Democracy in the US

I think that in the US we are very proud of this idea of
Democracy. It is a focal point for us but I don't think
it's all that well thought out. I think that most people
would say that democracy is just one thing and that
it's what we have. Well, democracy is a kind of an idea.
True it's a system – and a system of government – but
then – it really shouldn't be thought of as something that
is static or fixed – because almost all systems change
over time. So I don't think we could think of it as something
that doesn't need thought and analysis and improvement.

To me one of the really important things about democracy
is that everyone's “voice” should be heard – and that is
an idea that is captured in our system of voting. But I
think that it should be more than that. People's voices
should be heard – even when they don't have that much
to say – because it is a source for new and better ideas
that can improve how we do things and our way of life in
general.

Now – today in our country we have this system that is
mainly based on two parties and people who participate
in these parties can often express their ideas through
this system. The way I see it is there are a few things
wrong with this process. First, these parties have
developed to represent mostly two main groups of
interest which are primarily labor and management.
These are the two big opposing points of view and
our political process has been caught up in these
differing perspectives. One of the problems we have
right now is that with in both of these parties we have
people that are ideologues. What this means is that
they have become so entrenched in their perspectives
of what is right and wrong – that they are very unwilling
to consider other ideas and are very unwilling to compromise.
Quite frequently these ideologues are able to gain everyone's
attention and therefore issues become framed around their
perspectives. And this has become a huge problem, because
it has made finding practical solutions to real problems very
hard. It might be better if these parties were totally random -
so that some issues of these opposing perspectives could
be worked out at a more grass roots level – and not reach
the level to which they interfere with how our government
actually works.



Practically, how can we get around this big problem that we have
now – to a situation in which more people can express
their views in various ways and yet we can easily get
through the problem of ending up with opposition
that can not be resolved?

First, in my opinion this is something that is related to
the issues now facing us in relation to health care. The
reason I say that is that – on a one to one basis the
issue of health care is related to two key processes.
First – the patient needs to be able to express what
is going so that an effective remedy can be found.
Second the health care provider needs to be able
to hear and work with this information in such a
way that the problems will be effectively addressed.

Therefore, in my opinion not only is our current
difficulties with resolving health care related to health
in the sense of patient – to health care provider – but
I believe it is also related to how we can understand
and explore ways of achieving a better system of
democracy and relating that in fact to improvements
in our system of government in general.

These ideas are very important for our future. Even
if I could express a simple formula – which there in
fact may be, it is very important for everyone involved
- which is everyone - to work on finding this answer
together – and since we are all clearly involved with
this we should all be motivated to finding a reasonable
and effective answer to it.

The following was submitted to

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/health-care-action-center/


Health Care, Energy and other Issues:

I suspect that there are very few people who would try
to argue that if we wish to become a culture capable of
traveling to other and distant planets, it would be possible
to do this without well co-ordinated international co-operation.

I, for one, am of the conviction that the near term survival of
our species requires a good deal of international co-operation
both on the issues of the use of energy resources as well
as to the issues relating to health care and health care investment.

Now, it's seems that this issue of health care is a more pressing
issue for people in the U.S. - today because we haven't done a real
good job over the years with this issue and there are many reasons
for this – which could be mentioned – but it is an issue that I believe
no clear thinking – reasonable person can avoid. There are those who
would imagine that it is an entirely economic issue – with whom
I would disagree strongly. Making money and making people healthy
are related – in one very important way. You can't make money unless
you have a healthy work force – so you can not have one without the
other. You might say – well - only certain members of our society
deserve a high quality of health care – because they do work which
is more important or they contribute more to the over all economy.
Then, people who make this argument must be able to support it
with at least a reasonable description of the value of individual work.
It is a system very hard to support because everyone's effort in
any particular area of endeavor is important – and although some
may be rewarded more highly for their labor – often the most
important contributions are made by individuals who actually earn
less.

But, we need to face, as a nation that this effort to achieve and maintain
a good quality of health is important to us as a nation.

