Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
Under No Obligation
(A Growing Cenocratic Constituency)

http://cenocracy.org



This image is a link to more flag information:

Cenocracy home Page Flag Counter

Note: Flag counter T-shirts are here: Flag Counter T-shirts




Because of the way the U.S. Constitution is written, and perhaps all Constitutions or pseudo-social "contracts" between the people and (supposedly) their government (or for that matter their religion); the word Obligation is absent, and therefore provides a legal means by which governments do not have to do anything for the people... or listen to them if the people protest.


Just because you vote someone into office and expect them to fulfill your wants and wishes because they campaigned on a platform of accomplishing a given task, doesn't mean they are legally obligated to do so. There is no written law that guarantees elected officials do anything than participate in a process that has been created by a history of politicians to ensure the survival of one or another official. Voting someone into office is not the same as having hired them for a job to do a particular task; and if they don't do the task as asked, you can immediately fire them and get someone better. The political system is not set up to assist the public as if they were an employer. What often happens is the selected person turns around and expects the employer (the citizens) to do their bidding and accept their excuses for not accomplishing a given task as expected.


The law making portion of the government is set up to provide excuses for those who are elected when they do not do as expected... and afford them protections from being fired. While the people may give them a Right to Work in a given position, they are not likewise obligated to work for the rights of the people. They are under no legal obligation to do anything... and the system of government being practiced enables them to make up excuses. And if some excuse is not readily available, they can create one through various instigations... such as war, social impoverishment, etc...


Congress is set up to ensure the survival of a "base" representation of those wanting to execute managerial activities as their life-work, even if their assigned duties and expectations do not accomplish anything of lasting value for the citizenry. If one's assigned task is generally stated as "able to make laws", there is little more than an implied requirement without any legal backing for the people. This "implication" of expectation is the same type of illusory imagery practiced by the overall government and is part of the larger illusion concerning democracy itself. In other words, the American "brand" of democracy is an exercise in imagination and is a 'brand name' that has been deteriorating for years; to the extent a growing segment of its own populace readily sees the many hypocrisies they are being subjected to and want to do something decisive about them.


The U.S. Congress is under no legal, Constitutionally established obligation to provide for a comprehensive National Health Care program for the people... or do anything else. In order to quell protests, they might well provide some relative response, but it often reflects the most minimalist effort supported by a rationale that provides evidence to be used as an excused relabeled as a reason. When so many elected officials are well-aware they may not be able to perform in accordance with their stated election platform... particularly if the platform is stated with explicitly outlined goals, they may view their elected position as a temporary job in which to acquire as many resources... prior to a departure, in order to use the previous position as a stepping stone to a more lucrative and lasting position... regardless of what little assistance they actually gave to the public.


While the U.S. Constitution enables Congress and the other two Branches of government to effect the production of necessary changes to enhance the lives of the public, there is no legal obligation for them to use such abilities. Without an explicit Constitutional mandate that obligates the Three Branches of government to effect the collective Will of the public, they can continue to either play musical chairs and accomplish nothing... or create the most idiotic compromises and publicly label them as some sort of bi-partisan ingenuity... in order to bolster their self-oriented dispositions for concealing the fact that they are most likely incapable of being productively instructive on behalf of the public— even if there existed a "mandate of obligation".


Such a Constitutional Mandate of Obligation would thus have to include additional mandates to clean up the refuse in the overall political system such as to ensure term limits, addressing the problems of gerrymandering, the Electoral College fiasco, the public's concerns for the environment, loss of jobs, costs of education, abortion, child care, animal rights, business manipulations, a mandated National Referendum need, infrastructure, abuse of government contracts, egregious costs of military operations, immigration, effects of a deteriorating environment, over population, plateaued yields of viable plant foods, National goals, goals for all humanity, etc...


Unless the people get a Constitutional Amendment that legally obligates the government to the people without their being any loop holes to remove themselves from the mandate of obligation (without a voted on National approval that explicitly states the need for a change that is likewise to be mandated), the public has no legal means of forcing the government to do its bidding. Just because the government is legally empowered to help the citizenry, doesn't mean the people are likewise legally empowered to enforce the government to utilize the empowerment, much less use it in any effective way.


