How do progressives believe this stuff?

A very progressive friend of mine (well, we used to debate all the time back in high school, some 45 years ago) is dancing in the streets that the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) was held constitutional … even it meant as a tax.

Among the examples of why it is right for the country he cites that among his many other talents, he was once an RN, administrator and educator (now he is COO for a computer game software company) is that experience gave him the view that the American health care system is broken, because he was always broke (that is if I understood his Facebook comment correctly, which I might not have).

My question would be: Why was he always broke and does that mean the health care system is broke? Furthermore, when we are talking about health care, exactly what does it mean?

What is health care? Is it the treatment and care for medical issues or is it the way that treatment and care is paid for? Those are two separate issues and quite distinct from one another.

This debate got my dear sweet wife (who is a Canadian national) and me in an interesting discussion of the Canadian system. For those who don’t know, it is a single-payer system for hospitalization, but significant chunks are not covered (like drugs and other things like certain tests, etc.). And what is covered is breaking the banking in the provinces (except maybe Alberta but they have so much oil in the ground, who cares). She is the first one to point out that the Canadian health care system is not “free”. Nope, people in Canada not only pay a sales tax to the province (the PST) they are in but also to the federal government in Ottawa (The GST). It is like 13 per cent right now, since they merged the two levies so people wouldn’t notice who was getting what and it would be uniform across Canada (The HST).

Now, Canada had a problem, according to my wife, about 15 years ago with the costs of health care going through the roof. The Solution: Cap the pay doctors could get. Now, the problem is that they don’t have enough doctors to go around. Funny, give people less incentive to do something and they stop doing it.

Now, how does this pertain to what is happening in the US? Well, the problem in the US is not so much health care per se, but how are we going to pay for it. That is what the debate is all about. I know we all went through this in 2010, but the court ruling has once again brought it back to the forefront.

Now, the question arises: Whose responsibility is it to pay these bills? The individual? Private charities? The employer? An insurance company? The state government? The federal government?

Therein lies the rub; we can’t make up our minds.

In our federal republic, is it truly the role of the federal government to ensure that everyone can pay for the health care they need? Well, I don’t think so, but the people who think like me have been outvoted by those in Congress, so I have to accept the majority’s decision that it does.

Now, let me dispose of one fallacy: Health care is not a “right”; nor is housing, transportation, food, clothing or a job. Sorry, but those are not rights. Rights are things that are not handed out by governments, rights are those things that we are endowed with by “our Creator” (to quote Thomas Jefferson, who was a very bright man). As he would put it, our rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. You can’t buy and sell those. They are just there.

Now, one can make an argument that we do have a right to own property, particularly our own labor, which we have the right to buy and sell as we wish. Radical notion there, but I tend to agree with it. Not all cultures and societies agree with that notion, but it is one that basically underpins the American one. We all have the right to own property. We all have the right to own our own labor (id est: that means we can’t be held as slaves) and we have the right to negotiate to benefit from that labor.

As with all rights, we have corollary responsibilities. Sort of like, if you have good you have to evil, or how else would we know what good means.

If we have life, then we have to give life. In other words, if we have the right to live our lives, then we have to be willing to let others have the right to live their lives as they see fit, with each of us being willing to accept the consequences of our own actions and not necessarily expecting someone to pick us up if we fall (We will leave that choice to someone else). If we have the liberty to do something, then we have to give others the liberty to do things differently. If we have the right to pursue our own vision of happiness, then we have to be willing to let others have the right pursue their visions, even if we disagree with them.

Of course, there is one limitation on any right and that is what we do as individuals must not infringe on the ability of others to exercise their same rights

Pappy taught me that individuals have the right to be stupid. We don’t have to like that, but they do. Only thing is, if you are stupid, then you have to pay the consequences of being stupid, or foolish, or silly … or whatever.

My friend posted a picture on his Facebook comment from the Elect Obama site, of a woman holding a sign that says: I am Obamacare and then going on to outline her various medical conditions she recently found out about and couldn’t find anyone else to pay for. Now, this woman says she is 34 years old. That means she has been an adult for 16 years (according to US law, when you are 18 you are considered an adult and therefore responsible for her own actions). As a responsible adult, what has she been doing to protect herself on the day the inevitable happens? Ah, nothing? Hello, does everybody remember the old fable about the grasshopper and the ant? This person qualifies as a grasshopper.

