Feminists and Privilege of exceptions

 by Denys Picard

This is a comment I formulated after reading an article in The Hill: “Trump risks hypocrisy charges with Franken attack” by Jonathan Easley:

“…Trump…Called a Hypocrite…”. Who cares by now? Our whole leadership, including the press, are a bunch of hypocrites by refusing to include regular folks in the reality of power discussions. Power discussions which concern future fundamental rights of men. But around the table sits Feminists, DC politicians, Main Stream Media, some Power Elites…and they prepare, again, to decide our diminishing fates with one-sided bias unconstitutional legislation. We are witnessing a battle for fake righteousness, with your regular insincere feminists at the front line of this mobbish crowd. The first debate we need to have is: When will women and feminists stop using sexual misconduct allegations as an extortion/coercion tool? When?

No yet, obviously…because the inherent conflict of interest in seeking the truth lies with an establishment of males (alpha males, bad expression, but I will clarify) being rewarded for continuously ceding status, rights, freedoms, liberties of regular males (beta males, idem as previously) of the middle and lower class…in exchange for getting a bigger pay checks.

It is no chance that for the past 30 years, the Establishment, and women of all income groups have seen persistent gains in their incomes, while middle class and lower class men have seen an imploding of their purchasing power.

The Main Stream Media is so toxic…so hypocrite and so uneducated. Their only tool for convincing the audience of their project for which women are already sold, is the same old Emotional and Affective Empathy Propaganda where if you have “any sense of decency, you should be crying and repenting for all the horrible crimes men have committed against women for centuries..”. Yes, make me  laugh…

The scientific truth is very different according to social science. Women are bullies too, they abuse their power, they are violent being…and when the task is too big, they delegate the dirty physical job to their close allied thugs.

Office work place is a competitive landscape. Yet women want to impose rules which will have the effect of constraining men in not being able to use competitive tools and skill in which they outperform.

Pauhlus and Williamson (2002) cornered a theory of  personalities which compose people of leadership, men and women alike. This theory is called the Dark Triad of Personality Traits. These specific traits are subclinical Narcissism, Psychopathy and Narcissism. These were, and still are, somewhat taboo trait, so much so that even the scientific literature fail to often understand the basic premise of the theory. The theory stands because of the interdependent nature of these 3 traits, while much of the literature feeding on this theory still analyse circumstances using these traits independently.

As independent trait, nothing  is novel in understanding that someone showing a high score in one of these trait may be disagreeable, have shortcoming, be manipulative,etc…The Novelity of Pauhlus and Williamson was in describing these traits as interrelated.

With this, the authors also demonstrated a surprising observation, that people with leadership features scored higher, on average, in all 3 traits simultaneously. Which means that on average each of these traits where higher than the average observed in a control sample. This was puzzling indeed, because these trait mostly having put on the margin by institution of morality, such as monotheism,  could hardly be accepted as being the corner-stone of leadership. Yet, 15 years later, is appears that the theory stands solid, and dominant characters (which the alpha epithet only briefly captures) score higher, on average, than controls on the Traits of Narcissism, Psychopathy and Machiavelism.

Organizational hierarchies have been analyzed, been tested, with this filter, and it was observed that, effectively, the further you climb up the latter of authority, the higher you score on The Dark Triad Traits.

Since these trait are associated with many negative behaviors, such as vanity, self-promotion, callousness, cruelty, dishonesty, manipulation, etc…it came as quite a shock.

But even more interesting, is the fact that people high on Dark Triad trait score low on Emotional Empathy (Emotional or Affective Empathy are the same thing). And further, Dark Triad Trait have no correlation with Intelligence as captured by Intellectual Quotient (IQ).

Which implies that dominant people need not have great IQs. And high IQs are not synonym of dominant personalities…

Surprisingly, leadership requires credibility, since it is expressed in a social context, therefore social performance is of importance.  Social Performance may be measured by a combination of Cognitive intellectual skills, and Personality Traits. Personality traits are observed through performance of Emotional and Social skills.

(I am abstaining, here, of using the expression Emotional Intelligence, because it is an inappropriate terminology. Emotional performance is part of the personality trait domain. The difficulty of, and inadequate terminology,  in cornering a theory of Emotional Intelligence has had for result of creating an overly diversified incomplete curriculum on the subject with excessive feminist traps (matriarchal and communautarist propositions) and shortcomings. One of the principal trap is that of putting Agreeableness as a corner-stone of the theory.)

Now, for great leaders to persist and be appreciated, or feared, the Dark Triad must be tempered and modulated by other factors. True, yet definitive consensus has not been reached in this dimension.

Now, within the inventory of survival tools of evolved mammals, there is such a thing as Empathy. Its been the subject of much scientific research in the past 25 years, has been vulgarized, promoted but nevertheless still largely badly understood.

Empathy must be understood as a genetically rooted endocrine reflex. It has evolved over millions of years and is a very sophisticated mechanism. For example, living creatures whom can express the hormones linked to the reflex have higher tone.“Oscillations of delta, theta, and alpha ranges could be found in all vertebrates but there is an important distinction between reptiles, lower mammals and humans in what frequency dominates in the scalp EEG. Alpha is the dominant frequency in adult humans, while theta dominates in the EEG of lower mammals (Sainsbury, 1998) and delta in the reptilian EEG (Gaztelu et al., 1991; Gonzalez et al., 1999).”

Brain wave oscillations
By Hengameh Marzbani, Hamid Reza Marateb, Marjan Mansourian (2016)

As brain wave oscillations of the Beta frequency are highly active in mammals, they are very low in reptilian. Langard et al. (2006) explains, concerning an empathic test on mice: ‘”our findings are consistent with the perception-action model of empathy proposed by Preston and de Waal (1), both in the automatic priming of somatic responses in a state similar to that of the attended object and in the modulating effects of familiarity and similarity of experience between subject and object.” as observed under the following conditions: “…Mice tested in dyads and given an identical noxious stimulus displayed increased pain behaviors with statistically greater co-occurrence, effects dependent oùn visual observation. When familiar mice were given noxious stimuli of different intensities, their pain behavior was influenced by their neighbor’s status bidirectionally. Finally, observation of a cagemate in pain altered pain sensitivity of an entirely different modality, suggesting that nociceptive mechanisms in general are sensitized.”

