Thoughts about the 2010 Affordable Care Act

President Obama and Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to help 48 million Americans gain health insurance. With a population of 300 million Americans, roughly 16% of the U.S. population has no health insurance. Unfortunately, I find this law troubling because, in the old days, people had a choice to buy insurance or not. Insurance was voluntary. People bought insurance because they were preparing for emergencies or unexpected losses. Regrettably, the U.S. government has ignored simple economics, which I explain in this blog.

U.S. government creates a problem by forcing people to buy insurance. Out of that 48 million Americans, how many young people do not want health insurance? Young people believe they are invincible, and few would buy insurance. Usually people who buy insurance expect to use it. Some of 48 million include low wage earners, or the insurance companies had denied medical insurance to people with preexisting medical conditions.

Insurance companies reject applicants with health problems because the companies expect to pay out more in insurance claims as the applicants seek more medical treatment, boosting the insurance companies’ costs. Consequently, the new federal law may help low wage earners and people with preexisting conditions acquire medical insurance. However, the young people will help subsidize the health insurance because most are healthy and rarely seek medical treatment.

Another side effect of the law is insurance companies gain market power. With a population of roughly 300 million Americans, the United States has 38 insurance companies. I listed the companies in Table 1 at the end of this blog. U.S. government has conferred monopoly power to the insurance companies because the government guarantees these companies 300 million consumers. On average, each company would insure 7.9 million people. Consequently, the companies can hike insurance premiums and offer lower quality insurance because consumers cannot choose whether they want health insurance or not. They must choose one of the 38 companies in the United States. Then Aenta, one of the largest insurance companies, announced it plans to exit the health insurance market.

Using a perverse example, we can show how this health care law can limit market power. Let’s say the U.S. government forces all drivers to buy road flares that must be stored in the car’s trunk. That way, a driver with car trouble can pull over and place flares on the road, so another driver does not crash into the car. What would happen if the United States has three companies that made road flares? U.S. government has granted them market power, so they can increase the price and earn massive profits. Subsequently, the companies could funnel some profits to the politicians as campaign contributions, showing their appreciation of the new law.

New health care law shows the problem of pathetic news quality. Since the 1990s, I held a low opinion of the U.S. news and newspapers because reporters never cover news stories in detail as the reporters always skim the important facts. I became angry when the reporters ignore essential facts of the new health care law. Most reporters wrote the U.S. government would fine any person $95 in 2014 for not having medical insurance. That is not completely accurate. Fine is $95 per adult or 1% of a person’s income, whichever is greater. Thus, an adult earning $20,000 per year would pay a $200 penalty for not having health insurance and not $95. Then the penalty rises to $325 per adult or 2% of income in 2015, and $695 or 2.5% of income in 2016 and after.

I listed the penalties in Table 2 for individuals, children, and families. Furthermore, experts claim the IRS has no enforcement powers to collect the tax. When a bureaucrat has a will, he or she will find a way. IRS will devise a method to collect the penalty. Most likely, the IRS would rearrange a taxpayer’s payment. IRS would apply a taxpayer’s money to the penalty first and then demand more money to apply for the actual taxes. Of course, everyone assumes the taxpayers will continue submitting forms to the IRS. People in many countries, such as Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal, evade and elude taxes as tax dodging has become a favorite pastime for some of their citizens.

U.S. government created another problem because it had promised the people that they could keep their current medical insurance and current family physicians. Unfortunately, the U.S. government did not anticipate how businesses and people would respond to the law.

1.     Some insurance companies offered health insurance that does not comply with the new law. Consequently, insurance companies had canceled these plans instead of complying with the law, leaving between 7 and 12 million people and families without health insurance.

2.     U.S. government taxes people and families with generous health insurance plans. A tax penalizes an activity or behavior, and government penalizes people with generous health care plans. Hence, insurance companies, people, and families have an incentive to reduce their plan’s benefits to reduce their tax burden.

3.     U.S. government has left some doctors out of the health insurance network. Thus, some families who saw their family doctor for years can no longer see them. This raises a good question – if the government leaves some doctors and hospitals out of the health care plan, will the hospitals close, and the doctors retire? This would reduce the supply of medical services that raises prices for medical services.

4.     Employers do not pay for health insurance if they work their employees fewer than 30 hours per week. Some people have lost hours as their employers switch them from full time to part time. Unfortunately, the people with reduced hours may have to purchase health insurance out of their own pocket if their salary exceeds $10,000 for a person or $20,000 for a family.

As the name suggests, the Affordable Care Act should reduce medical costs. Can you name a government program where government had reduced costs or prices? Every industry and market a government interferes with cause greater market prices. Putting this fact to the side, everyone overlooks one important fact. If the supply of medical services remains the same while people demand more health care because they have medical insurance, the market price always rises. As more consumers compete for the same supply, the consumers bid up the prices. Then I read articles here and there. For instance, the IRS will hire 6,700 agents to enforce the insurance penalty. Then federal and state governments must hire bureaucrats to work in the new medical insurance exchanges. Through my readings, I never read a story where hospitals and clinics plan to hire more doctors and nurses. If the U.S. government wants to reduce the price of medical care, it must expand the supply for medical services. If the market supply grows faster than market demand, subsequently, the market price always falls. As hospitals and medical clinics expand their services, they would lower their prices to attract more consumers to their facilities. On the other hand, I have read several hospitals will close.

The Affordable Care Act does not fix the flaw with the medical industry because the health insurance companies isolate the payments between patients and hospitals. Our current health care system provides no incentives for patients, hospitals, and clinics to reduce costs. Patients pay a fixed price to visit a doctor, usually $20 copay. Patient could request the doctor to perform 20 tests, and the doctor would comply even if he or she thinks some of the tests are unnecessary. Doctor bills the insurance company for the tests and not the patient, thus sticking the third party with the bill.

Healthcare system would change if the patient had to pay a percentage of each test. For example, if the patient must pay 10% of every test cost, the patient would start asking more questions about the tests and would question whether the doctor should perform 20 tests or not. Patient’s bill becomes tied to the number of tests the doctor performs. Furthermore, the doctor may limit the number of test especially if the doctor knows the patient has little income to pay for them.