Ok, the question is fellow ants (adults): Do we let the grasshopper die or can our federal government require us to help her? Actually, that is not the question. We could voluntarily choose to help her, but Obamacare makes it mandatory that we help her. So, is it right and proper to make us help this woman (multiply it by millions of other grasshoppers) or should she be asked to a) face the unfortunate consequences of her own inaction or b) find willing ants to help her? I would say the latter.

I am not being hard-hearted here. Heck, if I knew the lady, I probably would chip in to help her, but I don’t think it is the government’s job to tell me that I have to. I think that is part of liberty for us to make that choice.

The problem is that when you remove consequences, then you remove achievements. In other words, you can’t have good without evil. You can’t have encouragement, without the corollary discouragement. You can’t have incentive without disincentive.

Any person familiar with human behavior will tell you that you get a lot more out of positive rewards than you do negative punishments. Granted, fear of punishment or retribution is not a bad incentive, but things work so much better when people think they might get a reward if they do “good”.

Obamacare is an effort to remove those negative rewards and as a result it also eliminates rewards for positive behavior. That, I contend, is a very bad idea.

Besides, it doesn’t really work.  Take away incentives and rewards and we all fall back on the default position: Let somebody else do it, it ain’t in my job description.

One final point: Demand is unlimited, supply is limited. No matter how you slice it, there will never be enough health care to meet demand. It just isn’t going to happen. That means it has to be rationed and that rationing will be done through access. The only two ways that access can be rationed is by waiting times or by financial incentives.

As my brother, the surgeon, once told me: Americans long ago voted their pocketbooks on this issue and that is the health care system we have. Financial incentives win over waiting times. Oh, and guess what? Canada is mulling going back to allowing private health care alternatives to the government supplied system … one where the individual can pay extra not to have to wait for treatment or care.

Obamacare ruling

My initial reaction is the Chief Justice John Roberts probably just handed the Republicans the White House and possibly the Senate.

Why? 

First: He defined the individual mandate as a TAX, which it is. Even if the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrats want to try to deny it, now they can’t. How they are going to run away from that is beyond me.

Second: By upholding the law, Roberts put the onus back where it properly belongs: On CONGRESS. It is up to Congress to realize it is crappy law and change it.

Third: The decision puts a brake on using the “commerce clause” to justify everything. That is a good thing.

Fourth: The decision tells Congress that it can’t just threaten to withhold funds if the states don’t do its bidding. HOORAY. Too many federal mandates have been forced on the states that way.

Fifth: Most people, at least according to opinion polls, think the Affordable Care Act goes way beyond what they want. This just pisses them off. Pissed off voters usually vote, and rarely do they vote for the incumbent  or the party in power. So by handing down a decision that narrowly tailors the constitutionality of the legislation, Roberts, and the four liberals, have done the country a service by pissing off the majority.

Now, that may not be what happens, but that is my initial reaction, for what it is worth.

Random thoughts

SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM

Background: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/pennsylvania-public-defenders_n_1556192.html

I have got the solution. We all know that money talks when it comes to the law. Buy yourself a good attorney who is better than the other guy, and you win. Just like the the medical system. If you have good enough insurance, you win.

SO, I think the solution should be the same.  Those who think that a single-payer system (i.e. Government provided) for health care is the right way to go, should have no problem in eliminating all private attorneys. Lawyers should all work for the government and be paid by all of us, and we all get to use the same pool of  lawyers. Nobody, no matter how much they make or have, can hire a private lawyer … nope, they can only use lawyers approved and paid for by the government.

Great solution to providing defense attorneys, as well as attorneys for all the other things … and just think, we can cap their salaries as well.

IMMIGRATION

I am not sure I understand this, but it bothers me a lot. The news this week is that President Obama issued an executive order directing U.S. immigration agencies to stop deporting people here illegally who are 16 to 30 and who came to this country while they were underage.  They will now be issued work permits and be allowed to stay.

I am not sure, but does that not bother others? Not so much that the policy recognizes a million or so people who are of the age to contribute to the lower income sectors of the economy, but the fact that:

A. it was done by executive order, which, if we were going to follow what the founding fathers envisioned, is not the way to create the law of the land (but we abandoned that long ago with the creation of the plethora of federal agencies to regulate innumerable aspects of the American economy with barely a nod toward congressional concurrence)

B. That this creates a special class of residents (I hesitate to call them citizens yet) in the US for special treatment under the law. Again, I would differ with this policy because I think that immigration law should, in general apply equally to all. I know it doesn’t but that should be the goal.