This was a step forward in debunking the pretentious belief that only humans, being God’s masterpiece according to Christians, had Empathy. And contrary to popular belief, Empathy is not a moral construct, but a biological survival reflex. In the fight or flight behavioral choice, cognitive empathy is the first mechanism to be neuro-alerted. It quickly determines if a new set of information possess a threat or opportunity (e.g. for food) or necessitates an action of protection or collaboration. It then either, respectively switches to either the cruel, sadistic, aggressive spectrum, or to the Emotional Empathy reflex.

A problem with the recent societal culture of feminism, the current cultural revolution, is the risky proposition of offering overly redundant experiences of Emotional Empathy to the general population through tools such as News Television media, where the audience is being continuously taxed along Emotional Reflexes, so as to effect Mass Emotional Empathy Training…it is destructive to the balance of the brain, it creates a state, which by psychologists refers to as “heightened emotional instability”. Yet, it is very useful as a strategy of mind control. It is a preferred tool of female leadership, which outperforms males in the Narcissistic spectrum. In a context of competition between women, a status challenge, women will rarely confront. Competition potential outcomes are usually quickly determined on site, and interaction avoided with females most often surrendering to the dominant female. Then, consensus is created by a repertoire of mimicry, which is related to emotionality, emotional empathy.

Women status seeking competitive strategies are mainly: Joyce F Benenson (2013) “From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.”

Further: Tracy Vaillancourt (2013): “Indirect aggression includes behaviours such as criticizing a competitor’s appearance, spreading rumours about a person’s sexual behaviour and social exclusion. Human females have a particular proclivity for using indirect aggression, which is typically directed at other females, especially attractive and sexually available females, in the context of intrasexual competition for mates. Indirect aggression is an effective intrasexual competition strategy. It is associated with a diminished willingness to compete on the part of victims and with greater dating and sexual behaviour among those who perpetrate the aggression.”

As for the kind of aggression women of higher sub-clinical psychopathic intensity such as females in positions of authority, Ana Seara-Cardoso, Helene Dolberg, Craig Neumann, Jonathan P. Roiser, Essi Viding (2013) propose: Research so far indicates that emotional and personality correlates of psychopathy such as glibness, grandiosity, lack of empathic concern are akin across genders, but similarities in behavioral correlates, such as criminal behavior and type of aggression, seem to be less consistent (see Verona & Vitale, 2006, for a review). It has been suggested that differences found across genders are mainly differential expressions of the same underlying construct (Nicholls & Petrila, 2005), and that the same personality traits may confer risk for different forms of behavior for women versus men (Verona, Sprague, & Javdani, 2012).

Psychology has created two main sub-groups of psychopaths, those which are characterized as operating Instrumental Violence (Group 1) and Group 2 which uses Reactive Violence. Instrumental violence is manipulative and indirect, while reactive violence is obviously direct and confrontational.

Women score higher at instrumental violence than men.

And, need I remind, people in positions of authority, dominant characters, both females and males, score higher than average on psychopathy.

Need I recall the reader of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) analysis, whose own data, determined, against popular beliefs, that women are violent in partner relationships, and that they are more often, than men, the first instigators of physical aggravated assault against their partner. That female bisexual persons are more violent in partner relationships than either heterosexual, or exclusively homosexual, men.

Against the backdrop of the Main Stream Media and Washington DC attempting to portray females as inoffensive, peaceful, loving caring beings incapable of violence and never competitive but only cooperative…It should be difficult to ignore that the last few paragraphs, based on scientific literature, may bring down the Leadership proposed Empathetically forcefully induced naive conception of women as innocent beings in need of persistent protection…for Feminists who pretend they want to destroy the condescendence of Patriarchy, it appears a Paradox to call for laws of exception for their sex all the time.

Lastly, one must make himself familiar, if at least it has not already intuitively been understood, that all status dominance challenge carry sexual connotations, or undertones, as indirect as they may be. Dominance in human relationships always has a sexual dominance/submission dimension…if this point is neglected in decision-making and analysis of the workplace environment, it is a great mistake.

Are all women leaders: monsters? No, of course not. But nor are men leaders. And regular male employees who score average on psychological traits of the Dark Triad are certainly not. So why address the problem of harassment, aggression in the office/work place as a prevalent and “male only” initiated model.

Surprisingly, in reality, meaning out of the scope of the fictional construct of women on TV and other media, women are attracted preferably to men who are both more narcissistic and more dishonest than average…this is true when they either seek a mate, or someone to associate for other endeavors, such as business associations. Narcissism and dishonesty are characteristics where leaders, men and women, outperform.

This should assist in anticipating that the office will continue to have male leaders, or women leaders, who score high on the Dark Triad Traits. What are women teaching these latest generation of men leaders…how to better camouflage their personality trait. In the highly competitive field of finance, both women and men with strong dominant personality profiles excelled in deception during the 2000 decade of real estate and financial debacle.

Therefore, in the Emotional Empathy Training movements they are two distinct yet complementary routes: one is has as principal goal to modify not the essence of male competitiveness, with its core in psychopathy, in terms of callousness, or gibness, etc…but to modify the appearance of this trit by expressing it in a more feminin way, meaning indirectly. This is easy, since people with higher Emotional/social skills are better actors…that is they can more easily fake emotions. So, in fact, these are just acting classes, which the new generation of male leaders are happy to participate in. Secondly, for non-leader males, the somewhat “beta” non-dominant profile males, Emotional Empathy Traning is simply classes in total submissivness, where anything which could be disagreeably perceived by any women, in or out of context, must be censured so “beta” females can increase their level of abusive narccisistic delusional elation and over-confidence in the work place.

Because feminists are not revolutionaries, as they often promote themselves, but encrusted in the leadership, and submit to authority more easily then men,…they are the best tool for the upper class, establishment and leadership to maintain and consolidate their position.