Though some might suggest that the government is "supposed" to help the people, there is no Constitutionally mandated provision that it must do so. The government does not have to effect a "good Samaritan" intervention on behalf of a public asking for help, and there is no legal obligation which forces it to, thus enabling it to provide a rationalized excuse using such words as costs, complexity, etc..., or a rationalized reason based on instigated conflicts or turmoil due to deliberate engineering by government agents or their confederates... if an act of Nature does not provide a visible means of deflecting the public's attention.


Without a Constitutional Mandate of Obligation, the public is left with no legal recourse to effect desired changes on its behalf, and is forced to protest in more visibly assertive ways... that may necessarily escalate to the use of destruction and death, if faced with a situation in which they are confronted either by obstinacy, increased confrontation, and/or a realization that those in a government position do not have the necessary knowledge, talent, skill, dexterity or other requirement— to accomplish the task at hand... even if it represents a condition outlining the mood of the public having little or no confidence in anything that may be created by one or another government official or their assigned agent.


All those protesting for some desirably progressive change, regardless of which issue is near and dear to their hearts, must fully realize that the government is under no Constitutional Mandate of Obligation to adhere to the views of the public. Though one might speak of a moral or humanitarian obligation that could cost someone their position in a given office, this is a digression from the fact that the government is not obligated to do anything. Empowerment is not the same as being obligated. It may have the power to effect desired changes, but this power does not have to be exercised, and there is nothing the public can do about it with any legal certainty... because it is a situation which provides those in government with multiple loop holes... such as someone being permitted to leave their position with a pension or lofty severance and not have to admit wrong doing, though it is implied by the final result anyway. It is a type of "diplomatic immunity" they can use as a type of get-out-of-jail free card, which provides for them to be absent any empathy for the public... and have no legal consequences if they don't do anything of lasting importance for the public.




In pointing out that the Constitution is like an old warranty and deed that does not stand up to scrutiny with respect today's needs for legal guarantees and commitments, some readers may come to appreciate a different type of mentality being espoused and applied to the political arena of needed concerns and deliverable actions for the Nation and Humanity the whole. In some respects, it is providing an insight into how the Cenocratic (New Government) model of thinking is taking shape, if it various authors are not particularly aware of the word "Cenocracy" and its attributive corollaries. As a Cenocratic model takes greater shape and formulization from the bits and pieces of commentary proposed by various thinkers in different venues, it is of pressing need to illustrate such thinking. Let us provide two instances which, if you are in agreement with, is a tell-tale sign you have begun to adopt a Cenocratic perspective into becoming a formidable force. While not every person agrees with every view being espoused at this site, just as many of its members do not agree with all that has been presented, all of us none-the-less agree that we need a new form of government because the present "American Brand" of democracy is a worn-out trade name that has come to represent corruption, lies, deception, greed, imperialism, and now... because of Trump's mental pathology infecting more and more in the government and elsewhere... along with the government's inability to be self-corrective when confronted with a disastrous circumstance in its midst... American Democracy is seen as a classic case of dementia coupled with old-age induced Alzheimer's. America's trade name brand of democracy needs to be put out to pasture and committed to a retirement home because it is too dangerous to be left on its own without professional and routine care that current officials are not capable of providing since many of them have succumbed to the disease themselves.