Our goal should be “equality before the law” and not divided by what age we are. Those who came here illegally should follow the rules, as we all are asked to follow the rules. Those who violate the rules, should be asked to pay a cost and not be rewarded.

But, no, we have to have exceptions to the rule, so we can reward various and sundry special interests.  Well, remember my view on special interests.

Anyway, just thinking.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling

http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Biosphere+nearing+state+report+warns/6742910/story.html

 

I love stories like this.

Summary: Man is ruining the world and it is going to cause the environment to change if we don’t stop man.

Ah … and the solution is? Oh, yes, stop technology. Stop having babies. Stop everything.

Sorry, that ain’t gonna happen. Besides, who gets to decide who lives and who dies? Who get to procreate and who doesn’t?

I am not saying it won’t happen, nor am I not saying that future can get pretty ugly. I am saying that these people don’t have a clue as to what to do about it.

Pay me!!!!

I must be dumb or something, but I have never quite understood the role of government in setting private sector pay scales, at least not in a supposedly capitalist, free enterprise economy.

The latest is an apparent effort to get the government to guarantee that women get equal pay as men. I assume that is for equal work, but I am not sure these days.

I think it is idiotic not to pay women who do the same job as men the same rate of pay. You are paying for the job, not the person, but I guess a lot of people don’t look at it that way. Still, where – in the American scheme of things – did it become the job of the government to set private sector pay scales. Oh, I know, when it began setting minimum wages and requiring union scale on federally funded projects.

Still, minimum wage is a cruel hoax and is used for partisan political propaganda. For one thing, it should not be designed to be the sole source of income for a family of four. That proposition is economically unsustainable. Second, every time you raise it, you penalize those who have progressed forward through merit and experience by throwing them backwards … but that is another argument.

But gender equity is another thing. It is one thing to say that people should be paid the same for doing the same work. I can buy that, but don’t even start down the path of trying to claim equal  pay for equivalent work. That argument goes no where with me. So, even though the government should not be involved, I think business people should pay the same rate for whatever the same work is. That is logical. But when you start trying figure out if  this person puts in the equivalent time and effort as another at a dissimilar job, you lose me.

Anyway, something to think about

Random Thoughts

I have notice a recent trend in stories on various web sites. All of them blame this group or that group for the impending demise of man.

You know something, maybe I am too cynical or something, but I find it the height of hubris to believe that any single man or group really is control of things that happen on our planet. No, the world is less like a ride on a roller coaster than it is a ride on a toboggan. On a roller coaster, there always is that knowledge that somewhere there lurks somebody (or a computer) that can slam on the brakes; in essence meaning that somewhere somebody is in control. On a steep enough hill with enough moguls, on a toboggan, no body really is in control and you just try to guide it to a safe stop.

The world is like that. People like to think they are in control, but … we aren’t and never will be. I don’t care if you are the pope, the president of the United States or some nefarious group that make up the usual conspiracy suspects. None of those people really are or can “control” events. They might be able to have some influence as to which way the toboggan flies, but they are not really controlling its fate.

Whether it is global climate change, or any of a host of other natural  threats to mankind, there really is little that we can do to actually change what those will do. Oh, we can tinker around the edges, but it really is not going to change what happens much.

It is just like peace is not going to break out … sorry, too many people and too many are not built that way. Unfortunately for mankind, war and conflict will remain its lot for a long time to come.

Unlike some, I don’t see “humanism” and “reason” coming to the rescue. And I don’t even pretend to know what God, where and whatever form he/she/it takes, plans to do. I would like to think that there is a plan, somewhere, but I don’t know.  But to lay the blame for all the world ills on humans strikes me as more than being self-centered.

Yes, humans do have an impact on the environment. Yes, a lot of that impact is negative. I suppose it would be a better world if there were less of a human impact, but I will be damned if I can figure out where to start, because as an American, I am really in a small minority.  Yes, we have good in my country, but does that mean that we should surrender all our advanced “things” in order to make everybody “equal”? I suppose that would be “fair”. At least that is what our president says he wants: for everything here to be “fair”.