Because I, for one, know very well that the current spectacle is of the same infected breed as that of “Hate laws”…where, in this case, the target of constraining behavioral laws that will be abusive will not really be aimed at the high hierarchical individuals who could abuse their power, but the regular male employee who has never bothered anyone, but will now be obligated to demonstrate absolute  submissivness to the Office PC Police…that is the reality, this is what awaits us, yet again.

Paradoxically, women in the hierarchy will often tolerate sexual misconduct in the office from dominant males in the organization as long as it benefits them and the organization…even if there is an innocent victim (male or female), call it collateral damage, once in a while…that is the “pragmatism” of female leadership…as is Feminist Mob Justice.

And, incredibly, in this whole discourse, not one bit of attention was given to women aggressors, whether their victims were males or females…yes, incredible. But it’s not the first time that the Main Stream Media and Washington DC betrays us males.

All of you should read the Canadian Judge’s ruling in a recent Canadian case, COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4817 998 15-75006437 : Her Majesty The Queen Vs Jian Ghomeshi. In front of the worst of accusations, Ghomeshi was hanged in public, with women newscasters vomiting righteousness over Canadian Television programming for hours on end. Yet, the conclusion of the Trial judge was that, in the end, the witnesses had no credibility. Yet, feminists went on saying it was again an injustice and they stood by for all the “women victims of male sexual violence…”. In the debate of sexual misconduct, feminists have lost all credibility, and no one in our leadership is making any intelligent contribution in this exchange either. Women have to start understanding who they really are, and how they evolve in social contexts; male leadership has to stop trying to please feminists by surrendering fundamental rights of men and spoiling women with unjust legislation, and financial bubbles, bias against men.

In Canada, the justice system was demonstrated, by a scientific research, to show a 98% positive bias towards women (a sample of research had a window of 65 to 98% bias towards women), yet, to feminists, this is not enough, they want more for women…What does this tell you in terms of genetically rooted delusional intensity, of psychological balance, in terms of judgement and faireness in the part of women…

In the current political “debate” over the allegations of sexual “misconduct” of a Federal Senate seat, the most zealous critics have expressed that the allegations alone are serious enough that the Candidate should never be allowed to be a servant of the “People”…This is the new Feminist Mob Justice at its best…is this where President Trump wants to lead us?…satisfy feminists so he can get all the goodies he wants, like his irresponsible tax bill, passed?

Laws meant to castrate men who have done nothing wrong, and won’t, by incompetent, unconstitutional laws that will regulate work place dynamics with a 100% positive bias towards women, because, in some cases, some men have acted irresponsibly, or sometimes illegally, abused their power. What about women? They never aggress, they never abuse their power, they never bully in a work environment…? As they are no female pedophiles, I guess, and no maternal infanticides, and no Female pimps, rapists, criminal offenders…no women involved in child pornography rings…No, not in our world…Not in America, Not in the great insightful eyes of the Main Stream Media…women are all “Good, naive and innocent…and need Super Males, Super Cops, to protect them…”.

Once in a while, one comes across a small jewel in Academia, and if Paulhus and Williams work is Monumental, Isabelle Engeler and Priya Raghubir piece in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Do men Overestimate or Women underreport Their Sexual Intentions? (2017) is a must, and unavoidable if one has the ambition to reform the workplace. It will help understand miscommunications, mis-signalling, miscues and mis-interpretation between the sexes in the context of workplace sexual misconduct and sexual interpersonal interactions. This text unveils some core mechanisms and informs anyonew with the goal to modify the work environment in a manner fair to all.

The text comes to the conclusion, amongst other observations, that under their testing conditions, that both men and women underreport their own sexual intentions, that men overestimate women’s sexual intentions and women underestimate men’s sexual intentions…this alone is enough to warrant work place “reformers” attention. Is this due to delusional mechanisms, social desirability bias, or brain structures misaligned communication features…the door is open. But, in this context, an intelligent behaviour is not blaming the other party for misgivings and shortcomings, finger pointing and all; but rather trying to understand more deeply what could be at the source of frequent “misfiring” social performance, since in ideal world, communication should have no frictional bias.

Let’s make a short example, without blaming one party over the other, without pushing responsibility on one side more than on the other.

Two co-workers, one man and one woman, are sent on a project abroad. They only know each other superficially, have not had the opportunity to really work together except for short group meetings, etc…they know each other from a distance, but have had an effect on each other. He has found he appealing, intelligent , withy, etc…she has found he presents himself well, looks serious, responsible, dedicated, maybe ambitious, but in a good way.

Now, during their travel, one night after work, to celebrate their on-going business success, which got them to develop quickly a good complicity, trusty relationship, they are efficient and complementary. They decide to go to a nice restaurant with a very relaxed atmosphere, a beautiful terrace with a beautiful view, they drink a little bit, and she starts to confide on her personal life. She is more telling than inquisitive, already knows he is single, while she is married. She believe this guy is a great candidate for a business friendship. She starts to elaborate about her own marriage difficulties, though she doesn’t have children yet, the discussion starts with humour and slips in more confident terms…and then woops, out of nowhere, in a moment of laughter, she confides she has not had sex with her husband for two months….That something is not going right with her husband. Her only intention is to have a good hearing ear, to relax and this guy looks trustworthy, etc…But he may well interpret this intimate comment as something else, especially since he did find her attractive.

And now, let’s imagine, that when they leave the restaurant, she helps him put his coat on, and as he slips his arms into the sleeves, she gives him a warm and affectionate tap on the arms while she is behind him. Nothing more…just a sign she feels good, relax…Yet, they have drank a bit , he feels good also, and has liked his evening, is being increasingly seduced by this women, who has done nothing else but treat him as a friend…They go to the hotel, and doing so, they go on talking, confiding…and she increasingly looks at him in the eyes, as to get affirmation of their new found complicity, their new friendship, she feels she has established trust. Then, at the door of her room, they go on talking a bit…and as they get ready to go there on way, to say goodnight, he just gets closer and kiss her on the mouth. Then the nightmare begins, she freezes, is shocked, surprised, says nothing…gets into her room, closes the door and suddenly feels betrayed…READ THE ARTICLE.


