If you have your health, you have everything!

Leadership Center 
Health Care Reform
Cyber School teaching
 Service Learning travel



“If you have your health, you have everything!” This is a common saying that I have heard in our senior community in the US. The Senate health care reform bill will take 1/7 of our economy, and seniors will be the largest beneficiaries. I believe that the expansion of Medicaid will solve the Medicare bankruptcy problem. Ben Nelson is seen as a pro-life senator that was the remaining hold-out on health care reform. I believe that the golden thread and common ground of health care reform was not anyone’s stance on abortion or even the deficit. I believe that the underlying pressure that is forging this bill is a political problem of how to honor the senior community. The public option failed because it did not serve seniors. The Senate bill succeeded because it met the needs of seniors. I couldn’t help noticing Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Chris Dodd, Richard Durbin, and Charles Schumer’s hair color and outward appearance as they announced their victory after the Senate vote. They were all noticeably elder statesman. The ultimate winner of the 2009 Health Care reform bill could be the US Senior community.

Last year I had the privilege of traveling to China. When I was there, I was able to capture an outsider’s perspective of attitudes toward the senior community in China. We passed by some seniors that were dancing in the park. I pointed at them and asked my driving companion who those people were. She said that they were retired. “They have nothing to do with their time.” Her off-chance comment resonated in my mind, and I have not been able to forget it. I wonder if what is happening in China today could be a premonition of something that we must avoid. From an outsider’s perspective, the tradition of honoring elders is commonly assigned to the Chinese people. In my opinion, the Chinese government honors this tradition, but does not tap the resource of this elder population.

Our senior community is also desirous of a life style of indolence. I would ask that they be careful what they ask for on this Christmas Eve of 2009. They may get it. What we desire is not always what will best serve us. I have just celebrated my 54th birthday. I am knocking at the door at becoming a senior myself. I believe that the senior community and the gang of five with the legacy of Ted Kennedy mentioned above should be empowered and not retired. They are an important asset that we must find a way to utilize. Ultimately, seniors will not be happy if they are not useful. If health care reform paves the way for an indolent life style, our desire for care will be confounded by irrelevance. My Christmas wish for 2009 is that 1/7 of our economic output be used to keep seniors in the mix of solving our problems and contributing to solutions to move our country forward as we compete on the world stage.

Many of the problems we face as a society are common to our shared desires for safety, comfort, and efficiency. A merging of cultures and values will create a greater need for collaborative skills to find solutions to new problems. Unfortunately, many of these problems will be irregular problems in the years ahead. The smartest, sharpest, and fastest individuals can solve some of these difficult problems by trying new alternatives. Many of these problems have been endured by our senior community over their lifetime. The senior community can provide a safety valve of life skill moderation for the younger population who will be forced to try new alternatives to solve problems.

I found it ironic to this post that the Senate provided a moderating influence over the House of Representatives health care reform bill. Senators are typically older than members of the House of Representatives. They hold a place of honor and usefulness in our government process. They should not be retired to “dance in the park.” They should be forced to interact and collaborate with the younger generation to forge compromises filled with the moderation of brilliant ideas. Jefferson would have said the values to preserve would be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would say that these values are currently in a state of reconfiguration to reflect the values of the world stage. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights would say these values are life, liberty, and security of person. I believe that the shift from the pursuit of happiness to a security of person will be facilitated by embracing the assets of our senior community. In this way, our senior assets are moving our country forward as much as the younger generation as we compete and cooperate with the world community.

Winners and losers of in the senate compromise for Health Care Reform

Losers

Employees with rich benefit programs, will receive a 40 percent tax on any plan exceeding $8,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family.

Employers: There is a $750 penalty per worker on employers of 50 or more who are not covered by the federally approved package of health benefits.

U.S. pharmaceutical companies, which have set up overseas subsidiaries in developing markets (like India), will have to pay tax on their earnings earned abroad.

Alternative medicine, could be expanded to provide comfort for symptoms and choice for treatment when traditional medicine fails to give relief.

Health care facilities, will be forced to provide more services for less money.


Winners

Trial Attorneys, could be taxed when they make huge profits while the cost of health care continues to escalate from defensive medical practices.

Insurance companies, insurance companies also be taxed for out sourcing their employees? When insurance companies are making profits they should share in the cost.