The Affordable Health Care law creates another problem - intrusiveness. People who cannot afford health insurance or do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare can buy health insurance through exchanges. Unfortunately, applicants must fill out a government form spanning across 21 pages. Most questions cover financial information and contain little health information. Supposedly, as a person enrolls into an insurance plan, the exchange shares information with other federal agencies such as the FBI, IRS, NSA, et cetera. Our political leaders think similarly to the Soviet planners. Soviet citizens applying for a government program or need a government document had to supply numerous documents to the bureaucrats. I call it the bureaucratic shuffle because a trip to one bureaucracy would lead to multiple trips to other bureaucracies as citizens gathered various documents.

Patients lose their privacy as the state and federal government collect information about them. I tried to research which agencies the health insurance exchange shares information with, but this information had disappeared from the internet. Remember George Orwell’s novel - 1984. Government controlled information and the main character, Winston Smith, worked for the Ministry of Truth. As the government changed and updated information, Winston had to correct every book, newspaper, and piece of information with the new information. I apologize for digressing, but I became surprised this information had disappeared from the internet so quickly. I know I read about the exchanges sharing information with the federal government agencies because people had trouble enrolling into insurance plans. Computer system experienced bugs as it shared information with these government agencies, preventing applicants from enrolling into a plan. Of course, thousands have browsed the exchange website to check rates, but the U.S. government has not revealed how many people it has enrolled. Analysts estimated the U.S. government had enrolled a half million people in mid-November 2013, far below its projections.

Government leaders forget economics is about choices. I liked how Kazakhstan had set up its medical industry. Kazakhs have a choice. They can go to a state hospital or to a private medical clinic. Government supports state hospitals that charge very low prices while private medical clinics charge a market price for its services. Of course, patients receive a lower quality of care in the state hospitals than the private ones. I remember well my trip to a state hospital in Almaty, Kazakhstan. I walked through run down, dirty corridors. State hospital looked more like a factory than a hospital. A nurse yelled at me in Russian. Subsequently, I went to the private medical clinic around the corner from my apartment. Clinic was clean and new with friendly staff. I also received my medical services quickly. That was the thing. Kazakhstan grants its residents the choice which medical services they want. United States could copy this plan. U.S. government could dissolve Medicare and Medicaid and give the funding to the county governments to support state-funded hospitals. Then the government exits the health care business and allows private hospitals and medical clinics to provide services to paying customers. Then Americans can choose which health care system they want.

After examining the Affordable Care Act, I am shocked the President and Congress would offer such a terrible plan. At least the Congressmen did not exempt themselves from the healthcare law. I believe the law requires our Congressmen to enroll in health insurance similarly to everyone else, but the U.S. federal government pays up to 75% of the insurance premiums. In the old days, government passed a program to help people. Instead, the government had passed a program that will cause problems, but it does create two benefits. First, insurance companies cannot deny insurance to people with preexisting conditions. Second, the insurance premiums could be reasonable in the beginning. For example, I looked up the cheapest plan for my state, which was $200 per month. That was not bad, but this was an estimate and not a quote. However, the health insurance costs will continue rising from the following problems.

• Health companies may hike premiums because they gain more market power. Government guarantees them consumers, and consumers can only choose insurance from 38 companies.
• Health insurance companies must cover patients with pre-existing conditions. These patients may require more medical care, and the insurance company would pay these medical costs.
• People may increase their demand for medical services because they have insurance. Consumers bid up prices for medical services (unless the supply also increases).
• U.S. government has left some doctors and hospitals out of the health insurance plan. Consequently, government will reduce the supply of health care and drive up its prices.
• Health care plan expands state and federal government bureaucracies, and the government gains and collects more information about its citizens. Furthermore, bureaucracies grow continually, and hospitals, medical clinics, and insurance companies would pay greater compliance costs as bureaucrats expand the rules and regulations.

Table 1. List of the Health Insurance Companies

Companies	Companies	Companies
AETNA	AFLAC	American Family Insurance
American Medical Security	American National Insurance Company	Anthem Insurance
Assurant, Inc.	Asuris Northwest Health	BlueCross BlueShield Association
Celtic Insurance Company	CIGNA	College Health IPA
Connecticare Inc.	Continental General Insurance Company	Golden Rule Insurance Company
Group Health Cooperative	Group Health Inc.	Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
Health Markets	HUMANA	Insurance Services of America
Intermountain Healthcare	Kaiser Permanente	LifeWise Health Plan of Arizona
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon	LifeWise Health Plan of Washington	Medica Minnesota
Medical Mutual	Oregon Health Insurance	Oxford Health Plans, Inc.
Principal Financial Group, Inc.	Shelter Insurance	Unicare Health Insurance
UnitedHealth Group Inc.	Vista Health Plan	Walter Jarvis Insurance Services
WellPoint	WPS Health Insurance

Table 2. Penalties for not carrying health insurance

	2014	2015	2016 and beyond
Adult	$95 or 1% of your income	$325 or 2% of your income	$695 or 2.5% of your income
For every child	$47.50	$162.50	$347.50
Family	max. of $285 or 1% of family income	max. of $975 or 2% of family income	$2,085 or 2.5% of family income

The Underground Internet

I have always surfed the Internet since it took off in the early 1990s. I remember the days when the Internet comprised of text messages with no color pictures and graphics. I am even knowledgeable in computers and can write a little code in several languages, build basic websites, and other little stuff. However, I never even guessed a whole, hidden world existed in the Internet that most users would never see. They call it the deep Internet, or a better term is the underground or hidden Internet.

Before describing the hidden Internet, I define the standard Internet. For example, a user types the URL into the web address, such as www.hotmail.com. Many things happen that a user never knows. His or her computer looks the IP address for the URL in the DNS database. IP address identifies the web server’s location within the Internet. It is a unique address similar to a mailbox where people send and receive letters. DNS database lists the world’s websites like an address book, including the user’s Internet provider. IP address comprises of four digits ranging from 0 to 255, and a period separates the digits. Subsequently, the user’s computer connects to Hotmail’s servers. User connects to the Internet with an IP address via his or her Internet provider. However, the user’s computer and Hotmail’s servers exchange IP addresses. As the user’s computer and Hotmail servers exchange information back and forth through routers. Routers read the destination and source IP addresses, so they can send the information to the right places. Consequently, a mailman knows where to deliver the mail. Every letter he delivers has a send and return address. As you probably guessed, law enforcement officers can trace IP addresses and track down users who use the Internet for illegal purposes. Once they know the IP address, they know where the server exists in the real world.