The work place backlash, which also affects negatively a majority of men, and creates negative spillover’s over all of society is principally due to “Emotional Intelligence”, an inadequate scientific  theory with misleading terminology, has been increasingly and predominantly used as the main hiring candidate criteria for employment. While this may create a more “Agreeable” work environment for women, it is at the source of increasing fraudulent and toxic activity and behavior in the workplace.

Here, take the time to read : “Will get fooled again: Emotionally intelligent people are easily duped by high-stakes deceivers”; by Alysha Baker, Leanne ten Brinke and Stephen Porter (2012);Legal and Criminological Psychology.

The most intriguing conclusion of this work, is that people with Higher Emotional/social skills as captured by an Social Ability psychological test have demonstrated a very poor capacity to detect deceit, yet have a greater ability to deceive…Most feminists would either refute this scientific affirmation, and others may call it a paradox; yet when one knows women, this makes perfect sense, it is self-evident. May I remind you, if you suffer from some kind of personality trait naiveté, that women, on average, score higher than men in Emotional skill/ability.

You want to really talk about these matters, I am up to the challenge. You want to get ready…go to social science class, but avoid anything which is written by either a female or male feminist, because it is not science, nor is the theory of Emotional intelligence. Read about status seeking, psychological personality traits (especially the work of L. Paulhus: The Dark Triad Traits, The Dark Tetrad Traits). Debunk the Emotional Intelligence crap. Emotions are an endocrine evolution system. They give tone to actions and metabolisms. They are tied to personality traits. They do affect performance, and some people do show greater skills at controlling, moderating, utilising their own emotions and those of others, but this is a skill, it is not intelligence. Performance is the result of a set of Intellectual factors captured by IQ and emotional and social skills captured by personality traits. Strong leaders are characterized by high performance in taboo personality traits such as subclinical Narcissism, Psychopathy, Machiavelism and even Sadism…leaders, male and female alike, have a good look at yourselves in the mirror before climbing on the moral bandwagon! Debunk this view that women are always victims and men always predators…it’s the biggest of lies…stop being retarded.
And don’t pass corrupted unjust new laws (to manage the work space) for a subject your delusional reflexes prevents you to understand at all, but your political ambitions guides you to; and leaders must stop responding to apparent injustices against women with stock market bubble rewards….



The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy; Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams – Journal of Research in Personality (2002)

The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review; Adrian Furnham1, Steven C. Richards, and Delroy L. Paulhus; Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/3 (2013): 199–216, 10.1111/spc3.12018

Hippocampal Theta: a Sensory-inhibition Theory of Function, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol: 22, Issue: 2, Page: 237-241; (1998) Robert S. Saisbury

Motivation, emotion, and their inhibitory control mirrored in brain oscillations; Gennady G. Knyazev;  Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews (2006)

EEG delta oscillations as a correlate of basic homeostatic and motivational processes; Gennady G. Knyazev – Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, (2011)

Social Desirability Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity Testing; Maryon F. King and Gordon C. Bruner; Psychology & Marketing Vol. 17(2):79–103 (February 2000)

Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women’s intrasexual aggression; Anne Campbell, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1999) 22, 203–252

Status-Driven Risk Taking: Another “Dark” Personality? ; Beth A. Visser, Julie A. Pozzebon and Andrea M. Reina-Tamayo; Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement; 2014, Vol. 46, No. 4, 485–496

Minimization of Male Suffering: Social Perception of Victims and Perpetrators of Opposite-Sex Sexual Coercion; Sexuality Research and Social Policy, Anna Magda Studzinska and Denis Hilton (2016)

Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? ; Elizabeth J. Austin *, Daniel Farrelly 1, Carolyn Black, Helen MoorePersonal and Individual Differences (2007)

The Fight for the Alpha Position: Channeling Status Competition in Organisations; by C. H. LOCH, M. YAZIJI and C. LANGEN (2000), INSEAD R&D

The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality, Michael Wai, Niko Tiliopoulos, Personality and Individual Differences (2012)

A meta-analytic review of the Dark Triad–intelligence connection; Ernest H. O’Boyle, Donelson Forsyth, George C. Banks, Paul A. Story; Journal of Research in Personality (2013)

The Dark Triad of personality and unethical behavior at different times of day; Karolin Roeser, Victoria E. McGregor, Sophia Stegmaier, Johanna Mathew, Andrea Kübler, Adrian Meule; Personality and Individual Differences (2016)

Different routes to limited empathy in the sexes: Examining the links between the Dark Triad and empathy; Peter K. Jonason, Minna Lyons, Emily J. Bethell, Rahael Ross; Personality and Individual Differences (2013)

The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their wayPeter K. Jonason, Sarah Slomski, Jamie Partyka; Personality and Individual Differences (2012)

Will get fooled again: Emotionally intelligent people are easily duped by high-stakes deceivers; by Alysha Baker, Leanne ten Brinke and Stephen Porter (2012); Legal and Criminological Psychology



Donald and His Amazing PIMP Team or Team of Pimps!

Borrowed from internet searches…all copyrights belong to the authors and not to me, use under the common license when available, I guess…there is such wonderful anonymous collage work on the internet…it appears it is the only news which is Not Fake News these days…fake news for fake politicians, indeed, do they deserve anything better…





The Secret Love Affair between Mitt and Donald
Now, Barack can go on Being Who he Really always Was
Will the REAL PIMP please Rise Up!
Pimpin the Obamas
At The Annual Pimp-O-Land Academy Awards
Donald is taking a like to those endless Cabinet meetings
Donald’s new Cabinet (Oups!, wrong Fake Background)








The New Addition

Les arriérés

How Can Extending a “Paying Medicaid” can be a lot cheaper for Government than either AHCA or ACA

by Denys Picard

Now that the AHCA is dead, we can start to have a serious discussions about VIABLE solutions for the health care dilemma Americans are facing. In fact, a minority of American are uninsured, but Medicaid and Medicare are both facing long-term hurdles since their costs are growing faster than nominal GDP.