Working families at 150 % the poverty level without insurance: The most important number in 2011 could be Medicaid’s expansion to include wage earning families making $33,000 a year and individuals making $29,327 per year.

Health care practitioners, helped to write the compromise. When health care practitioners are making bonuses they should share in the cost.

The weakest link of health care reform

The weakest link

The medical professionals are paying for Nelson-Reid health reform compromise currently being debated in the Senate. They will receive a 21% pay cut starting in 2010.

What kind of cuts are insurance companies taking?
What kind of profits will Pharmaceutical companies continue to make?
What kind of fee will lawyers benefit from defensive medical practices?

Unfortunately, the truth is the medical professionals are the weakest link. They have less political clout because they are less in numbers. The truth is that most doctors would not mind taking a 25 % cut if insurance companies, Pharmaceutical companies and trial attorneys also took the same cut. True health care reform can not happen without cost containment.

Cost containment can happen in two ways. The groups profiting from health care delivery can take a cut. This is the crux of the Nelson-Reid health care compromise. Unfortunately only the weakest link is taking a cut? Another way to contain costs is to introduce competitive forces. Patients should question the cost of health care treatment and be motivated to seek out more efficient choices. New alternate medical practices that promote comfort as much as cure should be allowed to compete on the open market with traditional forms of health care. Patients and medical professionals should be motivated to deliver and receive health care in the most efficient manner possible.

The balance of health care costs and health care delivery

Now that the Senate looks like it has given up on its single payer sweeping health care bill it is time to consider incremental health care reform. The principal of reciprocity is a critical to linking health care delivery with cost control. I believe that twitter followers understand this argument and can help our legislators make sense of it.

When you look at health care reform you should take “deep throat’s” advice from the movie,
'All the President’s Men", “follow the money”. The vast majority of the money spent on health care is coming from expensive medicines. If prescription drug companies are willing to lower their prices to other countries to enlarge their market share, then drugs should be re-imported to pass these savings on to United States patients. This measure will introduce the kind of competition into the market place that will control costs.

Pre-existing conditions are not spread across the population. They need to be. The concept of insurance is to spread risk out across a healthy population. Health care delivery should be portable and available to those of us with catastrophic illness. Crossing the boarder of New Jersey when I live in South Eastern Pennsylvania should not require a health care visa. This practice is awkward and makes health care more costly. The health care payer (insurance) and provider should establish a practice that works in the interest of the patient.

Health care must be opened up to less costly alternative medicine practices. This medicine and therapy may not cure a patient, but it can give them hope and comfort. The growth of disease and illness is outpacing our current research and development of it. If we can not keep up with the development of disease, then we can at least make it more comfortable for the patient in the last days of life. In this day and age of a growing hospice movement health care is becoming as much about comfort as it is about cure. Therapy caps can be eliminated in the current health reform measure if alternative medicine is able to compete in the open market. These reciprocal measures represent some of the incremental change to bring cost into balance with treatment protocol.

Twitter’s 3 Rs of # Health Care

Responsibility


Doctors and patients should be given the responsibility to make health care decisions. Patients should think about how much the care costs. Doctors should consider the value in the medicine or procedure. Between the two of them they should make a decision that will be the best solution keeping in mind the cost, the benefit and the quality of life.



Reciprocity


Pharmaceutical companies are benefiting from the advertisement of drugs. Advertising could be banned. You will not see many commercials in Canada where health care is nationalized. Pharmaceutical drugs that alleviate symptoms of medical conditions could be taxed if we do not ban them.

Defensive medicine must stop. Lawyers are benefiting from out of court settlements from malpractice suits. Legal advertising could be banned. You will not see lawyers advertising in Canada where health care is nationalized. Lawyers who choose to pursue practices of medical malpractice could take a separate set of bar exams to qualify. They could also pay a surtax to offset the increased cost of medical procedures because of the award.


Rationing


Technology must be capped at what we can afford. One recommendation would be to create a delay of adopting new health care drugs and procedures. Affordable alternative medicine procedures and medicines could be expanded to help people be more comfortable in tolerating symptoms.


The three Twitter Rs will distribute the cost of health care across the people who are most likely to benefit.

Senator joe lieberman twitter buzz

Senator joe lieberman: In the latest twitter buzz on Lieberman from his Yale roommate there is no mention that his independent stance on health care reform could also be used to stop the advertising of Pharma that drives up health care cost.

This is the kind of independent minded twitter buzz that I subscribe to. Perhaps Senator Lieberman's unsightly new lobbyist growth is a result of the latest hair or sex growth advertising that is driving up our health costs.

If we are to contain health care costs then we will need to curb advertising that is driving demand for unnecessary drugs.

http://pov9.blogspot.com/2009/11/twitter-and-health-care-of-concrete.html

Twitter and the health care of concrete

If Mr. Obama attempts to spend us out of this current recession he should consider the past attempts of the other presidents who have attempted this. Franklin Delano’s attempt was successful. It differed from our Presidents attempt in a very important way. FDR spent his way out of the depression by creating public works projects that moved our country forward by increasing speed of movement, providing more power, and making us healthier. Bridges, Roads, Power Plants, and Dams all have one thing in common. They are made of concrete. The concrete construction of the WPA, TVA and CCC camps had a lasting impact on moving us forward economically. They also were projects that had a set start and finish date. Chris Matthews likes to quote Pat Monahan who said the nice thing about concrete is that it cracks and needs to be built again. I do agree that these types of improvements are not perfect, but the progress has outweighed its cost in the long run.

If the Obama Administration gets its way, then a bureaucracy will be set up that will never end and will never crack. Bureaucrats excel at perpetuating their own existence. In my experience with organizations like the social security system this seems to be their top priority. The health care proposal in its current form could create a system that will sap the life out of the economic engine of growth. In addition if we move the decisions of health care to more uninvolved parties, then bad decisions and even abuse will likely follow.

I am not against health care reform. I applaud the president’s efforts. He has mobilized many people into the political process who at one time did not even vote. It is my desire to take twitter independent activists and unite them into a voice that our president will hear. I do not believe that we can separate treatment protocol in health care from the doctor patient relationship. I do not feel that the public option matters much as long as a bureaucracy of patronage is not created. I believe we must tie the cost of health care to the parties who are profiting from its expansion. This law of reciprocity will create a concrete health care structure. When this structure cracks it can be repaired by the people who are closest to the person in need of treatment.

Twitter activists must unite and independently fight for change that benefits everyone.

Both political parties must shoulder the cost to solve this problem. Republicans must realize that the advertising by pharmaceutical companies must be regulated or banned to limit the insatiable appetite for drugs. This appetite by consumers is driving up the cost of health care. Every time I hear “Ask your doctor” I grab my wallet and wonder how long health care will be affordable. The abuse of pharmaceutical drugs has climbed to an all time high. A coworker of mine was joking with me last week when she invited me to a skittles party. This is a party where everyone comes with their left over pharmaceutical medicine and dumps them into a bowl. The party starts when the guests start popping pills indiscriminately and giggle the night away. Pharmaceutical drugs are rapidly approaching their liability weighing more than their benefit.

Democrats must realize that defensive medicine practices are driving costs up, and causing doctors to leave the profession. Law suits must be capped to reasonable levels where patients assume some risk for agreeing to treatment. I know that the actual law suits are not driving costs up, but many people refuse to look at the horror most health care professional fear of being sued. I realize we must choose to trust a doctor if this is going to work. If we do not trust the doctors then they should be ethically tested and not allowed to practice medicine if they fail. Insurance companies also must be required to spread out risks across the entire population. The insurance companies, Health Maintenance organizations or Medicare should not be calling the shots for treatment protocol. To make decisions one step removed from the process does not usually result in good judgment. It is now time for Twitter users to exercise their own judgment and fight for real change in health care that makes sense.

Twitter health care reform

Health care should be about people getting the health care they need. Unfortunately, it is also about politics. Today’s debate in the Senate is very important. Individual preferences of a few may be re-shifting the political spectrum of our country.

When I say political spectrum I know that I lost most of you, but bear with me. Our American political spectrum is better looked at then read about. It is best described in the geometric figure of a diamond. The radicals establish a point on the far left side of the median line across the center of the diamond. The reactionaries establish a point symmetrical to the radicals on the opposite side of the line. The republicans fall to the left of the reactionary point and the democrats fall to the right of the radical point. The difference between republicans and democrats could be the emphasis of equality over liberty. However, many people overlook that there are at least two more points on the diamond that cause many people to differ. The other two points represent order and anarchy. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to find any two people exactly in the same place of these four quadrants. US party politics allows for more individual differences than most other parliamentary forms of government. So the debate today over health care is likely to come down to individual preferences of a few Senators that must be appeased to win their vote. The vote tonight, Saturday, November 22, 2009 is the second step of a process that will not conclude until the middle of January at the earliest. To the twitter community this period of time is very long and probably perceived as unnecessary. This post will discuss the process of United States politics reaching consensus. I will also discuss my opinion on health care and what can be done to fix a broken health care system.

This post will look at these Democratic and Independent Party Senators and their individual preferences. I have placed a twitter label next to their names to summarize their perspective. I have also placed a link on their names to look into the point on the spectrum where they fall. The aids of these Senators are reading your twitter posts, so please take 10 minutes to learn more about this debate.

Name .Wiki Descrip. Twitter label Abortion Stance

Blanche Lincoln of Ark. Centrist Democrat Favors partial birth abortion ban

Mary Landrieu of Lou. Conservative Dem. Supports Stupak-Pitts Amendment,

Ben Nelson of Neb. Conservative Dem Pro life

Independents

Joe Lieberman of Con. "Indep. Democrat" Pro choice

Bernie Sanders Democratic socialist Pro choice

Senator Harry Reid’s proposal of a "firewall" that would segregate private premiums from federal funding in the public insurance plan is an attempt to accommodate those democrats with a desire towards regulated order of the abortion debate. Harry Reid’s accommodation right now seems to focus on Medicare bookkeeping practices. The proposal does to its credit address paying for health care reform. However, it does this by adopting bookkeeping practices. Bookkeeping is not a solution. If this bookkeeping means that we are going to control the cost of health care by bureaucratic means then he should say so. Regulation pushes this solution toward the “State-ist” side of the political spectrum. In accepting this solution we should be aware that we are losing choice to gain more order in the health care delivery system. The details behind this strategy would include a powerfully divisive “R” word. Rationing is a very divisive word that could shift this debate to the “State-ist” side of the political spectrum.

Before you react to the word rationing you should be aware that most doctors would say that this is already happening in our current health care system. Most doctors would also say that the Hippocratic Oath that they take would demand that the doctor patient relationship maintain choices of treatment protocol. Most doctors are not pleased with our current health care system since the introduction of the DRG system. This system allowed for a private form of bureaucratic rationing creeping into our current health care delivery system. These private bureaucrats are HMO’s and insurance companies. The current public bureaucracy is Medicare and Medicaid. The current health debate would eventually create one big DRG system. If Harry Reid were to say that he is balancing the cost of health care on the rationing of senior health care, then this bill would be dead on arrival.

I believe that rationing senior health care is only one place to control the cost of a health care system that is out of our control. We should also tie cost control to pharmaceutical companies’ gains, lawyers’ actions that promote defensive medical practices, and open up restrictions on health care by expanding alternative medicine practices. For example, when people have the choice of using alternative medicine in a hospice scenario they become empowered to experiment with their own health care at their own expense. When people are forced to pay for technological breakthroughs out of pocket within a window of time limitations then they are empowered with choices that are tied to their initiative. Please read my previous BLOG post.

Health Reform Goes to the Senate!

I am a conservative that agrees with Robert Reich. :-) I absolutely hate the idea that the lawyers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies are benefiting from this reform. The groups who are profiting from health care should be shouldering the cost. Restoring the doctor patient relationship, and cutting the profits of those who are profiting from health care would be a good start to containing costs. Here are some questions that I have that I would like senators to consider.

1. How did the country maintain costs for many generations before costs went out of control?
2. Since the percentage of uninsured in our country is similar to countries with a single payer plan how will that contain costs?
3. Will the growth of Health care reform become self serving when bureaucrats are making health decisions?
4. Why should lawyers be the ones to regulate health care when they are the one that are driving up costs due to defensive medical practices?
5. Why should pharmaceuticals companies be allowed to advertise new drugs when that increases health care and they benefit from them?
6. Why should experimental technology be covered by insurance when it represents an assumed risk on the part of the patient?