An organization, Tor, developed a unique browser that does not use IP addresses. Thus, users’ computers and websites do not use IP addresses as they exchange information. Then the computers can encrypt all data, so no one intercepting a communication can decrypt it or at least not easily. Consequently, a user can remain anonymous as he browses the Internet. Tor becomes the critical software for accessing the hidden Internet.

A user can download Tor for Windows, Apple, Linux, and Android operating systems. The hyperlink is https://www.torproject.org/index.html.en. Designers use a modified version of Firefox that serves as a browser. Then users can use the browser to surf the Internet like a standard browser such as Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, and Opera. If users take precautions, then they can remain anonymous.

I surfed the Internet and checked my IP address. One minute, my IP address placed me in the Netherlands. Then later, I was in Los Angeles, California. Subsequently, my IP address switched to Germany, and so on. I did find this annoying. When I visited Yahoo, the Welcome Screen was in Dutch. After I had returned, it was in English and then German because Yahoo and some websites personalize webpages depending on the user’s country. They use the IP address to determine the user’s location and country.

I found the technology cool, although the Internet speed crept at a slow pace. I could be wrong in my interpretation, but the metaphor of the mailman still works here. How does a mailman know which house to deliver the mail if he has a letter with no send or return address? Communications bounce from router to router in cyberspace until it arrives at the correct router. As a router receives information, it only knows the previous router that sent the communication and the next router where it sends the communication. After a communication passes through several routers, the sender has no link to the receiver. Do you see the secrecy? How can a policeman or agent track down someone if he or she does not know who sent it, or who receives it?

This technology is legal, and users have legitimate reasons to use it. Some believe the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory sponsors this technology to allow the U.S. government to send communications secretly. Spies, military, law enforcement officers, and delegates can send communications secretly without terrorists and enemies intercepting messages. However, the Tor developers use this technology to defend against government surveillance. We know the NSA is eavesdropping on everyone’s communication. Journalists, activists, dissidents, and whistleblowers can use this technology to send secret information to others and have some protection from an autocratic government.

This technology is not foolproof. Government agents can use malware, hacks, and other techniques to reveal a user’s identity. For example, the FBI exploited a security hole in Firefox that copied malware onto a user’s computer. Malware read the user’s IP address and MAC address and relayed that information to the FBI headquarters in Virginia. IP address reveals the user’s location while the MAC address identifies the unique serial number of a computer’s network card. IP address leads the enforcement officers to a person’s location while the MAC identifies the user’s computer.

As you probably guessed, users can use this technology for illegal purposes. FBI arrested Ross William Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road. He also uses the alias the Dread Pirate Roberts. Ross created a hidden website called Silk Road, where users and vendors bought and sold a variety of drugs. Ross Ulbricht earned commissions from the sales as buyers and vendors generated 60,000 hits per day. FBI claims he earned between $30 and $45 million in revenue annually, and the Department of Justice seized $3.6 million in Bitcoin – virtual money. Feds claimed Ross hired a hitman through the hidden Internet to murder both a blackmailer and witness. The URL for the Silk Road is:

http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/

If you type the URL into your browser, nothing will show. Your browser looks the URL up in the DNS database, searching for that IP address. However, this website does not exist in the DNS database, and your browser cannot connect to it. You would need to download the Tor browser and type the URL into that browser. Then the browser would connect to the Silk Road. Did you notice the word onion in the URL? Onion refers to the onion network, the hidden world of the Internet. When I typed the URL for Silk Road, I saw the message below:

I surfed this underworld to see what I could discover. I found a search engine, called Torch that indexes the hidden sites. When I clicked on the links, less than half the websites would display. I do not know if some vendors temporarily shut down their websites because the FBI seized Silk Road, or this technology is young and unreliable. For the real Internet, the DNS database organizes the Internet world, where the onion network is decentralized. Nevertheless, I became shocked at what several websites were selling. I could buy guns from Europe, marijuana from the Netherlands, buy counterfeit euros and U.S. dollars, order phony driver’s licenses and passports, or hire a hacker to create hell for my enemy. Then I saw another website where I could hire a hitman if the hacker could not create enough hell for my enemy. I listed the snapshots of these websites at the bottom of this blog. I could give you the website addresses, but they mean nothing in the real Internet world. Did you notice the currency? All vendors accept Bitcoin, but they send the products through regular mail or package delivery company.

Bitcoin constitutes virtual money or cryptocurrency. No central bank or government issues Bitcoins, and 11.75 million Bitcoins were circulating in the world in October 2013. Bitcoins’ supply continuously grows until 2140, stopping at 21 million Bitcoins. Cryptography plays a key role in Bitcoins. Every Bitcoin has a unique, encrypted number. A person opens an account or wallet and can buy Bitcoins from online vendors. A person can store his Bitcoins on his computer or cellphone or use an online wallet. Of course, a person does not show his identity. Then he or she can settle transactions by sending the other party his account information. As a buyer completes a transaction, software encrypts that person’s private key into the transaction along with the Bitcoin number. Ensuring people do not spend the same Bitcoin for multiple transactions a miner clears the transaction. Miner is not the proper terminology. It functions more as a bank or clearinghouse. A miner decrypts the transaction and records it in a ledger. Then it re-issues the Bitcoin to the seller.

Think of a Bitcoin where you send a check to the seller, and he deposits the check into his account. Once the bank receives the check, they change numbers in their ledger by deducting the check amount from the buyer’s account and adding it to the seller’s account. A miner can earn transaction fees and receives newly created Bitcoins by clearing transactions.

This sounds complicated, but do you remember the old days? Rich people could take a suitcase of cash to a Swiss bank and open an account. They get a numbered account that contains no personal information. Then they can use the account to settle transactions secretly. For example, a rich person pays a Congressman a bribe. Rich person contacts the Swiss bank and asks the bank to transfer the bribe amount from his bank account into the Congressman’s bank account. Rich person gives the banker a code (or private key for Bitcoin) to approve the transfer. Transaction remains secret because no one has revealed his or her identities. Consequently, Bitcoin brought the secrecy of banking to the regular people.

