an affair with a married man.  Apparently, it is accepted by many women that it is all right for a "girl" of 22 to pursue a married man, even one old enough to be her father, if he is powerful.  Now I know my problem with all the women that told me to "get lost."  I just wasn't powerful enough.

I do entertain sympathy with Monica Lewinsky today.  She has never been able to hold a permanent job and has not achieved a marriage that she says she wants.**  She has paid a high price for the sins of long ago.

The Clinton-Lewinsky affair seems to have subsided, and I think most people greet her interview with a yawn.  At least Clinton is highly regarded.  I can't believe that this old problem will have any political value.  There are women who hold it against Hillary for staying with this womanizer though there are many other women who oppose divorce, and admire her for staying married as they put up with philandering husbands and stayed in their marriage.  It would seem, viewing former President Clinton's current popularity, that Hillary did the right thing.

* http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-speaks
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky

SENSIBLE TALK ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE

Subway CEO Fred DeLuca interview with CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101647378) :

(Snip)"When I started in the business, the minimum wage was $1.25. I've seen an enormous number of wage increases. Basically it applies evenly to everyone in the business.* [bolding added]  This increase would impact Subway plus every other competitor so it would not put any brand at a particular disadvantage. It might have a slight impact on consumers because what's going to happen is a wage increase will happen and all the restaurant owners will have to recoup that somehow, usually through a price increase. It might make eating out at restaurants have a little bit less competitive advantage compared to supermarkets.

Over the years, I've seen so many of these wage increases. I think it's normal. It won't have a negative impact hopefully, and that's what I tell my workers. I always have whenever we come across these things. I personally think that if I were in charge of the government, I would index the minimum wage to inflation so that way everybody knows what they can count on. The employees know they're going to get increases on a regular basis. The management knows that they're going to have to pay a little bit more with inflation. It just seems much more sensible and fair to me. I don't know why it hasn't been done like that. I would do it that way because in the long, long run it's going to approximate the change in inflation."

*  That is, it is a level playing field.

SUPPORTING FISCAL CONSERVATISM

In case there are those that read my previous post (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/04/three-republicans-who-wont-get.html) that may have gotten the opinion that I hate conservatives, I do not hate conservatives and I do support a policy, for example, of balancing the Federal budget over a business cycle (but not annually).  I point out, however, that having a positive cash flow in our government is something we rarely have done.  No Republican has done even this loose balancing since Eisenhower (who had it twice), not Nixon, not Ford, not Reagan, not H.W. Bush, and not H.W. Bush.

In fact I was a Republican up until Barry Goldwater.  After he got the nomination I said to my fellow Republicans at a meeting that now we should all pull together and not just beat up on Rockefeller.  Someone replied that if I was such a Rocky lover, why didn't I become a Democrat?  So I did and have to admit that Democrats have more fun.  Later I was to break from the Democratic Party because I agreed with President Ford's pardoning of Nixon.  The Democrats were setting up to worry the Nixon issue to death, just like Republicans are doing with Benghazi now, and not do any work.

I think that Republicans putting the 1964 Civil Rights Act over the top was their finest hour.  The Act was much broader than just applying to Blacks but included sex, race, and religion as well as color.  Through the leadership of Republican Everett Dirkson, in the end 27 Republican Senators voted for the Senate version of the bill and only 6 against it.  Also 138 Republican Representatives voted for the House version and 34 against whereas 96 Democrats voted against it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964).  Can you imagine that happening today when a comprehensive immigration bill cannot even come to the House floor?

The same might be said for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when 30 Republican Senators voted for it and only 2 against, 112 Republican Representatives voted for the bill and 24 against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965).

Of course these bills were in the days when the Solid South was in the Democratic Party and before the Southern Strategy when they switched to the Republican Party.  I consider Dirkson who shepherded both bills through the Senate to be a hero, though he was a supporter of Joe McCarthy and the Vietnam War..  Dirkson is also famous for saying, "A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there and pretty soon you are talking about real money." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen)