Tuesday, August 30, 2016


Drug and health insurance costs year to year are rising rapidly, pricing lots of folks out of the drugs and or health insurance we all need.  These crooks have shown total disregard  for the welfare of those they are supposed to serve.

We spend twice as much for healthcare as other industrialized countries and get less better care then most.  A family of four in the US spend 23,215 annual insurance costs.  1 in 3 have difficulty paying their medical bills and it is the single biggest cause of bankruptcies. It's time to take action.

It would appear by all  economics that can  be applied to health insurance  costs  that going to a single payer system would save us tons of money..  How much money?  Well that is a hot topic and you will see all kinds of outcomes predicted good and bad.  What's the truth?  I will attempt to give you some facts to apply to the problem.

We spend 3.1 trillion dollars in annual heath care costs.   Estimates of how much we would save or how much it would cost to implement this plan wonder all over the place.  Multiple arguments surface on why we can't do this but they are mostly without fact.   So I will use just one set as an example to help you decide.

Some estimates of savings run as high as 591 billion a year. (476 billion  of that is admin  costs. There are all sorts of numbers out there pro and con but the bottom line is quite easily figured out for us common folk.  From a high of $23,000 a yr for a family of four to nothing for the 41 million people who have no insurance.  A side note many of us with Cadillac high plans don't have eye or dental coverage and if you have had dental work lately you know they can break your bank without breaking a sweat.

So how do we pay for this transition ?
Here's how!
For those making less than $53000 or less  will pay $900/yr
                                            $100,00 will pay $6000/yr
                                            $200,00 will pay $1200/yr
In the article most of these numbers came from the costs above are all paid by the employee.  I think it would be fair to have the employer pay half that cost , most likely a huge savings for them too.

There is a big problem in switching to single payer ,"What do you do with all the insurance company workers.  Some would be working for the government, some would seek other employment and some would have to be retrained.  Hardly a reason to not go to single payer. Nobody was concerned when our corporations shipped jobs overseas.  I don't know how many insurance company employees are now actually  overseas jobs but you can bet a bunch.

Now for the big argument " I DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN MY HEALTH CARE"  .  The government is already involved in Medicare and there are few complaints of quality of care provided.  I ask you to ask yourself a simple question, what does my health insurances compny really do.  Quite simple they simply pay the bills at some highly reduced rate than you or I would pay without insurance, they provide no health care, and in actual practice  they interfere with the quality of care.  Ask most doctors how insurance companies cost them time and money and force less care than the doctor wants to use.

Here's a little personal opinion on quality of care using Medicare for the last 15 years.  I have never had a procedure denied or even questioned.  If Medicare covered dental and eyes I would have no worries over health care.  So do your homework.  And if you live in Ca look up prop 61 on the ballot this November that would limit drug costs to no more than paid by the VA.  A huge savings estimated at saving Californians 9 billion a year.

Sunday, August 28, 2016



Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilisation is precious. This is the Alt-Right.

Certainly not my cup of tea , but those who are flocking to the Alt-Right as an answer to our problems should read the above mission statement copied directly from the opening page of the Alt-Right web site.  Just saying if that's what they believe what would their policies be like?? 

Monday, August 22, 2016


Taking just one of Donald Trumps pet themes the deportation of all illegal workers it shows at least to me a complete disregard of fact.  The estimated cost of deporting all those folks would cost as estimated 400 to 600 billion dollars.  

The problems such an approach would make are in Donald's words huge.  
Just for the hell of it think what his deportation army would cause.  Picture (the worse) little children afraid to answer their doors because the deportation army is after them.  

To end on a positive note what could you do infrastructure wise with 600 billion. All those out of work folks would probably get a job. 

Sunday, August 21, 2016


A republican in congress has filed a bill limiting this and future presidents from negotiation with Russia as Mr. Trump has suggested he would do as president..No doubt that's why this bill has appeared. The president is granted those powers  by various means but he does have the right.

As many of my latest posts have pointed out the powers that be are busily preparing for a war with Russia with China being thrown in as an extra.

The military industrial complex is hard at work egging us on to bigger and better wars.  Never mind we have not come out as winners since WW2.  An unbiased look at the military capabilities of all the involved might give you pause to reconsider this boondoggle.

When I point out to some that this would not be the cake walk those planning it think it is.  W closer look says quite possibly we might have our asses handed to us again. If Iraq and Afghanistan haven't proved we are not invincible on the ground (even with superior air power ) then what makes them think they can win this one.

When talk of surviving a first nuclear strike surfaces you have to wonder where the pentagon is buying their weed.  They must have got a huge discount on the junk they are smoking.(Oh wait they never get a discount).  Now we even say we never had a NO FIRST STRIKE POLICY makes me wonder if  I was being lied to the 11 years of submarine service packing missiles around the oceans just waiting to strike back if we were ever attacked.  Now they tell me that , that policy never existed.