I did not think Bitcoins would succeed because the system has several flaws. First, people who deposit their savings into banks have deposit insurance. If their bank fails, FDIC guarantees the depositors will not lose their money up to $250,000. However, no government agency insures Bitcoin or protects people from losses. Second, hackers broke into online wallets and stole the Bitcoins. Since all transactions are electronic, they erased history. Third, the price of Bitcoin fluctuates greatly between $80 and $220. Refer to the chart below: For people to use and accept money, money must retain its value. Some people view Bitcoins as an investment, hoping to buy at a low price and sell for a high price. Finally, a limited number of sellers accept Bitcoins as payment. This was true until I had discovered the hidden world of the Internet, where Bitcoin has become the means of payments.

I became puzzled when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security shut down Mt Gox, the largest Bitcoin operator in the United States in May 2013. U.S. law requires all money exchangers to register with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Feds even seized its bank accounts. I thought the U.S. government was petty because Mt Gox converted government-backed securities into Bitcoins and Mt Gox did not participate in illegal activities.

I thought Bitcoins had no future until I discovered how criminals can use two methods for Bitcoins. First, criminals can launder money using Bitcoins. For example, they buy Bitcoins in the United States utilizing money from illegal proceeds and spend or convert the Bitcoins in any country circumventing government controls on transferring money abroad. Russian government has banned Bitcoins for this reason. Second, criminals use Bitcoins on the hidden Internet. Feds believe that if they can shut down the money, they would kill the black markets operating in the hidden Internet. Feds have one severe problem. A person can use Bitcoins anywhere in the world. It sounds as if the U.S. government has started another war that it cannot win. (I find this amusing, but the sellers send the products through the mail or package delivery companies. I guess the U.S. government does not have enough agents to check all that mail).

I found this technology incredible as it opened a new world before my eyes. I became amazed after I had read the instructions to setup a hidden website. I could convert my laptop into a website server and use my Internet connection to allow users to connect to my website. (It appears most vendors pay a company to host their websites). Then I could submit my URL to Torch search engine so users could find me unless I did not want to be found. Instead, I could pass my URL by word of mouth if I were doing no good. Of course, I am not doing anything illegal, and I have no need for any of these products or services. So I have no real need for this technology unless the U.S. government starts banning books and restricting free speech of professors. Then I could use this technology.

Samples of websites I found after surfing the hidden Internet within fifteen minutes. I do not condone or recommend using these products and services.

Is Edward Snowden a Traitor?

I became furious listening to John McCain, Arizona Senator and President Obama. They called Edward Snowden a traitor who needs to return to the United States to face justice. During the same speech, they stated the National Security Agency needs more transparency. Isn’t that what Edward Snowden did? He forced the NSA to become transparent by revealing the NSA surveillance programs. Despite our leaders, some claim Edward is a hero or a whistleblower because he revealed the United States and British governments are spying on their citizens.

U.S. government encourages whistle blowers to expose a company’s wrongdoing and crimes. Whistleblowers can sue the companies in courts and win a portion of federal money the company used improperly. President Abraham Lincoln encouraged whistle blowing during the Civil War to crack down on companies violating military contracts. Nevertheless, I thought lying to Congress constituted a crime, perjury, and Edward Snowden revealed the NSA lied to Congress about its activities. Consequently, a whistleblower can rat out a company that violates rules and regulations, but a person becomes a traitor if the person reveals a government’s illegal activities.

A government imposes two sets of laws. First, government imposes its laws, rules, and regulations on society that everyone must follow. Then government fines, penalizes, or imprisons any violators. Second, government follows its own rules, exempting itself from the rules that it forces upon everyone else. Government does not write these rules down, so the leaders can change their laws and rules at will. Unfortunately, a broke government will take shortcuts.

Edward Snowden did not profit or made money from revealing the NSA’s secrets. He was a computer specialist who worked for the NSA and CIA. He became concerned over the U.S. and British governments spying on their citizens. He thought President Obama would shift course, and end President Bush’s wars and reestablish civil rights. Instead, President Obama has expanded the military programs. United States military continues fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 even though it killed Osama bin Laden and the top leaders of al-Qaeda. Subsequently, President Obama wants to intervene in Syria, Iran, and North Korea. U.S. military has stationed troops in the Philippines in 2013 to thwart China’s claim to the South China Sea. China claimed several rocks in the sea belong to China, granting the Chinese navy the right to patrol these rocks and protect its territory. Of course, these rocks stretch from the coast of Japan, along the Philippines’ coastline, and ends at Borneo. If China maintains control of these rocks, then China controls the whole South China Sea. U.S. government wants to thwart China. Being an economist, where in the hell does the United States government find money to finance these military operations across the world. We do not have the money!

Snowden’s father plans to challenge the criminal charges from the U.S. government. I wish him luck, but his dad is wasting his time. The U.S. government would hire a team of prosecutors and experts and spend millions of dollars to win the case at all costs. Even if Snowden’s father convinces a federal judge to dismiss the charges, Edward Snowden would experience the wrath of the U.S. federal government. The U.S. government does not play fairly. IRS would scrutinize his previous tax returns, searching for the tiniest mistakes. The State Department would study his passport application, ensuring Edward Snowden dotted every i and crossed every t. When the federal government wants to incarcerate someone, it will find a reason to do so. For example, the U.S. government accused George Norris of importing endangered orchids into the United States, but he never violated the law. Since the U.S. government would not apologize and spent millions investigating the case, the government agents scrutinized Norris’s import documents until the agents found enough paperwork mistakes to imprison him. Consequently, Edward Snowden has little chance of winning his fight against the U.S. federal government. U.S. federal government does not play fair.

Russia has granted Edward Snowden asylum to live in Russia for a year. U.S. political leaders are furious at Russia, and President Obama said the United States will “recalibrate” its relationship with Russia. Of course, President Obama would not launch the drones at Russia because Russia can fight back. The president saves the drones for countries that cannot fight back like Yemen and Pakistan. Since President Obama cannot punish Russia with the military, he will use international trade as a weapon. Now, two bullies can fight it out on the world’s schoolyard.