Now my opinion is that this concept needs to be described and incorporated
into our constitution, because it is important. And I also believe that
this effort should be done by a national body – a constitutional committee
or congress – of individuals from our entire nation to meet and openly
discuss these issues so a proper documents may be created to reflect these
concerns in detail. To do so would take a great deal of effort – but to
not do it will cost us in the long run. And a meeting of this type
should be done separately from our existing government institutions
mostly so that everyone can feel that their inputs and concerns are
recognized. There are many reasonable arguments for this.



Today, in the U.S. - we have institutions at 4 levels of government which are as
follows:

1. National
2. State
3. County
4. Municipal

My feeling is that this should be expanded to 5 – one of which the primary
responsibility would be to focus on the issues of health and health care.
My opinion is that these institutions should be on a regional level and
also there should be contributions from existing taxes which would help
support them as well as consideration made for additional revenues to
be considered to help support them. In addition, I believe that the leadership
of these bodies should consult with the president – either with his cabinet
or separately especially when the president is considering issues of war.

There are many other details and thoughts and arguments relating to
this and that is exactly why a national meeting of this type can be of
such a great value – so that a lot of different ideas and so forth may
be openly and freely discussed – before a final document is to be
reviewed and agreed upon.

Now, just a brief example of how these issues affect us daily. Huge
amounts are invested and spent on lawyers – endlessly discussing these
things... Now, if these lawyers know so much about medicine – then why
are they not working in the health care industry rather than standing around
in public places – discussing it ????? It would seem that spending so much
time talking about it would indicate that they probably knew more than
the doctors who are actually being paid to do the work. If that were to happen
then we could pay the doctor-doctors ½ as much and the lawyer-doctors ¼
as much and we'd have twice the labor force and still spend less.

Energy

But on to a different area of concern and that would be energy and the
long term investments we much make to insure that we'll survive what
appears to be a potentially large scale environment catastrophe. Now
lately people talk about the carbon dioxide issue, but we much surely
think clearly on these issues. What cannot be denied – except by those
who have not clearly and impartially examined the facts in this case -
is that our energy transmission system is hopelessly out of date --- almost
all of this technology having been designed and developed in the 1920's
and 1930's. I personally believe we have learned a great deal more on
this subject – but there are some very clear issues that should be examined
which is that we have so far progressed in our use of electricity – that to
call it simply electricity is not giving a clear view of this subject, because
we use in in such a variety of ways – for example: in communication, in
entertainment, in pumping, in manufacturing, in health care, in transportation,
and the list is much longer. It is clear that any attempt at modernizing this
arena should be done with that in mind so that rather than transmitting some

of these different type of energies long distances – the power was more local -
for some of these things the power can be most easily derived from more
renewable resources – for example – cell phones can be recharged by solar
or wind – easily – and even some transportation power can be easily created
in this way .....

But now – another important issue is how high can the transmission voltages
be ???? It seems that 500 kv to 5,000 kv is not an unreasonable way to do
that ---- although I am not currently aware that higher voltages are being used.
But it is my belief that these projects should be integrated into other infra-structure
projects – with the call of enhancing both --- So for example consider – that
public transportation in the form of fast, efficient, reliable and energy conscious
systems are the exceptions rather than the norm.... Our rail system in this
country is totally sub standard in all ways and even within cities – public
transit systems are often not well thought out in such a way that the public
is really benefiting sufficiently from it.

So, for example, consider that safe forms of transit may be developed using
strong magnetic fields in opposition to the gravitation pull –
so that – very little energy is then required to move it because the frictional forces have been so much reduced. If, in addition, solar or wind systems were developed with these systems then – they might end up as energy producers. At the very least it should be considered to incorporate some of the transmission systems
as well – so that both of these systems may be maintained together.

But it would be incorrect to assume that such a plan could be implemented
in a very quick way – without significant planning and engineering. The result
of that type of approach would be potentially disastrous. However, with the right
materials and forethought this could become a very practical and well utilized mode
of transportation.

One speculative thought on this subject would be investigations into some method
by which the natural magnetic field of the earth could be used to advantage.

In these ways I do not think that it is unreasonable to consider that major
hubs of the system would be able to add energy to the system – thus increasing
the energy available to the entire system.

It seems clear to me that any long range plans on this subject need to
consider many factors together – these being – particularly energy,
transportation, manufacturing, and city and community planning.
In this way we can look forward to progressing to a system which
will be good for people and good for the environment.