Anyway … nuff said.

For those who are interested

http://www.lulu.com/shop/rich-browne/i-remember/ebook/product-17349496.html

How exciting the world we live in

Read an excellent commentary

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Coyne+protest+devolves+into+movement+about+nothing+except+drama/6668222/story.html

Think about it … the more we advocate strife, the more we are going to get.

WAR ON EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY!!!!!!!

Just a thought

I often look at the news stories about the people who are protesting this aspect or that aspect of the current world economy and wonder if these people really think about what they are protesting.

I mean do they really understand how slender a thread modern civilization depends upon and how easy it would be to condemn millions, if not billions, of humans to death, quite rapidly unfortunately, were their aspirations to be realized.

It often amazes me how much we take for granted, especially those of us in developed countries such as the United States and Canada.  We just take for granted that grocery stores will have ample food; electricity, natural gas and water will be there on demand, dependably and without question; that gasoline, tires and even computers linked to the entire world will just be there. Do we ever really stop to think how marvelous these things are? Do we ever stop to think what would happen if just one of the things that prop up the whole interconnected system were to suddenly disappear?

What would happen if, tomorrow, there were no more fossil fuels to burn? How many people would die? Who would decide which people were to die? What gives those people the right to decide if they live or die?

If there were no petroleum products, then there would be huge shortages of food in all populations centers, world wide. There would be no fuel, tires, lubricants to keep the trucks, trains, ships and planes moving all those needed food stuffs to the cities and even small towns. Unless you had your own stockpile of food, and enough land and animals to grow your own to keep you supplied all year, you soon would starve.

If it wasn’t for oil, coal and natural gas (or, hades, nuclear power), few people would have electricity (that runs just about everything), because there would be no way to build or maintain solar cells, wind turbines or water turbines without those things; nor would most of the clothes that we have (made of synthetic fabrics) be there.

Jobs would be gone, because the raw materials to make things would not be able to get to the factories … or the service jobs would dry up because either no one could afford the services or there would be no need for them, because the things they provide no longer would be possible.

There would be no need for colleges, besides no equipment for them, or even secondary schools.

I just wonder what people would do, other than die and kill each other over what little resources that would remain.

Just a thought.

Chicago NATO protests

I see where the lines are being drawn between the Chicago police and those who wish to “protest” the meeting this week of the 60 or so nations invited to annual meeting of the heads of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

There will be disturbances. There will be heads busted. There will be tear gas used. There will be windows broken. Those are all a given.

It is not that there will not be people ostensibly to peacefully petition for the redress of their grievances. There will be some … but the core will be there to incite violence. They are begging for violence. They are pleading for violence. It is their sole objective.

Why incite violence? Because it achieves their ends.

First, the Chicago police are not known for their restraint with demonstrations, so the object is to push the limits until they are forced to react. And they will eventually have to push back. That too is a given.

Second, this is not really about war or US imperialism or social justice. Not really. It is about people wanting people to take them seriously, even when everything that they do augurs against their being taken seriously.

Yes, the coming demonstrations will do some damage to the credibility of the “authorities” and their observances of the rights of  “free speech”, but then, that exactly what the object of the demonstrations are: To delegitimize the governments in attendance.

It is easy when you don’t have the responsibility to make the decisions and do the things that have to be done in order to govern large groups of people.

So sit back and watch the show.

More Random thoughts

I peruse a lot of different news sites (rather than watch TV, I prefer to read my news … I guess that is a holdover from being a print journalist for so many years.  Anyway, even the web news sources have me shaking my head these days. It is bizarre, no matter what the slant of the purveyor.

1. I regularly visit the Huffington Post, and get amazed at some of the things that the limousine liberal (I am sorry, the progressives) set gets jacked up about. One of the more recent is a headline that some evil billionaire is going to launch an “vicious” ad campaign against President Obama.

First, since when is this any different that say the slams against Mitt Romney or George W. Bush? I mean, give me a break.

Second, obviously these people have not studied much American history … if you think politics is dirty now, you really need to go back and look at want passed for political dialogue in the late 17oos and all through the 1800s in this country. You will be surprised at what was said about various political figures and candidates.