Again, let it be clear that the following two authors may not even be aware of the word "Cenocracy" nor view themselves as exhibiting a Cenocratic model of thinking, and might even disagree with having one... should they find offense with one of the older perspectives placed into archive in the contents section. However, previous considerations that are kept in the archive do not necessarily represent the current collective mentality but nonetheless express that a growth and maturity taking place... sometimes slow and sometimes painfully slow, but increased education and experience do affect the overall philosophy being developed. It is a philosophy that recognizes that simply providing "new blood" to any present political party is little more than attempting to rejuvenate a dying patient by giving them blood from a young body... when it is the old body that needs to be replaced in order for a new perspective to be developed with a brain that lives in the present reality and what it means for the future, and not the reality of an illusory democracy developed by antiquated traditions born from adapting to and old reality that is being forced on the citizenry to accept as truth rather than the rationalization which it is. The American Brand of democracy, just like the British and so many others, are out of step with the present reality which is taking a much longer and future view of the human species involving variables that the past developers of these former brand names could not have even imagined. Trying to revive a dying elephant and mule along with their dung collecting followers, is of little value when all of them are brain dead and attempting to present reflexive twitchings as if they were indications of an animate and viable life born anew.


The First Selection with the earlier date of public declaration:


The Senate bill does nothing to fix America's biggest health care problem


Sarah Kliff, CNBC
Friday, 30 Jun 2017 | 11:22 AM ET

The biggest problem in American health care is one that the Republican health care plans won't really try to solve. To be fair, it's one that Obamacare didn't touch, either.


The biggest problem facing American health care is our prices.


In the United States, we pay outlandishly high prices for our trips to the doctor, hospital visits, and prescription drugs. In the United States, an MRI costs, on average, $1,119. In Australia the scan costs $215, and in Switzerland $503. It is the exact. Same. Scan.


About a year ago, I wrote a story about a family that went to the emergency room, had a Band-Aid put on their 1-year-old daughter's finger, and then were billed $629 for the encounter. Since then, I've gotten countless letters describing other outlandish medical bills. These include:

  • A $2,237 bill for liquid stitches and a bandage. This emergency room visit lasted from about 11:30 pm until 1 am, so the hospital billed for two days spent there.
  • A $900 bill for four stitches in the emergency room.
  • A $1,000 bill for a pneumonia vaccination delivered in a health care clinic.

The list goes on and on. These sky-high prices are what make health care policy a vexing exercise for legislators on both sides of the aisle. Because our prices are so high and the federal government has a limited budget, the architects of the Affordable Care Act settled on expanding access to largely high-deductible health plans. The Republican plans would drive those deductibles even higher, leaving consumers on the hook to cover the pricey services.


If we don't tackle high prices, it makes it nearly impossible to imagine ever transitioning to a national health care system to cover all Americans.


High prices have a strong lobby here in Washington. Each dollar spent on medical care goes toward a hospital, a doctor, a medical device maker, or a pharmaceutical company. But until legislators decide this is an issue worth tackling, they will find themselves hard-pressed to deliver a reform bill that Americans actually like. Americans pay way more whenever we go to the doctor.


The reason Americans spend so much money isn't because we go to the doctor a lot. On average, Americans actually see the doctor slightly less than people in other developed countries.


Americans go to the doctor, on average, four times each year, according to data from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund. Compare that to Canada, where citizens average 7.7 doctor visits per year, and France, which averages 6.4. The United States averages 125 hospital discharges per 1,000 people annually, which is higher than Canada (83) but lower than France (166) and the United Kingdom (129).

The reason American health care is expensive is because when we go to the doctor, it costs more than when someone in Canada or England or France or any other developed nation goes to the doctor.

A day in the hospital here costs $5,220, versus $4,781 in Switzerland and $765 in Australia. There is a biannual report from the International Federation Health Plan that compares medical prices across countries. It's hard to find any category where the United States is not the priciest.


MRI Data

Other developed countries use price controls in medicine. The government negotiates with drug companies, device makers, and doctors to set lower prices. The government is buying in bulk, and has the power to win those negotiations. These countries regulate medical prices akin to how they regulate the price of electricity or water: a service that everyone needs at a reasonable price but would face significant difficulty bargaining for on their own.


The United States does set medical prices for the 50 million elderly Americans who rely on Medicare. The government-run insurer has a fee schedule that says exactly what doctors can bill for every visit or checkup — and usually ends up with lower prices as a result.


But for the 155 million Americans who get coverage through their employers — and 22 million in the individual market — that task is left to the insurers and customers. We are not very good at it.