Health care costs are out of control!

Health care reform should be based upon containing costs not covering the 16% of people who are uninsured. Other countries with single payer plans have many people that do not contribute into the health care system that is a similar percentage to what we have in our country.

* Over the past decade, premiums have doubled, out-of-pocket costs have increased by a third, and deductibles have continued to rise.
* If there was ever a time for Washington to put partisanship aside and get something done, this is it.
* We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix what’s broken with our system and build on what works.

We should consider cutting cost by re-instating the doctor patient tradition in our country. The watch dogs of HMO's and attorneys are only increasing costs. Will a bureaucratic watch dog do any better? The pharmaceutical industry is promoting cost increases. The patient or family should consult with his doctor to decide on a treatment protocol that works for everyone.

Doctors should be tested for ethical judgment as well as medical training. Alternative practitioners who pass the ethical treatment test should also be allowed to practice medicine restricted by the confines of their knowledge. Medical practitioners should be removed who violate ethical principals.

Limiting technology and its expense is also a way to contain costs. Technology is driving costs up. There should be fewer restrictions on the use of experimental technology. These decisions should be subject to the doctor patient relationship. In addition any procedure or drug deemed as experimental should not be covered by insurance. The people who take these kinds of risks should also assume the costs associated with these risks.

Alternative medicine practices should be regulated and covered under medical insurance. China currently uses a two prong system of health care that uses traditional Chinese medicine as well as modern pharmaceuticals, surgery and rehabilitation to help their people. Could alternative medicine practiced by US Chiropractors and health food supplement stores bring hope and relief to many people in our country as well? Alternative medical treatments could help contain costs by offering competition in the medical marketplace.

Congress must pass real health insurance reform in 2009. If we fail to act:

* Within a decade, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care.
* The amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined.

The answer lies in containing costs. The health care system will not be solved by insuring an uninsured population that already is covered by emergency rooms.

Pat Parris

Health Care Reform Now!

I have taken the Obama administration's template letter to the editor and added my own ideas to it. It is below my questions. Please consider asking the following questions to our president. I am a conservative that agrees with Robert Reich. :-) I absolutely hate the idea that the lawyers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies are benefiting from this reform. These groups should be taking a hit. Restoring the doctor patient relationship, and cutting the costs of those who are profiting from health care would be a good start to containing costs.

Mr. President

1. How did the country maintain costs for many generations before costs went out of control?
2. Since the percentage of uninsured in our country is similar to countries with a single payer plan how will that contain costs?
3. Why should insurance companies be the ones to determine the costs when they benefit from cost increases?
4. Why should lawyers be the ones to regulate health care when they are the one that are driving up costs due to defensive medical practices?
5. Why should pharmaceuticals companies be allowed to advertise new drugs when that increases health care and they benefit from them?
6. Why should experimental technology be covered by insurance when it represents an assumed risk on the part of the patient?

Health care costs are out of control!

Health care reform should be based upon containing costs not covering the 15% of people who are uninsured. Other countries with single payer plans have many people that do not contribute into the health care system that is a similar percentage to what we have in our country.

* Over the past decade, premiums have doubled, out-of-pocket costs have increased by a third, and deductibles have continued to rise.
* If there was ever a time for Washington to put partisanship aside and get something done, this is it.
* We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix what’s broken with our system and build on what works.

We should consider cutting cost by re-instating the doctor patient tradition in our country. The watch dogs of HMO's and attorneys are only increasing costs. The pharmaceutical industry is promoting cost increases.. The patient or family should consult with his doctor to decide on a treatment protocol that works for everyone.

Doctors should be tested for ethical judgment as well as medical training. Alternative practitioners who pass the ethical treatment test should also be allowed to practice medicine restricted by the confines of their knowledge. Medical practitioners should be removed who violate ethical principals.

Limiting technology and its expense is also a way to contain costs. Technology is driving costs up. There should be fewer restrictions on the use of experimental technology. These decisions should be subject to the doctor patient relationship. In addition any procedure or drug deemed as experimental should not be covered by insurance. The people who take these kinds of risks should also assume the costs associated with these risks.

