Monday, April 15, 2019

Begging all the Online News Media Outlets that don't Accept or Allow Reader Comments, PLEASE don't use Rhetorical Questions in your Headlines.

I Can't believe this is a thing. Online New sites allow their authors to use rhetorical questions in their headlines, yet the readers of the article have no way to leave a comment.

This is really a big deal. It's a freaky form of mind control where one is invited to a buffet where there are no utensils or plates.

If you are planning on creating or broadcasting a commercial and want an objective, outsiders point of view about your commercial, contact Alessandro Machi about his consulting services at...
info at alexlogic.com
You can also view more
commercial critiques
by Alessandro Machi at

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Republicans biggest Objection to the Affordable HealthCare ACT is this...

There is ONE core issue that will ALWAYS be present no matter which Political party comes up with an Affordable National Healthcare Insurance Plan; Does the plan offer a "Catastrophic Coverage Only" option? 
Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage allows an Enrollee to get a very high Hospital deductible of around 5,000 dollars and in exchange get a significantly lower monthly Health Insurance Premium. 

If a person buys Catastrophic HealthCare Coverage they can "break even" within 2 to 3 years. Break even means if a Catastrophic Healthcare Policy Holder has just one Medical incident that requires Hospitalization and a 5,000 dollar deductible payment, the policy holder STILL starts saving a lot money on monthly premium costs after 2 and 1/2 years from the time they started buying the heavily discounted Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage, versus purchasing more standardized Healthcare Insurance that covers Doctor's visits, Lab procedures, prescriptions, and ER visits.

So what's the problem?

Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage means Hospitalization only coverage, so the Enrollee is not seen regularly by a Doctor nor do they get blood tests. Opponents claim Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage Policy Holders are being selfish because by not being regularly seen by a Doctor or having any tests done, the CHC Policy Holder simply waits until a minor problem becomes big enough to require Hospitalization, and by then the Hospital Deductible has been saved and then some through lower monthly CHC premiums. So the opponents of CHC claim that CHC Enrollees are relying on others who pay for full coverage to cover their Hospital Medical Costs that may have been caused by waiting too long to be seen by a Medical Professional.

The anti CHC argues that people who are healthier still need to pay their fair share now so they too can enjoy great coverage as they get older. The anti CHC followers believe that if the Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage enrollee had seen a doctor regularly, they might have avoided the much bigger Hospitalization expense that came as a result of not being seen regularly by a Doctor.

That in a nutshell is the perpetual Democrat vs Republican argument in regard to Healthcare. Democrats don't want Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage options, Republicans do. Both sides go round and round making the other side look bad.

Of course Republicans and probably a majority of Americans do not like the idea of paying a penalty if they have no Medical Insurance, and Democrats do not want to see relatively healthy people game the HealthCare Insurance system by purchasing Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage only Health Insurance policies because it creates a smaller overall pool of money for the entire Healthcare Insurance System.

Catastrophic Healthcare Coverage is the single most compelling issue in regards to the entire Affordable Healthcare Act issue. Be aware that both sides feel they are right and compromise does not seem likely or possible.

Perhaps the outside the box solution is to be a more self reliant nation that does not need to be so heavily involved in the World's affairs, this would reduce military budgeting and possibly allow the U.S. to start reducing their budget deficit. This might allow the Government to actually be a behind the scenes supporter of National Healthcare because they could afford it. 

However, this would probably require strict Immigration policies so that the U.S. was not over subsidizing healthcare for an unsustainable number of people. Maybe there is a compromise to be had, lower military spending and build a border wall so that Healthcare pricing can be maintained at a more affordable price in the U.S.

As for Mexico paying for the Border Wall, isn't it possible that Mexican Drug Cartel is purposely scaring people into fleeing Mexico as a way to appease the Mexican Government by reducing Healthcare Costs in Mexico?

The Mexican Drug Cartel is so damn rich they could be subsidizing healthcare in Mexico and be loved by the Mexican People, or, they could murder Mexican citizens, causing them to flee in panic to the U.S. and saving the Mexican Government untold billions in Healthcare related costs, and keeping all of their money for themselves. Seems like Mexico and the Mexican Drug Cartel win, Mexican Migrators and the U.S., lose.


If you are planning on creating or broadcasting a commercial and want an objective, outsiders point of view about your commercial, contact Alessandro Machi about his consulting services at...
info at alexlogic.com
You can also view more
commercial critiques
by Alessandro Machi at

Add Any