Why are people shocked the U.S. government spies on everyone? Many people suspected the U.S. government is spying on its citizens. Edward Snowden just provided the proof. As long as I can remember, the U.S. government was encroaching on liberties. After September 11, 2001, the encroachment accelerated while the federal, state, and county governments threw out the Bill of Rights. After the terroristic attacks on the United States in 2001, the Arizona State Police called anyone a terrorist who recited the Bill of Rights to law enforcement officers. The Bill of Rights, a fundamental document to the U.S. Constitution, restricts a government’s power. Thus, a terrorist recites the law to the police. I thought a terrorist creates chaos and disorder in a society by exploding bombs and murdering innocent people. I knew the federal, state, and local governments stopped enforcing the Bill of Rights long ago.

After September 11, 2001, President Bush and Congress passed laws that broadened the federal government’s powers. For example, the U.S. President can label any person a terrorist. Then the U.S. prosecutors can seize a person’s property and try him or her in a tribunal court with no jury trial, violating the Bill of Rights. Everyone thought President Obama would differ from his predecessors. Then he passed a law making it a felony for people to protest near Secret Service agents, even though President Obama had protested at Harvard University as a young man. That adage that parents tell their children– do as I say and not as I do. Unfortunately, leaders become more concerned about maintaining control than doing the right thing.

The U.S. government rules the world like an empire. Unfortunately, this story has happened already. The ancient Roman Empire dominated the world 2,000 years ago. The Roman Empire experienced four eerily similar trends to the United States. First, the emperors kept usurping power away from the local governments. The Roman government’s bureaucracies continued growing in size and scope. Third, the emperor financed a large army and navy. As a Roman colony or province broke away, the emperor sent its army to squash the rebellion. Finally, the emperors kept raising taxes over time to finance the expensive military and bureaucracies. Eventually, the emperor lost control as the Western Roman Empire collapsed around 500 AD. Many people were happy to see it go.

Is Edward Snowden a traitor or hero? He destroyed his life to leak the NSA’s surveillance program, and the U.S. government will hunt him down for the rest of his life. Only a hero risks his life for doing the right thing.

Something is Wrong with Microsoft

Microsoft has evolved into a monopoly that dominates software for the PC laptops and desktops. It derives its monopoly power from three sources: Operating system, office suite, and a technology standard. An operating system allows the user to use and manipulate the computer using icons and graphics. Microsoft’s estimated market share for operating systems comprised 93% of desktops and laptops in July 2013, dominated by Windows 7 and Windows XP. Computer users can install a free operating system, Linux, but Linux consistently has a 1% market share or less and remains the realm of computer specialists and geeks. Then Microsoft dominates the Office Software market. People use office software to create documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and design layouts. Microsoft’s office software dominated 92% of the market in 2013 even though Apache offers Open Office for free. Finally, Microsoft sets the technology standard. As people create and share their work with others, which computer files do they send? Most people have no trouble using Microsoft’s formats for Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. Would you risk sending your resume to an employer using an Open Office format?

Microsoft has developed into a monopoly. A monopoly does not have any competitors although Microsoft has competitors that offer free software while Microsoft charges hundreds of dollars for its operating system and office software. Monopolies can earn long-run profits. Forbes listed Microsoft’s founder, Bill Gates, as the world’s richest person until the 2008 Financial Crisis. Now, he consistently ranks second. Monopolies become plagued with several problems. First, a monopoly becomes bureaucratic and stops listening to its consumers. Second, monopolies adapt new technology slowly, and they treat their customers poorly. I have heard Microsoft does have good customer service in the United States.

Microsoft grew rapidly, and users loved Windows XP. Then Microsoft introduced Vista in 2006. Operating system hogged resources, was slow with long boot and shut down times. Moreover, Vista would not work on computers with certain hardware while some software crashed frequently; even Microsoft’s Office XP had glitches. I remember my Word or Excel program would crash several times in a row before it would work. Some functions never worked correctly such as the search function. Microsoft stuck many people with this crappy operating system. After I had bought a new laptop with Vista, I tried to return to Windows XP, but I was missing several critical drivers. Computer manufacturers never go backwards in designing drivers.

Microsoft realized its mistake and released Windows 7. However, most people may not realize Windows 7 is a fixed Vista. Vista turned into a catastrophe; Microsoft had to rename its operating system, moving away from the Vista name. Windows 7 used Aero introducing a sharp, refined look to the operating system with translucent windows and bars. Microsoft introduced the gadgets, the eye candy, to the right of the screen. (I noticed several features of Windows 7 resembled Apple’s OS). Finally, the operating system worked properly. Microsoft fixed its mistake. It would be nice if Microsoft let people stuck with Vista to update to Windows 7 for free.

A monopoly becomes out of touch with its customers. Microsoft forgot its mistakes and unleashed Windows 8 upon the world. Operating system moves backwards! Microsoft removed the start menu from the operating system. Users do not think about the start menu until Microsoft has eliminated it. Without a start menu, the desktop feels alien and useless because everything revolves around the start menu. I became lost, trying to navigate around the operating system. Then Windows 8 turned off Aero, so Windows 8 loses its sharp, refined features, such as transparency and gadgets.

Microsoft has forgotten its customers, or who uses their software. Users must toggle to a separate screen to access their programs. This screen resembles an ugly version of Android. Why copy Android? Microsoft wants to enter the tablet market, and Android has evolved into the premier operating system for tablets and smartphones. These devices use simple processors, where people can view pictures, read e-books and documents, watch videos, and play simple games. On the other hand, a person needs a full-fledged operating system to play games with heavy graphics, write and create documents, process image, etc. Simple processors cannot handle the complex tasks that a desktop or laptop provides.

Microsoft became out of touch with its consumers. First, Microsoft should never restrict consumers’ choices. As a user turns on the laptop or desktop for the first time, let the user choose if they want the traditional desktop with the start menu or the new Android-like menu screen. Windows 8 is better suited for tablets than desktops, even though Microsoft forces tablet software onto customers who use desktops and laptops. Second, Microsoft partially caved into the consumers. It released Windows 8.1 that places a start button on the lower left corner of the desktop that leads to the ugly Android-like screen. Microsoft refuses to return the traditional start menu. Third, Microsoft should improve the operating system if it wants people to use it. Fourth, Microsoft should never impose something new on users without testing its products on test groups. Microsoft has launched two duds upon the world: Vista and Windows 8.