Congress must pass real health insurance reform in 2009. If we fail to act:

* Within a decade, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care.
* The amount our government spends on Medicare and Medicaid will eventually grow larger than what our government spends today on everything else combined.

The answer lies in containing costs. The health care system will not be solved by insuring an uninsured population that already is covered by emergency rooms.

Pat Parris

More Widgets Here

All we need is love

The United States is founded on the virtue of freedom. From previous posts I have defined freedom as a synthesis of liberty and equality. In this paradox there is a tension that we must be mindful of. This tension has been referred to as conflict by Hegel. Tension is a better word for the process of virtue that I am trying to describe. When any one encounters this tension they immediately feel the need to resolve it. This is much like the experience of finishing a musical piece that is left unresolved. The hearer wants to finish the piece. It may even be painful for a person to leave it unresolved. This tension is created by unanswered questions and a desire to make sense out of a seeming contradiction.

This process of tension is crucial to the development of institutions. These societal structures ease tension by enhancing virtue. For example, the institution of education in the United States has embraced freedom. When I was in high school in the early 1970s the tension of liberty licensed a lack of academic discipline that made me very content, but incompetent as a student. To emphasize individual liberties at the expense of another's learning can also be selfish. Is giving into the tension of egalitarian cooperation any better? Would it have been better for me to have been enrolled in a curriculum designed to enhance my collaboration? This strategy could have produced a tolerant student without basic knowledge or skills to succeed. An education that stresses the choice of the individual or the collaboration of an elite community can produce educational blinds that can result in a capitalist society that is exploitative instead of sharing.

The trap of dualism can simplify all virtue into one component emphasized over another instead of a multifaceted strategy that prioritizes process over product. When I think of the synthesis of virtue I try not to think of it along a linear plane. An example of this could be the classical political spectrum. On one side is republican and on the other side is democrat. Both parties embrace freedom, but one leans more toward equality and the other more toward liberty. When we consider that institutions like politics and education are spheres with depth instead of planes it can make the reasoning process very complex. The complexity of this reasoning places an emphasis on process over the synthesis of product. If we consider that freedom is one point in a multi-faceted diamond, then blind spots from limited reasoning not fully explaining the paradox can be exposed.

Our democracy is based upon the principal of self determination. The citizens of The US can fairly ask: Where is the blind spots in this institution? If our democracy is self contained there would probably be no bias, however our capitalistic economy interacting with democracy will not allow us to be isolated. The island of capitalism is imposing the tension of libertarian individualism on other countries. Americans see the opportunity to buy things in foreign countries at a cheaper price as a deal. Foreigners can interpret these actions as exploitation. If all countries were playing on an equal economic playing field, then the principal of self determined government should work. The world is far from an equal economic playing field. Here is a metaphor to illustrate this. The United States are professional athletes playing against amateurs and the prize is a higher standard of living. Much like this sports analogy, as long as we have a varied playing field, then nation building with a democratic model can be perceived as exploitative instead of enhancing world affluence.

The enhancement process is the process that brings depth to the virtue of freedom. This process is discussed by The Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 6: 9-20. D. A. Carson, a bible commentator, refers to the libertarian slogans of the day in New Testament times. One of them… success gives license for immorality” is countered by Paul with “all is lawful but not everything is beneficial”. The points of liberty, (to do what you want), is balanced by the facet of (the common good) when the tension is resolved with enhancing and not exploiting the other party. The process of enhancing over exploitation is discovered because another point is identified in the sphere of reasoning within this paradox. I think of this facet like a point in one of many diamonds comprising a sphere. The depth of this point creates another point of synthesis to resolve the paradox in an equitable way and still maintain individual choice. This point could be love. When love is combined with liberty and equality to form a freedom of self determination, then that self determination will maintain a win-win strategy which will enhance the standard of living of all.

In China this virtue of love is called harmony. This point in the sphere is a value to emphasize over liberty when we interact with our friends across the ocean. The virtue of harmony contains elements of both peace and love. Peace is another virtue that has been exposed through this enhancement process. If the Chinese learn to fully embrace capitalism they may end up seeing us as "a deal" to exploit. We should reach out with mutual unselfish interest in a win-win strategy. We may win their trust and discover additional points in the sphere like honor which will enhance our own values and build individual trust and genuine warmth of each others self interest.

--
Limited only by imagination!