It matters little I suppose , just because we had a rule not to use a nuke first, I have little faith we would stick to that if we actually started a confrontation with Russia on the ground.  It took us six months to gear up for Iraq, how long would it take to put enough men and equipment on the ground in the EU to take on the Russians.  Let's look at past history to see just what we were facing.  At the peak in both Iraq and Afghanistan we had 150 thousand troops on the ground.  We took down the Iraq forces with ease but in trying to hold the ground we did not do so well.  Afghanistan has been a clusterfuck from the git go, after trillions of dollars and 13 years both countries are out of control.

Point being we had to call up the reserves to allow for rotation of the troops on a yearly basis, which did not apply to all.  In engaging in these efforts we burned out a bunch of troops, destroyed many families, created a huge c

Saturday, August 20, 2016


Thom Hartman in a rant the other day called out all of the news networks for their lack of any policy discussions and for that matter any news that did not call or or show bloodletting.  It has gotten so bad at my house that we don't even turn to the network news like we used to..We might watch an hour here or there but in general they are not worth your time.

When news networks got gobbled up by conglomerates and were forced to make money or else and of course we got the or else.  Politics, politics, politics that's what we get 24/7. If you have wondered
why you saw so much of Trump in the beginning is simply because he got ratings.  Why still makes me shudder that the populace bought his act.

In fact the whole of TV is at it's worse possible year to date.  5 or 6 days of the week there is absolutely nothing to watch. I participated in a  survey for a rating company and was surprised at how few entries I could actually make.  Outside of the news there is one day a week where there are 4 or  shows that we watch.

When you stop and look at what we are offered you can soon tell what you are going to be offered and if it is a hit you know you are going to get 10 more shows just like it.  As an example consider what happened when "NAKED AND AFRAID" was a hit, soon we had show after show of naked butts and horrible conditions. OK , I confess I watched the first season but not after that.  Another example are the game warden shows.  One or two aren't bad but soon they stretch it out to they end up with weak shows that don't get ratings.  One more example are the surviving above the  Artic Circle, interesting in the beginning but after a time it's gets so receptive you ask why your are watching.

Current TV bill is over $200 and if you count the 3 or 4 streaming companies it gets worse.  On top of that I live in the boondocks where our DSL delivers a whopping 1 meg.  So I have two satellite services , two because of download limits on one of them and sometimes one or the other satellite services is not delivering at a fast enough rate to stream a movie.

I was around when TV became first available,  even in the early days there were quality shows on most nights.  In fact there were a few shows that people actually stayed home or rushed home to watch.  Milton Berle and ED Sullivan shows come to mind.  There seems to be a lack of creativity in the movie making business, it's hard to figure out why this is so , it just is, and all you can do is hope that next season will be better, I am not holding my breath waiting for a good season.


I know I am beating this war drum a lot of late and feel compelled to alert you to the possibility of  a coming war with Russia and maybe China at the same time.  Since a lot of folks get a majority of their news from the TV they might not have a clue what is on the drawing board.

In this post I will put a few links detailing what the nutjobs running this county are planning.  We have been  positioning Nato troops on the Russian borders, missiles there too, plus missiles in other surrounding countries all supposedly to counter Iranian intent. (which doesn't exist) .

At the same time we are tweaking the Chinese tiger by challenging their moves into the southern ocean. Some of the same nutjobs think they can fight both Russia and China at the same time.

The above has to be the dumbest idea yet but the halls of congress and the Defense Department are full of these NeoCon types some held over from the Regan Era.  The troublesome part of this is if a Hillary is elected president you can bet on a war with one or both of the above mentioned.

While Hillary claims on the campaign trail she will not send more ground troops into Syria her potential cabinet are planning larger ground operations in Syria ,yep more boots on the ground and with the goal of throwing the dictator out will but right up to Russian and Chinese assistance to Syria, whose goal is to keep Assad in power.

So who is pushing all these war plans?  Well you need not look any further than the Think Tanks supported by both parties.  They apparently haven't seen a war they don't love.  Never mind we have not won a war since WW2 and to be fair got our asses kicked in every conflict we engaged in.

I am anything but anti military having served 27 years in the Navy both active and reserve.  I do object to the kinds of wars that we have engaged in of late.  ie, take Iraq who we attacked on faked evidence.  Or going on the ground in Afghanistan having viewed the Russian defeat and retreat from that county.

Our defense budget (the stated one is 600 billion) the real one is unknown but estimate put it around a trillion or so.  That's about half of our income and more than our 10 closest competitors.

A lot of this money is blown of new systems 4 of which have been less that a success and way over budget (the F35 ) is the best example .  Topped only by the new carrier 2 years overdue and double the original cost.  Plus 4of the major systems don't work.

It's time to reign in the Military Industrial comlex to save our nation.


The Saudi's last week bombed another Doctors Without Borders site in Northern Yemen, killing and wounding some.  This is the 12th Doctors site bombed in Yemen this year and has forced Doctors to pull out of some sites in Yemen.