People are leery of Microsoft as they avoid Microsoft products whenever they can. Perhaps Microsoft burned too many consumers with Vista and Windows 8. Managers at Microsoft see the declining PC sales while sales for tablets and smartphones show strong growth. Microsoft released the Surface tablet to compete with the Android tablets and Apple Ipads, but consumers are not buying Microsoft’s tablets. Then Microsoft released Windows Phone 8 for smartphones that three manufacturers use. Nokia offers a whole line of Lumia smartphones. Huawei sells one model while Samsung offers two models. Nevertheless, Microsoft’s sales remain weak. Investors have caught on, and Microsoft’s stock plunged 10% during one trading day in July 2013.

Microsoft embodies a monopoly that became out of touch with its markets and its consumers. Company has failed to introduce new products, and it pushes an operating system that people do not want. In my case, Vista forced me to look at the competitors. Since 2009, I always install a version of Linux on my system next to Windows. I tried Windows 8, but I will return to Windows 7 and wait for Windows 9.

Internet Accounts Hacked in Bangkok

This blog serves as a warning to any computer users, who use a public internet connection at coffee shops, restaurants, hotels, and libraries. Hackers can use clever methods to gain access to internet accounts. When I visited Bangkok, someone hacked into most of my accounts, except Skype and my bank accounts. The hacker gained access to my accounts for Hotmail, Yahoo, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Orbitz, Kohls, etc.

Hacking into internet accounts is extremely difficult, especially if users use strong passwords, such as "Conway@579#." The password is a mixture of numbers, upper and lower case letters, and symbols. Hackers are not likely to deduce the password correctly because it has too many variations. Thus, they steal passwords by relying on phishing and keyloggers. Phishing is a hacker tricks a user by directing the user to a fake webpage that looks genuine. The user enters his personal information, thinking he/she is at the correct website and sends the information to the hacker. The fake website then logs into the correct website , so the user suspects nothing is wrong. A keylogger is a hacker tricks the user into installing a program that records keystrokes from the keyboard. Then the program sends the keystrokes to the hacker. Of course, a relative, spouse, or friend could install a keylogger on the user's computer, joking around, stealing information, or creating mischief.

While in Bangkok, I inadvertently discovered another method hackers can use to gain control over internet accounts. Someone hacked into the hotel's computer network. The first day in the hotel, I checked my Hotmail, Facebook, Yahoo, and my private email accounts using the hotel's wi-fi and my personal laptop. When I returned later in the afternoon, someone changed the passwords to Hotmail, Facebook, and Yahoo. My private email accounts were fine because these accounts require an administrator password, and I never logged on as administrator. Thus, the hacker could not change this password, or at least, I thought he could not.

I recovered all my accounts immediately, using the hotel's wi-fi. Later towards evening, I checked some of my accounts again, and the hacker changed my passwords again. Consequently, I thought someone hacked into the wi-fi network, circumventing the signal's security. Usually people use WPA or WPA2 to encrypt their internet communications as their computers send information through the air. However, encryption fails if someone has hacked into the network.

I made a severe mistake. I should have left the hotel and gone to a computer club to recover my accounts. Instead, I used the public computers in the hotel's lounge that connected to the internet through a line connection. Thus, I recovered my accounts with no problems. I thought I was safe because I did not transmit anything through the air via wi-fi. Nevertheless, the hacker had access to the hotel's network including the computer I used in the lounge.

The next morning, I logged onto several email accounts, using the hotel's public computer, checking my emails. Everything was fine. Then an hour later, I started losing all my internet accounts, including my important account for managing my website. Although I never logged onto my personal website using my administrator password, the hacker found information in my Yahoo email account. The hacker changed the password to my personal website by doing a password reset – the user requests a new password by sending a confirmation email to Yahoo (that he controls, of course). Similarly, the hacker changed all my accounts for Kohl's, Orbitz, Netflix, Amazon, etc. by using the password reset.

I approached the hotel staff and complained to them. I explained someone has hacked into the hotel computer network, and he had changed my passwords. They thought I was crazy. Then I showed them my laptop, and I logged onto Facebook, where it showed someone changed my password by using my laptop or by accessing through the hotel's network. The staff refused to believe me as if I were wasting the staff's time with incredible stories.

After walking around, seeing the sights, I went to a computer club and created a new email account, using Hushmail. First, I recovered my Hotmail account and sent the reset link to Hushmail. Hotmail allows users to recover their email accounts by answering personal questions and sending a confirmation to a new email account. Some questions were subject lines of emails, folder names, and email contacts. Second, I reclaimed Facebook and Yahoo because I already linked those accounts to Hotmail. After recovering Yahoo, I reset all my passwords to my other accounts including the important account for managing my website.

What did the hacker gained by doing this? He did not delete anything or did not attempt to steal money from my bank accounts, but I did cancel my old debit cards and applied for new ones before I left the United State. I never updated the debit card information on most of the internet accounts. Luckily, I did not log onto my bank's website; otherwise, the hacker would have information to these accounts. Consequently, I am careful about checking internet accounts. I use the ATM for account balance inquiries and check one email account using a public wi-fi.

Unfortunately, I was an email hoarder and retained all my vital emails. The hacker read my emails and knew which websites to visit to reset and change my passwords. I still have a potential problem. If the hacker can remember enough account details, then he can recover accounts. After two weeks, all my internet accounts were fine, but I deleted emails that contained too much information to other internet accounts. I also used a different password for every internet account.

After some research, I deduced the method the hacker used. He used a program that identified my computer on the hotel network, and then he rerouted all communications between my computer and the network through his computer. I did notice the internet slowed down as he rerouted communications. Then the hacker saw all the websites I visited. He accessed the websites as if he were me, and he circumvented the encryption. Encryption only works when we send information onto the internet, sending pieces of information over time that travels through thousands of different channels randomly. An eavesdropper only would capture a nugget of encrypted information while the hacker has access to all information. Then he has access to your account and change the password. I was shocked by this method's ease because the programs are available freely in Linux, the choice for computer hackers. Thus, all you users out there, beware!

The University of Phoenix’s Crazy Hiring Practices

The University of Phoenix (UoP) revamped its hiring procedures for part-time faculty for 2011, making it much longer while it expropriates an applicant’s free time. I documented the UoP hiring stages to show the idiocy that infects universities and colleges. The current hiring stages apply to ground courses (actual classroom) and online learning courses.

Stage 1: I submitted a resume to a recruiter. They were interested in me, and a recruiter scheduled a telephone interview.

Stage 2: The telephone interview was simple and straight forward, and I passed with flying colors. Then the recruiter sent several documents via email for a written interview. I filled these forms and returned to the recruiter. The questions asked hypothetical situations such as rising tension and conflicts between workers and colleagues, managing difficult students, and the methods I used to resolve these conflicts.

Stage 3: The UoP was still interested in me, and the recruiter requested an official transcript to be mailed to their corporate headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona from my alma mater.

Stage 4: Now, the UoP wanted a campus interview that spanned four hours. I prepared a 15-minute presentation that UoP staff evaluated. After I had passed the interview, UoP pulled my credit report from TransUnion. You must be kidding? I guess a professor with bad credit translates into a terrible teacher. I could argue a worker with bad credit may need the job more than someone with good credit does.

Stage 5: If the interview process stopped here, then UoP would be reasonable. However, I have just started. Now, UoP required me to attend a four-week Faculty Certification course that meets four hours on Saturday morning. The UoP did not pay me to attend his course. The two facilitators, UoP speak for a professor or teacher, taught the class well at the Little Rock campus. I completed reading and writing assignments every week and passed the exam before the last class. The exam had 12 multiple-choice questions and 18 short essay questions.

Stage 6: After I had passed the certification, the recruiter requested the standard documents - bank deposit form, W4, and proof of your right to work in the United States. The UoP also does a criminal background search. I guess an applicant’s credit report was not good enough.

Stage 7: I did not make it to this stage because this stage was not clear to me. At this stage, UoP assigns the courses to the facilitator, but he or she is not a faculty member. The facilitator has a mentor who reviews your syllabus, assignments, lectures, etc. The facilitator must meet with the mentor before the course begins. A mentor is not bad because he or she advises and guides the facilitator, but this last point was fuzzy. As I understood, if the facilitator taught the class poorly and UoP did not want to hire the facilitator, then UoP does not pay the facilitator for teaching this course. Unfortunately, the undergraduate courses are five weeks long, and the facilitator must devote a time segment daily to this UoP online learning system, where the facilitator inputs all assignments, grades, questions, and feedback.

Once an applicant passes all seven stages, then they become a PHOENIX! However, faculty members must participate in annual development seminars without pay. I have never seen an employer expropriate an employee’s free time, just to have the privilege at teaching part time for UoP. The Little Rock campus director commented they needed PhDs, especially for the business school. I have a PhD in agricultural economics, and I stopped at Step 6. I thought I could teach two courses before I left the United States to teach in Malaysia. Ironically, I would earn far more in Malaysia than at UoP teaching full time. My credentials impressed the university in Malaysia that they skipped the interview and sent me an appointment letter and contract immediately.

Just to traverse from Steps 1 to 5 required three months and possibly another three weeks for Step 6. I would expect UoP to have faculty recruitment problems for PhDs for a while, unless UoP revamps it recruitment practices. I know colleagues who want to teach part time, but no way in hell he or she would dedicate large blocks of time for a part time job.

The sad news is I worked for UoP between 2003 and 2006 at the Houston Campus, and UoP did not exempt me from this long, drawn out hiring process. If a facilitator switches teaching from one campus to another, or transfers from a ground course to its online degree program, then he or she must start at Step 5 with the Faculty Certification, which seems terribly inefficient. Why does UoP require its faculty to repeat the same course continuously because they had changed campus or learning environment?

I believe this long drawn out process indoctrinates the applicants into UoP’s clique, and an excited applicant has completed another stage. Then they become part of the team, where UoP can pay low wages to its part-time teaching faculty, even though the founder, John Sperling, is a billionaire. Furthermore, UoP terminates all difficult, complaining applicants, ensuring they do not complete a stage. UoP cannot have independent-thinking faculty that questions the administration.

Some applicants should complete the UoP training. The rumor is the other for-profit schools do not have this long, time intensive certification program, and they hire UoP faculty who passed this certification. Thus, the certified UoP facilitators are valuable to UoP’s competitors, and the competitors pay better.

Finally, I read an interesting fact about UoP. It reported a 42% enrollment drop for 2011. Which organization would hire workers if they lost 42% of their customers? Furthermore, if the U.S. economy continues to stagnate and college students cannot find jobs, then the student loan program will take a huge financial hit. UoP relies heavily on student loans with student debts often exceeding $40K per student. UoP charges the students high tuition, pays faculty low wages, and has the lowest graduation rates of all universities. It sounds as if UoP is sinking faster than the Titanic. Once the U.S. government revamps the student loan program, then say farewell to the University of Phoenix.

Is the United States Experiencing Institutional Failure?

I returned to the United States in June 2011. Although I earned a PhD, published research, and taught in a variety of universities across the world, I would accept any position in the United States. I will admit old age has caught up with me, and I am getting too old to be lugging heavy suitcases from university to university, from airport to airport, from country to country. Subsequently, I returned to the United States, willing to accept any job, even a position at the bottom rung of the social ladder. Then I noticed and discovered observations about the U.S. economy that have far-reaching consequences. The United States is suffering from institutional failure. Unfortunately, the institutions in the United States have failed us, giving us the eternal gift of a stagnating economy and weak job growth.

I returned to Conway, Arkansas in 2011. Conway is a small, prosperous community approximately 40 miles north of Little Rock. During the summer of 2011, employers advertised roughly 300 to 500 jobs within 25 miles of Conway. However, no one is hiring. Why is this? I thought deeply about this conundrum, and realized the United States has six problems.

Problem 1: Hiring new employees scare employers. Unfortunately, if an employer terminates a new employee, the employee could collect workman’s compensation or unemployment insurance, or even file a lawsuit against a company. During good economic times, another employer may inadvertently hire the bad employee. Thus, the bad employee never files for unemployment or workman's compensation or hires an attorney. After the 2007 Great Recession struck the U.S. job market, a bad employee could be unemployed for a long time. Consequently, the terminated employee has an incentive to retaliate against a former employer. Finally, the President Obama's Health Care plan looms on the horizon. Many companies do not know how their costs will change once the law comes into force. Hence, the employers refuse to hire anyone.

