My previous four posts were picked up by Global Voices Online. That's always an honor.
Now the following solutions for what I deem are security issues in Puerto Rico:
Double police salaries while significantly raising the standards: If you have a high school diploma, don't have a criminal record and aren't reasonably in danger of dying within the next five years, you can be a Puerto Rico police officer, with your own gun and everything. And you start at $1,400 a month.
What a joke. Just as the political system weeds out capable people to favor sub-normal and sub-evolved cretins (I know, I'm being redundant, but the Fools don't understand what I say), the police force attracts largely marginal candidates for any job, much less ones to engage in the primary function of government: defense of its citizens.
Many in Our police force work two or even three jobs to make ends meet, which is an obvious scenario for stress, dysfunctional relationships and corruption, not to mention thuggery. No police force in the world is immune to bad apples, but when you start with inferior material (Yes, I said "inferior") you can only hope you wind up with a worthy crop.
We're past the stage where hope has any right to guide Our actions here. Beginning immediately, the police force has to seriously raise its standards to beyond "You wan' fries with that?" candidacy. It has to police (pun definitely intended) its own so that the rotten ones are expelled as quickly as possible. And while that happens--only as it happens--do current officers start receiving the higher pay they deserve.
And don't give Me that "There's no money" crap: There's plenty of money for this even without implementing My other solutions. Proof: The Fools added more employees in four years than there are police officers in Puerto Rico, many of them at salaries that triple what cops make.
There's money. And then there's money.
Implement preventive care in the health care system: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The current health reform--a sick oxymoron at Our expense--is absolutely lousy at health care, but it's light-years better than it is at preventive care. The reason: The system was designed by venal doctors, starting from the top with an ex-doctor who aped rather than shaped.
The specious argument against preventive care is that it's up to the patient to follow-through and that you can't coerce a person to engage in the required activities.
Just shut up.
What is government if not a system to coerce certain behaviors from its citizens, ostensibly for the good of that person and society? Is it better for a government to coerce behaviors after the person is sick and weak or when the person is healthy? Is it better to coerce those behaviors to help the person stay healthy or is it better to coerce them to possibly restore health, if time doesn't run out? Which is more cost-effective, regular check-ups to avoid problems or expensive drugs and surgery to fight for an unsteady status quo?
An ounce versus a pound. People--doctors, hospital owners, insurance company shareholders, Fools-- love the pound...that comes from Our flesh. We'd rather pay the ounce. Here's how: We extend the health system to a schedule of routine yearly or semi-annual check-ups. No one is required to keep the schedule, but if they do, they get progressively smaller deductibles when they need health services. This alleviates two problems:
1) Those with marginal incomes often put off health care due to cost. Here they can get basic care at no cost.
2) By getting that care and developing a medical history, many health problems can be ameliorated or caught early enough to be easily treated. And by "easily" I mean "at lower cost."
An ounce versus a pound. Seems applicable to both solutions, when you come to think about it.
The Jenius Has Spoken.