So, some rich guy (that you don’t agree with) is going to spend a bunch of his wealth to tear down a political opponent. You have a problem with that? You need to have a reality check. Stop and think about what the “freedom of speech” really means and it means having to put up with idiots you don’t agree with having the freedom to spend their own money (regardless of how they came by it) to say things that you don’t like. Sorry, that is the price of liberty and having a freedom to speak our minds.

2. There is some veteran of Iraq (he is like a 27-year-old student now) who is going to take his medals from serving in the so-called “Global War on Terrorism” and try to give them back to President Obama at the NATO summit in Chicago later this month to protest, as I gathered from the story, the war in Iraq and the continuing war in Afghanistan. What a hoot. I am sorry, he has got every right to do it, but so what … as far as I am concerned (unlike MSNBC) it really is a non-story. First, we pulled out of Iraq, remember? What happens there, now, is their problem, not ours, nor is it the US’s responsibility if they can’t get their act straight. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. Second, we will skedaddle from Afghanistan soon enough, just wait and see. (Don’t know the definition of skedaddle, look it up, particularly as it was used in the American Civil War – oops, I am sorry, the War of Northern Aggression – contexts)

3. It is really getting hard to condemn that Hispanic guy down in Florida who shot a young Afro-American that got everybody is such a tizzy.  According to the medical reports being leaked, the Hispanic guy had injuries consistent with getting the fecal material beat out of you, and the Afro kid had scrapes and bruises on his knuckles consistent with some who was knocking the crap out of someone … in addition to the bullet hole in him. Granted, I think both young men some pretty lousy decisions that fateful night, but if I had a broken nose and had my head slammed against the ground at least twice, hard enough to break the skin and start me bleeding, and the guy who did it looked like he was coming back to give me more, I am not sure I wouldn’t use Mister Colt’s equalizer. And that is regardless if I had been wondering what the heck the person was doing in my neighborhood late at night. I am not sure I would have been as obvious about following him, but hey … I am a devout coward at heart.

4. I see where the progressives are up in arms that the Republicans don’t have a plan ready to replace Obamacare if it gets struck down or repealed. Like, they have to replace it? Since when.

Ok, health care financing is a mess in the US, but then it is just about everywhere else. We choose to ration health care (a limited resource no matter where you go) by limiting access to those who either have sense enough to figure out how to get insurance (which is not the be-all panacea that some think it is, but that is another story). In Canada, they ration health care in their own way. It is called time. You have a health problem … be prepared to stand and wait until the limited number of health facilities and personnel have time to see you.

Now, I am sorry, but unlike other nations, like our European friends, providing health care is not some right that is required of government. Sorry, that dog doesn’t hunt either. Somebody has to pay for it and that is a fact. In Canada, they used taxes, like a 15 percent (I think it is 15 percent) national/provincial sales tax on just about everything. That is in addition to its progressive income tax structure. The point is, whether  you put it on the individual to provide for his and his own (or her as the case may be) or you take from the individual to ensure everyone and his cousin has at least some access to health care, health care is/was/will be a limited resource and will have to be rationed. It just matters how a society decides to do it … is it an individual responsibility or a collective responsibility?

5. I have been following an old high school acquaintance of Facebook these days (by the way, the Facebook IPO is a ripoff, but don’t let anybody know I said that … it produces zip), and one of his latest rants is on Israel. Now, granted he admits he is a progressive (heck he was way back in high school, but that is yet another story), but he thinks the Israelis are far to harsh on the Palestinians and that the Palestinians should be given a contiguous state with East Jerusalem as its capitol. Ironically, the Palestinians have been offered just that or pretty doggone close to it several times and have walked away from the table and rejected it. The most recent time being in 2000 and the first time was in 1947. Of course one could make the same argument that the Jews, who really have just as much a claim to the ancient land of Palestine as the Muslim Arabs, also deserve to have a contiguous state with its capitol in Jerusalem. Of course, it all could have been solved way back in 1947, if Jordan (essentially East Palestine) had just annexed the West Bank and the half of Jerusalem it held, and if Egypt had just annexed the Gaza Strip, instead of administering the area as a giant concentration camp, but that is water under the bridge now.

6. I would go on about the great unease I am feeling about rest of 2012 (and it has nothing to do with the Mayan calendar or any doomsday prophesies) but I think I am going to let that thought continue to percolate in the old noggin a little longer. Just say that I do fear that there may “interesting times” ahead of us, and not necessarily peaceful ones.