Problem 2: Employers have extraordinarily complex procedures to hire new employees. When I entered the workforce in the late 1980s, everything was much simpler than today. Several times, employers hired me immediately after a successful interview, and I started the next day. Employers rarely check criminal records (difficult to check court records outside the employer’s county before 2000) and drug testing did not exist before the 1990s. Our modern life has become complicated, and consequently, an employer needs months to hire a job applicant. Most employers perform background checks like criminal records, driving records, drug testing, skill-level testing, and my personal favorite, the 80-question personality assessment test. An online university in 2011 viewed my credit record from Transunion after the first interview. I guess if I have a poor credit history would imply I am a terrible teacher. Of course, poor credit implies I need a job because I cannot pay all my bills. I can understand possessing poor credit would pose a problem for handling cash or working at a bank, but to teach? (By the way, I do have good credit, at least at this moment). Thus, these complicated procedures make employers leery to hire new workers. Employers do not want to take a chance on someone. Consequently, institutional failure causes jobs to be available, but employers do not hire.

Problem 3: During my quest for a job search, I noticed employers do not train workers anymore. An employer wants the job applicant's experience and education to match the new job perfectly; otherwise, the job applicant would have no luck. I first saw this when I applied for a data entry position for a truck parts company in 2011. I did data entry for a music company in the late 1990s. However, the interviewer stated these skills are not transferable. The trucking company has a fast-paced environment, and they do not have the time to train me. I noticed this particular job remained vacant for quite a while. I guess this employer could not find the perfect applicant. This example illustrates a key point. If employers do not train new employees, social mobility freezes. How can an employee move up an organization? Instead, employers would poach talent from their competitors. Thus, the employer boosts salaries and benefits to hire employees from its competitors. Unfortunately, as the companies eliminate training, a crisis strikes the employers once skilled workers retire. The retired workers do not pass their training and knowledge to the next generation. Consequently, institutional failure freezes social mobility, and knowledge and skills become lost. Then for the select few with the right skills, their salaries and compensation would continue to soar.

Problem 4: I noticed employers are extremely fussy. As applicants form long queues for every job, the employers shift through all applicant's personal information. If they find one speck of dirt on an applicant's record, they reject the applicant immediately. For example, after an interview with a temp agency in Little Rock, the recruiter stated if anything comes up during a criminal history search, an employer stops looking at the applicant. Unfortunately, this problem has three implications. First, everyone assumes the criminal record is accurate. Thus, the private company correctly entered the information into their database and matched the record to the correct person. Second, many countries around the world do not have large computer databases filled with criminal records. Thus, immigrants to the United States would not worry about past transgressions because employers would never discover an immigrant's criminal history if it happened outside the United States. Finally, our society has tossed out the Christian notion of forgiveness. A criminal history becomes a lifelong shackle that a person can never remove because a criminal record exists forever. Our society will throw good people away, even for minor crimes such as trespassing and curfew violations. Consequently, nearly 65 million Americans possess a criminal record. Even though, these Americans were employed before the 2007 Great Recession, they become unemployable after their employers lay them off. What will these people do to earn a living? They could return to criminal behavior, and become part of the underground economy. Consequently, institutional failure leads to a growing, thriving shadow economy.

Problem 5: After the 2007 Great Recession, employers believe unemployed people have something wrong with them. The longer a person remains unemployed; the employer is less likely to hire him or her. Unfortunately, employers lay off millions of good, hard-working people. Nevertheless, employers resent unemployed people. The employers believe the skills of the chronic unemployed degrade rapidly, and the employers do not want to train them. Consequently, institutional failure leads to a rising class of chronic unemployed as millions of people become unemployable.

Here, I am still unemployed, but somehow I hold onto a glimmer of hope. Then the words from conservative talk show hosts echoed through my mind. If you cannot find a job, then you can create your own job. I live in the freest country in the world whose greatness was constructed on a foundation of capitalism. I remembered the stories how Michael Dell started his company in his dormitory room at the University of Texas. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak built the first Apple computer in their parent's garage in California. Then the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, started Microsoft in a rundown hotel in New Mexico after dropping out of Harvard University. Then reality sets in, and I remember this happened over thirty years ago, in a different legal climate. Has our legal climate changed? Does institutional failure penalize the entrepreneurs?

Now I hear stories of self-employed people clashing with different institutions in our society. For example, my sister started a thriving daycare business in her home in Indiana in the late 1990s. After she had complied with the state's numerous regulations, the homeowner's association closed her business down. The association claimed ten additional cars traveling through her neighborhood twice a day, created a nuisance for the neighbors, reducing home values. I experienced another instance while living in Texas. I wanted to pay a mechanic to teach me to change a timing belt on a Honda. Once the Code Enforcement of the City of Bryan discovered the mechanic fixing cars at his home, the inspector threatened to fine him $500 per day if he repaired any more cars. (Although Texas does not have a state income tax, it collects taxes and fines aggressively). Then I read stories how kids who started a lemonade stand found trouble with the city government. The kids need a business license while the state government wants to know and approve all the ingredients in lemonade, which is water, lemon juice, and sugar – the last time I checked. Of course, the same officials become silent when the food industry develops genetically modified animals and plants and dumps preservatives and chemicals into our foods.

Problem 6: I am good with computers, and I thought about starting a computer repair business in my home. However, I know I will clash with some government agency because local governments dislike home-based businesses. Furthermore, I must comply with numerous rules and regulations. One simple, honest mistake can land an inspector at my door as the state demands compensation for my transgression. Then I realize starting my own business may not be a good idea. Consequently, institutional failure hinders the creation of new businesses, although small and medium size businesses drove the economy during the 1980s and 1990s.

My options are severely limited in the United States. What else can I do? I do not want to return to school. I already earned a PhD. Do I need two or more PhDs to become employable in the United States? I do not want public assistance. Although I would enjoy the free time to write blogs and draw pictures, I want to be a productive member of society. The only option remaining was to leave the United States. I had to go where the jobs are, and the jobs are in Asia. I can only dream someday I can return to my homeland, the United States, and settle down in a good community with a good future. Nevertheless, I know Americans must reform their institutions before the American job machine turns on and begins cranking out jobs again. Therefore, I can only wait until this day happens.