In my previous article, I discussed my repulsion for the AHCA, which progressively fell out of favor. But don’t think I am a fan of ACA, it is also something that cannot survive the long-term.

As usual, the Billions of readers consulting my comments have already remarked that I am wrong, that Medicaid is much more expensive than ACA. But obviously, it is because no one thinks anymore, they delegate thinking to Group retarded-ness, Twitter and facebook…even DC doesn’t think for itself anymore, except when comes the time to create corrupt shenanigans…

Naturally, I won’t sink everyone in details, it would be the best way to lose an argument, and an audience. But let’s just rough out some numbers for the sake f it.

From the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) The Budget and Economic Outlook 2015-2016, Apendix B (Updated Estimates of the Insurance Coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)) we get a few numbers on the cost of Obamacare.

P. 117 Table 1:

ACA estimates CBO

and P.120 Table 2:

ACA estimates CBO 2

From the ACA law, we get the Table of Maximum Premium Contribution by Family percentages:

ACA Maximum Premium Contribution Table

and from The 2016 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook of Medicaid, Table 19, page 62:

ACA 2016 Actuarial Report.jpg

And Finally, from the “Brief summary of Medicaid and Medicare” November 2016, page 31 and prepared by the Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, we get the following:

As with all health insurance programs, most Medicaid beneficiaries incur relatively small average expenditures per person each year, and a relatively small proportion incurs very large costs. Moreover, the average cost varies substantially by type of beneficiary. Estimates for 2015, for example, show that Medicaid payments for services for 28.0 million children, who constituted 40.8 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, averaged $3,316 per child; for 24.5 million non-disabled non-aged adults, who represented 35.7 percent of beneficiaries, payments averaged $5,421 per person. Of these adults, 9.1 million were newly eligible under the Medicaid expansion, with average per enrollee costs of $6,351. Still, other groups had much larger per-person expenditures. Medicaid payments for services for 5.5 million aged, who constituted 8.1 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, averaged $15,099 per person; for 10.5 million disabled, who represented 15.4 percent of beneficiaries, payments averaged $19,355 per person. When expenditures for 32 these high- and lower-cost beneficiaries are combined, the 2015 payments to health care vendors for 68.5 million Medicaid beneficiaries averaged $7,487 per person.

Now, most people believe that Medicaid is so costly, that extending a paying form of medicaid to the non-insured would be exorbitant, that the private sector offers much better solutions. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason that Medicaid, if one looks at a general average of per covered extended Medicaid enrollee might look expensive is due to 2 main factors. Medicaid covers the riskiest “clientèle” profile of the market. Less wealthy individuals are usually less healthy, and as analysed by health conditions, the current Medicaid population is the riskiest. Secondly, the current demographic of Medicaid is populated by services extended to costly demographics because of the nature of the services, these are Nursing care patients (often referred to dual status patients, because the greater majority is over 64 and is also covered by medicare, and the Handicapped, which have traditionally been more costly to carry. And I say this with no prejudice. If I point to this, is that these 2 groups are not present in the current uninsured, or recently insured through the ACA exchange.

The currently uninsured are healthier adults and very few children. Therefore a potential “clientèle” in majority between the ages of 18 and 64. The recent enrollees in ACA exchange have also mostly been adults, 9 million, against 2 million children.

In the previous tables, the one, Table 19, produced by the Actuarial Report, you can see that the newly enrolled Medicaid recipients carried implementation costs in 2016, making their average per enrollee costs to the program 6,300$. But in the next 3 years, this amounts drops to 5,300$ per enrollee, in fact lower than the comparable “Adults” category, the only difference being the average health.

The CBO estimates that each subsidized Exchange enrollee (those who qualified for a private sector Health Insurance Tax credit) will get a 5,300$ tax credit in 2018. This is the cost to government. But the Enrollees must pay an amount, which is the difference between the premium cost and the subsidy from government. This is the only number I could not yet get an estimate of. But the HHS estimates that the average (but distribution asymmetric tilted towards the left) enrollee had a 275% Federal Poverty Line (FPL) Ajusted Gross Income (AGI). If this is so, one can estimate that in 2018, the average contribution of enrollees should be around 2,400$ to 2,600$ (let’s round this up to 2,500$). If this is the case, it means that the average cost of insurance was 7,800$ (5,300$ + 2,500$).

But if one follows my proposition, and extend to future enrollees a Modified Medicaid (where one would pay to get a Medicaid Health Insurance Coverage). Then, one must subtract the 2,500$ that an enrollee pays to the private insurance company, and will now pay to government. the 2018 5,300$ estimate costs (based on the cost of current new enrollees in the Medicaid program) minus the 2,500$ enrollee personal contribution, results in a net cost to government of 2,800$ per enrollee. And this coverage, the coverage of Medicaid is unlike private coverage in the sense that they are no real significant co-pay, co-insurance or deductibles. But since current enrollees, which appear very satisfied to get Silver Low Cost Plans which are 30/70 co-pay, co-insurance with a deductible around 4,000 to 6,000$ annualy…governemtn could impose to these new enrollees a Platinum Low Cost Plan structure which is 10/90 co-pay, co-insurance. Government could even have the largess of limiting deductible to 1,500$ annually. A plan like this should be a lot more interesting to any potential future enrollees. This is half the price of ACA.

What are the great disadvantagesof this proposition:…well for one thing, with Medicaid, it is true that you cannot: ” I Cancelled my appointments 10 times with no Penalty…”; and they may not offer expresso in the waiting room, the decor may not be as glorious as Entertainment Tonight stage set…but you will get very good medical care.

Now, since DC and wall street and the Media all want to fix the problem with the private sector, we will have to make them a little gift as to “Shut them off”. So we could do without all the special taxes that ACA has imposed. But the get funding revenue, we could, and this will be the least popular element of my proposition instigate a federal slaes tax. Since we cannot trust our leadership to pay for “Health Care for Everyone”, we should have a 2% national federal Sales Taxes on Product and Services (with the exception of essentials such as food, medical services, education and the likes). I estimate that such a tax could bring in around 180 Billion$, this could be split in half, half for Medicaid, half for Medicare.