I recently spoke with Todd Anderson, a father in the Philadelphia area, who told me about one of those medical bills I mentioned earlier. His son went to the ER late last year after cutting his finger with a kitchen knife.


Todd's son is a college sophomore; his son's roommate, a biology major, said that he'd recently used the knife to cut raw meat, and drove him to the emergency room.


The physician assistant at the emergency room examined the son's finger and treated him with liquid stitches and a bandage. A few months later, Anderson received two separate bills totaling $2,237 — one for $1,032 from the hospital, another for $1,438 from the doctor — for the Band-Aid and its application. The doctor group charged the Andersons for two days in the emergency room, because the late-night visit began around 11:30 pm and ended around 1 am.


"I feel like I'm being told to pay the hospital and the doctor for the exact same service, and no one has been able to explain to me why it can possibly cost this much," Anderson says.


These types of bills just don't happen in other countries, where the government negotiates with providers to set a reasonable fee for what a Band-Aid delivered in an emergency room can cost.


"The issue of prices needs to be put on the table," says Drew Altman, the president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. "A lot of the effort right now is aimed at reducing volume of care, not price of care. But what people are more concerned about is their out-of-pocket costs." Health care prices aren't part of the American health care debate. But they need to be.


The Affordable Care Act did not aim to regulate health care prices in the United States. Instead, it emphasized reducing the volume of health care in the United States. It tried to get rid of the financial incentives of a "fee for service" system that pays doctors for every test or procedure, regardless of whether it's actually necessary.


Obamacare had dozens of experiments that aimed to move the health care system to a "pay for value" system, where doctors would be rewarded for making patients healthier — not just providing medical services.


Some of these experiments have been successful. Unnecessary readmissions to hospitals, which the health care law began penalizing in 2013, have plummeted. There is some evidence that these programs have led to slower health care cost growth too.


None of these changes put the United States on the path to having health care costs more in the neighborhood of Canada or France or other developed nations. That's just really hard when an MRI costs twice as much here as in Switzerland — or four times as much as in Australia. We can only get so far cutting down on the number of MRI scans. At some point, to really lower health spending, we have to cut the price of the scan itself.


Regulating health care prices was never a serious part of the Affordable Care Act debate. The Obama administration made a conscious decision, at the start of its health care effort, to get all major industry groups to stand behind the law — or at least not work against it. Regulating health care prices would have meant that hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies would all earn less. The idea was a nonstarter.


But America's high health care prices are at the core of what Obamacare enrollees dislike about the program. High prices mean high premiums and big bills when customers remain in their deductibles, the two parts of the law that get the lowest favorability ratings from those who rely on the marketplaces for coverage.


Donald Trump initially showed some interest in regulating health care prices, particularly in allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, but so far has not followed through.


In any case, any serious effort to constrain health care prices would likely need to go far beyond pharmaceuticals, which make up 10 percent of American drug spending annually. To prevent $629 bills for Band-Aids, you've have to tackle the rest of the health care system — and that is not something either political party has proposed.


"It's the cost issue that will continue to drive us crazy," says Bill Hoagland, a vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center who previously worked as budget director for Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), said at an event I attended late last year. "I don't know how Republicans put together a package that reduces the deficit that doesn't focus on price. Doctor costs, hospital costs — that's where we have to focus our attention."


The Republican plans put the burden of high prices more squarely on patients

Republicans put together a package that reduces the deficit but not by controlling prices. Instead, their bill would leave medical prices roughly the same and shift more out-of-pocket spending to consumers.


Both Republican bills are estimated to reduce premiums in the individual market, but make no mistake, that does not translate to lower prices or happier enrollees. For one, the Republican bills lower premiums in part by making coverage prohibitively expensive for older Americans, who would be expected to drop out of the marketplace and leave behind a younger, healthier population. Those older enrollees do not, obviously, disappear, nor do their health care needs magically resolve. Instead, they'd be expected to join the ranks of the uninsured.


