I came across a blog that was about a topic of endless controversy: American Health Care.  The long and short of it seems to be this:

  1. Folks who want socialized health care want equal health care options for everyone (struggle for a Utopian society).
  2. Folks who want privatized health care want the best health system possible for as many people as possible (short wait times, freedom to see whomever you want, etc).

To me, this boils down to the classic Churchill quote – “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”  A Utopia (like perfection) is impossible.  People who want socialized medicine do have their heart in the right place but unfortunately their brains are not.

For me, the bottom line is this:  Only about 13% of Americans are without health care – TOPS.  Within that 13% there are people who CHOOSE not to have it, but could if they wanted to.  A friend of mine for example does not justify the $160 a month for health care, but does justify about that amount of money for their iPhone…

That means that 87% have health care.  Folks on the left think that socialized medicine is better because it will serve ‘everyone.’  They do however admit that it will be a step down from what the private sector is currently able to provide (wait times, treatments, types of medicine, etc).

In other words, the left is willing to (at least partially) destroy health care for 87% of Americans to attempt to get it for 13% of Americans – some of whom have decided not to have it in the first place (remember my old roommate).

Let’s cut it up a different way.  According to an article written by Steve Bierfeldt, after you subtract illegal aliens and people who could afford health care if they made responsible life choices, the amount of people who can’t get health care is down to 2.6%.  That means the left would want to destroy a health care system that works for 97.4% of legal Americans to try and help a 2.6% who don’t have it.

This argument boils down to responsibility.  It is irresponsible for a government to destry what works for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  The obvious answer is to find a way to help the 2.6%-13% of unisured citizens find private health care so that they can enjoy the benefits that 97.4%-87% who do have organized, working, and in fact luxurious health care.

The current proposals for reform are cloaked as big changes, but as it turns out, they are actually more of the same. They can be summed up in this way: turn more control over to the government and insurance companies while politicians and special interests jockey for credit and work behind the scenes to benefit — at the expense of individual Americans. – David McKalip, M.D.

In closing, let me put it like this.  Think of the Post Office… then FedEx Kinkos or UPS.  Now think of the DMV… then AAA.  Do you really want your health care run like the DMV or the Post office?  No thank you.

-First Response
(for more information, please read this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=33 and this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=45)

Advertisements

I’m sort of surprised the same sex marriage conversations are not evolving more quickly.  The long and short of it (to me) is this:

  1. We still (sort of) live in a free country.  Government should not be denying anyone rights; we all agree on that.
  2. Marriage is a sticky word – lots of religious folks want to protect it’s definition.

To me, the solution is so obvious I’m surprised we’re still talking about it.  I would love for someone to give me some real reasons with my solution explained in detail here (link) does not work for both sides.

In summary, here’s the solution: Privitise Marriage.  Get the government out of the conversation all together (State and Federal).  This would restore freedom to marriage.  This can be done a number of ways; here are two suggestions.

  • Re-write the current government marriage documents and exclude the word marriage.  Write them so that they can be used in any combination.
  • Remove the current marriage documents and don’t replace them with anything – get the government away from marriage.  We really should not need the government’s permission to get married.  I understand marriage is related to property but there are other, smarter ways around that.

IT WOULD WORK, RIGHT?

For the folks in favor of same sex marriage:

  • Equality is achieved.
  • Federal and State documents ether don’t exist, or are identical regardless if the union is same sex, or opposite sex.  The word “marriage” does not exist in government documents.
  • Religious organizations have the freedom (regardless of what state they are in) to perform same sex marriages, or not perform same sex marriages thus respecting their religious freedom.
  • Same sex couples can choose to get married at the places that choose to perform the ceremony.  It can be called anything in the world.  Party, marriage, celebration, union, lemon, whatever.

For the folks who do not support same sex marriage:

  • Marriage is protected, and can be defined by your specific religious organization.
  • Marriage is no longer a government word, and it’s name or definition will not be changed by the government.
  • Religious organizations exist that do not allow same sex marriages which are an option for membership.

BUT WHAT WOULD SCHOOLS TEACH?

Because marraige would no longer be a federal or state issue, marriage would not come up in the classroom at all.  The only thing they could really teach would be the legal documents that replace the old marriage documents (if they even need to exist) but I don’t think schools would waste valuable time teaching that.  What would they teach… where to fill in the names?  As there is no lesson on W-10’s or other government forms I’m sure the new union documents would be left out of the classroom.

OK folks, so let me have it.  How does this not resolve the issue…?

-dm

This is another chain letter that was sent to me:

______________________

Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her.. She stood there , holding the nickel and 3 pennies , while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters , but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her , she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price , o r $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4… Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers , and if you feel like crying , it’s ok. )

6. Teaching Math In 2009

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?