So, if you transfer the recent ACA enrollees, and project that all uninsured (that is the 16 millions currently subsidized enrollees, plus the remainder 27 millions no insured) get covered in the future, the cost to government should be around 43 Millions * 2,800$ = 120 Billion$ (against the 240 Billiob$ of the ACA to cover everyone). But this cost could be less, because these new enrollees have a lower risk profile, they will consolidate the Medicaid Services provider network, which should bring in economies of scales. With other small charges (charging for the dental services and eyes medical services, which are traditionally covered by Medicaid, but not by the Private sector) and by putting a Platinum Deductible structure, this whole program could be funded and not being kidnapped by Wall Street of private interests.

Therefore, this program would be self-funded, and have some staying power, instead of being kidnapped by private sector appetite.

Naturally, people would have the choice of Joining a Paying Medicaid program (we could call it MedicaidTOO (for Medicaid’s Trump Other Offer), the card could be Purple, for Product differentiation and cultural adequacy, creating a 2 class Medicaid system (free for the really needy, and somewhat less free for the somewhat less needy but deserving). And the Choice would be: MedicaidToo or Private Insurer, but if you go private, you don’t get  any government subsidy, you are on your own.

Now is time to bring in the Tomatoes…


The long and winding road to nowhere…responsible

Is there, really, anything as exhausting, futile, as trying to follow a Washington DC Bill of interest to the general population being debated in the Highest popular court of the Country…How many years have I hoped for something intelligent and nonpartisan to emerge from the DC Swamp…to my own exhaustion and despair.

Monkey baby stetoscope
Don’t we all wish getting healthcare services was that easy!

This AHCA (American Heath Care Act, Trumpcare, Obamacare 2.0, American More Of The Same Act, etc…or wathever else you name it) is just really the indication that there is absolutely no solution to hope for amongst the great lawmakers universe which compose the Hill.

A farce…a REDiculous and BLUBBLEitious walk of fame towards the same holes of fiscal suicide.

Why can’t neither of the richest political elites belonging to each party come to grasp that if Obamacare could not survive…AHCA cannot either.

According to the wittiest minds on the hill defending AHCA, this time, the Republicans will make it work because we can trust that if Health Insurance Companies don’t pay anymore federal taxes, that they expenses even costs they never incurred, they may show incredible good faith and suddenly lower premiums…Is that the best they can come with. Because lowered premium is the only sales pitch that could sell this nightmare.

How come the greatest economists on wall street can’t figure out that if government has less revenues to pay for an even more generous proposal, DC will go bankrupt in a few hours after implementation of this New Health Bill.

I mean…really, in this case, a five years old, could do the math…and I mean even a non “savant” 5 years old could figure it out; don’t need to be Asperger here.

I guess the US is the only country where everyone believes that you can get health care for free, and no one has to pay for it.

It reminds me of this ridiculous Micheal Moore moment where this great Hollywood Docu-genious affirms, to an audience all mouth open and drooling :..”look…in Canada, health care is free…you don’t have to pay anything”. Well I guess you don’t Micky, and your docu american friend using a canadian health venue either…but we Canadians had to pay for your American friend’s visit..with our personal income taxes, our product and services sales taxes and all other Canadian Federal and Provincial taxes oriented to subsidize a public heath system…how ridiculously rhetorical can you be Micky…Hollywood educted, obviously…maybe you could join Franky on the “Hill”…

It appears, that increasingly, Americans believe that if the Nasdaq, or the Biotehc and Pharma indexes go up enough….Healthcare will become free because of all these “wonderful” innovations…

Did delusion really build America? Sometimes I really wonder…Its great to believe…but then again, even if cell phones are great tools, we are far from teleportation, yet, the Captain Kirks of the world of politics would have believe otherwise. It’s true that we now do have these great “Retard” watches that can make people believe they are super heroes because their watch told them they climbed 10 stairs today and that this should have them loose at least 10 pounds of their extreme obese fat.

But while the “great brains of Apple, Google, Facebook, Wall Street, Washington DC” work hard at curing all of our ills, I am not sure a cell phone can even venture into taking a glycemic plasma measure, yet.

Monkey house of representatives
Our great political and corporate elites at work!

So can’t we start working on a quality and decent (yes, you have noticed, I did not say the BEST and Most INCREDIBLE) health coverage for All Americans that won’t drive the State to go bankrupt in a whiff.

For those “billions” of readers that frequent my blog….please read this proposition first, its about creating regional clusters through limited consolidation of health markets…then come back here.

Now, I am not unhappy that lawmakers finally backed down from dis-regulating the Health Insurance market…it would have been a disaster. On the other hand, some markets lack the capacity to consolidate economies of scales enough to attain critical levels of population density that may be more fitted for the evolution of the Health Care Services.

Market structure is important, and in this case, market structure of those offering services, before those covering their costs, yet both are intertwined since money dictates.

I still prefer a State limited Health Care Insurance Market against a national one. But still, one must consider that over the past 20 years, health care has developed deeper knowledge with the effect that we have noticed clustering of specialised centers for treatment. Treatment for cancers, for diabetes, for neurodegenerative conditions, for heart disease…etc. In this context, it is very difficult for smaller economies to keep pace and hope for their respective state to see in the near future these kind of clusters grow spontaneously. by allowing some smaller States to regroup in small unions (on the landscape of healthcare only), would give them opportunity to make benefit from critical population mass that would allow for specialized clusters to take foot.

But most importantly, is there not a way to figure out how the governments can participate in HealthCare without turning it bankrupt? The first stept is to make the country understand that there is no single road you can travel where suddenly HealthCare will become “free”. Some people may pay more, others less, some very little…but heathcare cannot be free.

What good is it if they create a HealthCare solution that cannot survive in the long run, will we have the current scenario repeat itself at every regime change?