Second, the Senate bill in particular would lower the generosity of individual market plans. It would peg federal subsidies to health plans that cover an average of 58 percent of consumers. Obamacare tethered its subsidies to plans covering 70 percent of costs.


This means that enrollees would be more exposed to the actual costs of their care. And with nothing in the bill to control prices, they can expect those costs to be awfully, frustratingly high.




The Second Selection with the later date of public declaration:


Democrats roll out another feeble economic plan


Rick Newman
Columnist, Yahoo Finance
July 24, 2017

As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton’s economic plan consisted of dozens of rational policy ideas lacking a unifying message or any hint of passion. Donald Trump’s plan rested on incoherent ideas that didn’t bother supporters fired up by his fervent rhetoric and simple, revivalist message—"make America great again." We know which prevailed.


After humiliating losses in 2016, Democrats realize they have an existential problem, and now think they’ve found a solution—a program they’ve labeled "a better deal for American workers." To some extent, it’s a move from the Republican playbook, which launched Newt Gingrich’s "Contract with America" in 1994, followed 22 years later by Trump’s "Contract with the American Voter." The Dems’ "better deal" is also a semi-clever play on Trump’s famous book, "The Art of the Deal" (ha), and a paean to the most revered deal ever among liberals, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression.


But the Democrats need a better idea than the "better deal." The introductory version, outlined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in the New York Times, reads like a mashup of Bernie Sanders’ campaign platform and President Barack Obama’s go-nowhere budget proposals. The platform includes a $15 minimum wage (politically impossible and economically inadvisable), a $1 trillion infrastructure plan (isn’t that Trump’s idea?), new trade laws more beneficial to American workers (ditto), and tax credits for job retraining (rewarmed Obama). The idea seems to be that if you scoop up a bunch of leftover ideas and brand them as something new, voters will buy it.


They won’t. The reason Trump won is that voters no longer believe Washington policy-making can solve the real-world problems affecting them. They’re right, and it’s not that one party is any worse or better at this. They’re both awful. Democrats helped some people by passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010, but they hurt others who didn’t qualify for subsidies under the new law and had to deal with skyrocketing premiums and deductibles. Instead of fixing that problem, Republicans who control Congress now want to make it even worse by passing a plan that would boot more than 20 million people off insurance. Ds and Rs no longer collaborate to come up with practical solutions to real problems. They battle each other on the ideological margins to score points that will keep them in good stead with extremists on each end whose support is essential to winning primary elections. Both parties suffer the tyranny of "the base."


Democrats need new blood

So what good are rational policy ideas when it’s impossible in Washington to pass rational policies? And what good is a "new" plan when it’s delivered by the old blood, like Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, that led the party into the blind alley it’s now stuck in? Trump, for all his stumbles, remains popular among his own base because his blow-everything-up approach to Washington seems like the least bad thing to do.


Dems undoubtedly would love to capture the appeal of Bernie Sanders in a more mainstream candidate, which probably explains their focus on key Sanders issues such as a $15 minimum wage, new efforts to break up big companies, and legal limits on prescription drug prices. But Sanders’ appeal wasn’t about his policies, which were extreme, bordering on loopy in some instances. It was about his personality, his passion and even his sense of humor. Sanders supporters believed in their candidate. Clinton supporters merely tolerated theirs.


The lesson of the 2016 is a cliché by now: Authentic candidates win. Inauthentic candidates lose. Voters can’t stand phonies. Policies matter less than the relatability of the politicians espousing them.


The Democrats’ "better deal" includes some sensible and even important ideas, such as incentives for job retraining. But it won’t matter if the people talking about them seem like out-of-touch blowhards. If there are any real people in the Democratic Party, Schumer and Pelosi should roll them out and spend more of their own time behind the scenes. What the Democrats really need isn’t a better deal, it’s better politicians.




Date of Origination: Monday, 24-July-2017... 5:54 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Monday, 24-July-2017... 7:10 AM
Updated Posting: Wednesday, 26-July-2017... 6:13AM