While this is disturbing enough , now we find out we have had 50 advisers on the ground in Saudi advising them on their bombing campaign.  We find that out after this last hospital was bombed and as a result we withdrew 45 of those advisers.

Lord knows we have destroyed most of the middle east in the past decade and it looks like we won't be satisfied till every nation over there is destroyed.

Keep in mind our most favorite nation Israel will be left surrounded by hostile forces who are being shoved into desperate acts to try and survive.

And yet we are pursuing wars with Russia and China.  Yes, seems to be the answer and the fools in charge are once again believing they can pull off a first strike nuclear event.  THEY CAN'T!

Friday, August 12, 2016


If you thought while reading the title of this blog means you are probably a young whippersnapper who has never heard the phrase.  For a very long time dating back  to my nuclear sub career that is the doctrine we operated with.  We were always told that the US would never launch first, if we ever got a launch code we could feel secure in the knowledge we were only getting ever for someone else launching their nukes.

Well scrap all that , we are right back to our good ole M,A.D.  with a slight twist , we now beleive we can use battlefield nukes as a first strike weapon.  Really are we actually that stupid?  Well check out the links provided inside this post. Read the first one at least for a tasted of current thinking.

If making plans to go to war with Russia is not enough for you , then add China to your bucket list.  The Rand Corp has conducted studies on the effects of conducting a war with China.  One  note : as far as I am concerned this study was flawed from the git go as they" concluded that no other nations will enter the conflict".  Really given all the agreements signed by Russia and China linking the two countries in many way would indicate to the least informed could conclude they would come to each others aid.

Alex Jones ,hardly a liberal, calls out that our plans for a war with Russia and or China (and you better figure a war with one is a war with both) will be a major disaster .  If it escalates beyond control nukes would certainly be used by all that had them.  Which could very well be the end of civilization.

It's now official NATO doctrine IT'S WAR 2.0
One major difference is today we believe that we can use battle field nukes in the opening of a new war.  Now how could that go wrong.  Put yourself in Putin's shoes, you have an enemy attacking you with nukes , what do you do as Putin.  Tit for Tat as long as you can hold them you won't use your big guns first.  Will we, my current feel that if we were not being successful we would launch our big nukes and if you were already left this world you could hear our crazy bastards screaming "WE WON"  Yeah you surely did, most likely I won't hear you screaming from your heaven where you will reside with all the other crazy fundamental types, while I  sit and enjoy your God's problem sorting out the good from the evil.  Seems he needs a bigger place for the bad guys.  

Saturday, August 6, 2016


As Thom Hartman noted the other day, he and his wife watched 6 hours of CNN and MSNBC and not one issue of the day was discussed.  Thom would be really shocked if he tried watching them for a week and would end up seeing no issues discussed.

There fore it is time for the US to reinstate their NO FIRST USE OF NUKES back into use.  Some dit from the AF said the other day we never had such a use policy ,well I am here to call bullshit on that statement , because during my 7 patrol on a missile boat that was the policy.

In the past few weeks I have read at least 10 lets have a war articles by both sides of the aisle.  They are not only gearing up to take on Russia they include China in their plans. Being a sub sailor I have great distrust for those who say yeah we can do that ,not taking into considering what we who would have to fight the war would give up.

A little reading will quickly inform you that Russia and China are not sitting on their hands waiting patiently for us to attack.  I have been following the progress of both countries in beefing up their military and attempting to analyze our chances of defeating them.  In Russia's case they view the missile attack to be their main concern and their response to that threat is to build weapons system to counter that threat.  They have added new missile defense systems, updated aircraft , new subs , new combat ships and more.  In China's case the view their main threat is from the sea, with their eye on the Straights of Formosa as the most likely for an attack they have built a large fleet of  new , very quite subs.  Our most likely plan for China would most likely be a Carrier based attack and long range bombers, both of which would have to defeat any new systems that come on line.

The scary part of all this is the bare fact that in times of economic strife (think the Great Depression) we resort to a war to stimulate the economy.  Our back room boys are gearing up to take on Russia and China an  impossible task if you consider that Russia and China would come to each others aide a defeat of them would require a miracle.  Or perhaps as the back room folks are saying we can use battlefield nukes to even the odds.








Yep , I am beating war drums another yet again because as we are entertainer by  the Trump Hillary sideshow war is being planned , equipment and troops are being put into place, just waiting for a chance to pull the trigger.  Never mind that it would most likely be the end of mankind to start that war our brilliant military and planners believe they can pull it off.

Now I offer every war and confrontation we have been in since WW2 and had to walk away not the winners should be enough evidence that if we can't whip nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and others.  The use of aerial devices to win wars has always been known to now be a way to win a war, sure you can destroy the country but unless you have troops on the ground you haven't won.

I will keep banging the war drums till the cause goes away or I end up walking toward the nuclear flash.