Yesterday, march 20th, they added an amendment to the AHCA which they believe will allow the Bill to pass both chambers. It adds 150 Billion to the ten-year federal budget forecast. That is an extra 15 Billion in annual deficit to the already 37 Billion of new HealthCare unfunded average annual future liabilities of the AHCA as analyzed the CBO  report (Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate of the American Health Care Act).

Adding to this fiscal whole, the New Congress is already drooling at the fiscal upcoming holiday they may start enacting before July, which may even include retrospective fiscal measures.

So, if the AHCA is already less funded than the ACA it replaces, and this, from the onset…when you factor in the Fiscal Gifts to the Rich and Famous, to these modern Financial Holocaust victims, DC’s faith may take the same direction as Detroit’s municipal administration, and will have to declare bankrupcy…what god will have been the AHCA under this “hospice”?

But, as many overly educated analysts explained this past weekend, we should not worry because Health Insurance Companies only have to lower their Premiums by 50% and everything will work fine…you see, it’s what the CBO forgot to consider, and what those who promote this Bill are claiming: if Premiums go down by 50%, everything will work fine.

It is surprising that with such a window of opportunity, State governors don’t request that from now on, Medicaid should become a strict State sponsored program. No, instead, most of them beg that DC do more. When everybody knows the principal problem we face as a country is that DC wants to do everything.

One of the reasons the Federal government got involved with Medicaid in the first place, was to minimize the differential of wealth between the different States in the barriers it created in allowing all Americans to have somewhat equal access to Healthcare services.

When will Americans have governors that will understand that political clout comes from the money you gather. Let’s have States charge the Medicaid Individual Income Tax portion, and let them administer their own program. By collecting their own Medicaid taxes, they could allow the Federal government to  simply become responsible for exercising some form of moderate equalization as to contain excessive wealth spreads between the different states. Then maybe states can start offering and structuring services in a manner more proper to their constituents needs and desires. This should allow a better balance of power politically in their dealings with the Federal government, not only in health care, but in other manners. And aren’t the states the best positioned to understand the market organization their constituents need, instead of these distant Lawmakers from DC?

As for the current AHCA and ACA…I always believed that it is the wrong hybrid approach. The federal government subsidizing net margins of private corporations doesn’t make sense.

My whole view for a solution is far away of any proposition we have heard yet, but it may,

What Gorilla doctor as healthCare Coverage Solution!
What Gorilla Doctor proposes as a HealthCare Coverage solution!

in the long run, offer a better chance at long-term coverage of the maximum amount of Americans, which the current proposition, by setting us back to the pre-Obama levels of uninsured, surely doesn’t fix, but ACA did not either, despite the much wishful thinking.


I believe that the best way to discipline the Health Insurance industry in offering truly competitive pricing is if government competes with it. Since most hospital anticipate that the Republican proposal will hurt their capacity to offer proper services to their clientèle because many hospital depend on Medicaid dollars to cover fixed costs, eliminating anticipated future revenues from ACA policies may have for effect of bankrupting many of them.

This is the reason I believe it would be less costly for government to collect from taxpayers the amounts paid to insurers as the maximum premium amount, and pay the remainder of what is needed to hospital and service providers to support this demographic.

For example, if we take the example from the CBO report on ACHA cost estimates, this is what it could look like:

AHCH Cost Estimate CBO AHCA

As I mentioned, the House has just amended the current proposition to modify the Tax Credit Limitations (from page 89, line 23 of the original leaked document, section 36C (c) Limitations) applied only to singles and adjusted for age brackets (limitations amounts) of less than 30 ($2,000), to 30-39 ($2,500), 40-49 ($3,000), 50-59 ($3,500) and 60 to 64 ($4,000).

These limitation increased the out of insurance holder premium portion he had to pay. It is what in fact creates this 14900 premium portion that a 60 years old has to pay from a projected $1,700 under ACA in 2020 to $14,900 under the un-amended AHCA.

But, for the purpose of demonstration, lets look at the 21 and 40 years old individuals in the upper part of the table. Their premiums would be 3,900 and 6,050 respectively. They would incur $1,450 and $2,400 in their share of premium costs. This amount would be collected by government. It would become their share of pay to participate in Medicaid services delivery. The government would then fund the remainder of Medicaid programs to cover the cost between this contribution and the cost incurred for delivery of service.

Since Medicaid delivers cost at a discount over Private coverage, and there is no net margins, the direct and indirect cost to government would be a lot less that the portion of premium they would pay through the Premium Tax Credit, which is a subsidy to Insurance companies, more than to the insured.

This would allow a better consolidation of services for the whole Medicaid programs and guarantee survival of Hospitals. This would effectively create a competition between the public and private sector, requiring private insurers to either concentrate on product differentiation or pure bottom line price competition. Either way, by giving the choice to consumers of which market they want to participate in, you give them choice, and you could then easily require that people are required to have insurance, therefore maintaining the universal mandate.

This approach has a better chance of offering a survival of the funding mechanism as well as a healthy consolidation of the Service provider network that delivers Medicaid services.

It is therefore a Participation Extension of Medicaid, up to 138% under the Federal Poverty Line (which if states repatriate Health Authority, could become each respective States Poverty Line), it is free save for the marginal co-insurance and co-pay amounts, over 138% you gradually pay more following the current tables proposed by the AHCA but measuring the Maximum Medicaid Insurance Premium amount.

The following table taken from the original AHCA proposal would now be entitled:

Maximum Medicaid Insurance Premium amount

Age adjusted Maximum Premium Amounts of the AHCA proposal

Now, obviously, with such a proposal, I will immediately be accused of being a socialist because I support big government…but if government pays less for a better service, how can it be bigger government than subsidizing net margins of private corporations. Or, again, for the same critics…why is government serving people earning less than the median income socialism, but subsidizing families earning more than the median income becomes genuine capitalism.

money monkeys
Let’s not leave HealthCare Coverage solutions to Financiers…

What the Republicans are proposing is as socialist as the ACA, my solution may be less corporate finance friendly, but it sure has a better chance of long-term survival. Government is already in this business through Medicaid and doing a respectable, and sometime better, job at it than pure private service oriented venues…

Obviously, I make abstraction of people over 64, who are in long-term care, and are on Medicaid. This is purposefully, because they are a different problem which needs to be addressed separately. But one must consider that when analyzing Medicaid costs, often the average per patient cost includes these patients, which makes understanding the true cost government would face in the preceding proposition hard to figure out.

Much of the costs of Medicaid come from these patients. So, by allowing ourselves to only concentrate on the remainder of patients, we get a better picture of how affordable and cheap is my proposition. On this, I suggest: (Effect of Long-term Care Use on Medicare and Medicaid Expenditures for Dual Eligible and Non-dual Eligible Elderly Beneficiaries
Robert L. Kane, Andrea Wysocki, Shriram Parashuram, Tetyana Shippee, Terry Lum).
















Why not Assist Suicide the Prime Minister?

Canada is such proud of being a social progressive country. The latest in its humanistic endeavor is offering Assisted Suicide to a panoply of defenseless people who don’t serve Feminism or the State (In Canada, there is no great difference between the two). For example, Canada is considering expanding the reach of Assisted Suicide Laws to cover emancipated adolescents, or people who suffer from mental illness. Now considering that in Canada, in their great Universities, these centers of “most incredible biggest in the world” intelligence, social science departments affirm that 1 out of 3 persons suffers some kind of mental illness…under this dimension, assisted suicide sure starts to sound more like a technique for political purge…re-engineering the vocabulary once again, of course, another great  Canadian created “soft” science.

I felt such a surge of “emotional empathy” in getting acquainted in these new broad outreach of Canadian humanistic inspiration, that I decided to contribute new groups and insights which could be included in “The Assisted Suicide Project” as to make sure that it offers “equal opportunity”.

Now, the basis for Assisted Suicide is to alleviate suffering of other people in a gesture of absolute  “humanistic emotional empathi(sm)” with this “je ne sais quoi” of a special feminine touch.

For instance, my neighbor is complaining a lot about me, in this way, he is expressing some suffering, therefore complaining neighbors should be part of the characteristics which should be considered in making one eligible for Assisted Suicide.

You girlfriend is not happy with the new Mercedes you bought her for Christmas, because you did not put the extra warming seat option. No doubt she is suffering like hell..and therefore she should have equal access right at Assisted Suicide in order to alleviate her suffering. Of course, you could sign the Request Form yourself, since she is suffering so much, she cannot think for herself.

We can trust women with this cause because they have developed special expertise in the field of alleviating sufferings from pets for more than 2 decades, having taken the veterinary field by storm, making it the official first all feminist industry.

We can, by the same token, admire the “grandness” of “Emotional Intelligence”, its scientific quality as a tool of scientific solution resolving to social sciences such as philosophy, the law, psychology.

For example, a young adolescent attempts suicide. He fails, but for his own protection, he is interned in a psychiatric ward because the law considers he is a danger to himself. The great feminist psychologists (be they male or female) of Canada who work in such institutions will put the youngster on a chemical cocktail that will so much impair him as a human being that thinking process and even simple language become a challenge. Obviously, under such treatment, the youngster may express feelings of unhappiness. Here is the great genius of Canadian Emotional Intelligence Culture, the State has a solution…we can put an end to his misery by Assisting Suicide (or Assist Suiciding, I believe it means about the same) him. It is still not clear though if it’s for the youngster’s happiness or the greater good, but why bother, let’s trust the utilitarian model of Canada’s long proven social justice record.

Effectively, in such an Emblematic bureaucratic process, why would IQ be important in Canada; “gimme mo’ ” Emotional Intelligence anytime.

It is also Emotional Intelligence which is responsible to always only show elderly women as potential voluntary candidate for Assisted Suicide, since politicians (male especially) will only consider that these women are talking from wisdom and self-determination, are experts in the art of suffering and that men requesting them to suffer more would be considered sadistic cruel beings…a qualificative epithet they would not want to carry, accompanied by the usual ‘remorse and guilt”. But what if the VICTIMS of Assisted Suicide turn out to be more often than not, younger men in perfect health that simply don’t think like a uterus.

But let’s let our “Productive Narcissistic” Imagination and Civic sense of “Destructive Creativism” contribute a little bit to the core structured  Emotionalism of this New School of Thought which is Assisted Suicide.

For example, it is not hard to connect the dots…who always complains about suffering all the time, of being victims all the time?…Feminists.

Then, maybe we should give access to Assisted Suicide to all Feminists.

Maybe we could also allow for Mass Assisted Suicide events. Gather 20,000 people in a public place and Mass Assist Suicide them.

Jews are somewhat on the top of suffering worldwide…maybe we could Mass Suicide Assist the jews…that would make sense, a Humanistic Miracle if there is one, appease so much suffering…and since discussion from Canadian authorities are considering not consulting some mentally ill patient concerning their own ‘assisted suicide’ for fear of having them suffer even more, maybe we would not have to tell Jews we plan on Mass Assist “Suiciding” them.

And in this sense, should not the Onus of Probability be on the Suicidee instead of the Suicider in proving that he is not Unhappy. This could render great services to humanity in that for example, the Jewish People, as a People, could come to terms with their suffering, and make the argument that they are very very very happy and in fact have never suffered as long as History can remember.

In fact, one could also request for a Third-party for Assisted Suicide on the pretext of Past Suffering. Current happiness could simply be a curtain, by a potential Suicidee, to avoid Assisted Suicide. Prove me that your current Happiness is bigger than the sum of all your past suffering, otherwise you will have to go to Assisted Suicide.

Further more, we could help Politicians in Difficulty, for example: your Prime Minister is really going down the drain in the polls, he is having a hard time…we could have Politician Assisted Suicide Day, where we could pull up a surprise on the Prime Minister by appeasing his suffering…and then again, without inflicting the pain of warning him of the goodies awaiting him…

Ah! Canada…what a great extremely incredible biggest most sensational at the forefront country.