You can Leave your Heart but not your Foreskin in San Francisco

If a proposed initiative gets on the ballot and passes in San Francisco, it will be illegal to perform male circumcision in the city.  ”Intactivists” as they call themselves, feel that circumcision is barbaric and violates the boy’s or baby’s right to choose to be circumcised or not.

First Amendment Freedom of Religion rights of Jews and Muslims not withstanding, opponents of male circumcision claim it is unhealthy and dangerous.  Granted, there is risk with any medical procedure.  You can choke on a toothpick while cleaning your teeth.  However, this practice is over 3,000 years old and there does not seem to be a shortage of Jews, Muslims, or any other group who has chosen to circumcise its male children, nor is there any reported lack of libido in the healthy and mentally stable males as well.

It’s so typical.  For religious reasons, parents may choose not to vaccinate their children or let them have blood transfusions.  For religious reasons, women may be required to wear thick veils over their heads that inhibit their seeing or hearing on-coming traffic.  That’s all well and good to these busy bodies, but don’t do anything that allows the boys to identify culturally with the other members of their societies.

Needless to say, the simple solution is that if you don’t want to circumcise your child, then don’t, but that’s too simple to these people.  This is simply yet another example of some people trying to dictate how others should live their lives.  Are they planning to go around examining little boys’ crotches to make sure they weren’t snipped?  Maybe they’ll use TSA gropers-in-training for the job.

In one respect, I tend to agree.  It’s the boy’s body, let him decide.  In similar fashion, however, when we consider abortion, it’s the baby’s life.  Let him or her decide, too, if the abortion should take place.

Funny, they want to stop the family from snipping a piece of skin but they’ll do nothing about snuffing out a life.

I’m sick and tired of Health Care Reform

Health Care Reform is the one of the Obama agenda items that seems to be on the list of why so many Democrats were fired in the last election.  Republicans now want to take advantage of that now.  The question that people ask is, “Why do we need reform?”  The simple answer is, “Health care is too expensive.”  This then begs the question, “So, what’s wrong with ObamaCare?”  To which one reply is, “It rations health care with no guarantee of improvement.”  Simple questions with simple responses.

But the true answer is really more complex.  It’s too expensive partly because government has made it too expensive.  Let me explain with one of many examples.

Way back when, the people thought health care costs were getting out of  control.  The solution presented by the socialists was to create HMOs.  Everyone goes in the pool at the same (or relatively the same based on parameters) cost and HMOs decide what you need to stay alive and you get that treatment.  Costs were kept down but the (unintended?) consequence was that now health care became rationed.  A triage nurse or administrator decided if you could see a doctor and what kind of doctor (probably a nurse or physician’s assistant) you’d see.  The HMO determined what treatment options they’d make available and there could be a waiting list.  To lower costs, the government created a method of rationing run by the private sector.  It was reminiscent of ration coupons during World War II.

ObamaCare is HMO times infinity.  Like any government program, it would cost orders of magnitude more than the politicians say it will and, like social security, welfare, and other programs, will bankrupt the government as entitlements grow out of control.

Now, I won’t tackle the constitutionality of government-controlled health care with its mandates on what you must buy.  About 25 states are willing to do that better than I could.  I only want to address one issue, the cost of health care.

There are a whole host of reasons why health care is so expensive so I’ll just touch on a few of them.  Rather than forcing the citizenry to be shackled to the Federal yolk, these areas are places that government can address if it’s serious about reigning in health care costs.

The cost of medical school and specialized education is significant.  Four years of college, four of medical school, residency (where you’re paid enough just to keep you almost from starving), and further education for specialization can leave a doctor a half million dollars or more in debt before he or she can start a practice.  It, along with its interest, must be paid back one way or another and that is through the doctor’s salary.  It’s not uncommon for a doctor to have to pay tens of thousands per year to pay off education debt.  If we want reform, let’s at least make the interest tax deductible and lower what the doctor needs to be paid.

Forget the rent in New York City.  The cost of malpractice insurance is too darn high.  Why?  Because we are a litigious society.  If a patient dies because of the operation, that can be malpractice.  If the patient dies in spite of the operation, that is not.  It is proper to sue if the doctor has done something wrong.  It is not proper if you simply don’t like the outcome of a properly-performed procedure.  You, your parent or guardian, made an informed decision.  If it doesn’t come out as you hoped, that’s unfortunate and, sadly, too many judges don’t have the guts to throw out frivolous lawsuits.  We need to take a tighter look at who is suing for what.  There should also be caps on things like “pain and suffering” when your nose job doesn’t make you look like a superstar.  In short, we need massive tort reform.  Let’s hope that Congress has fewer trial lawyers this go-around and can do something here.

Because of the threat of malpractice, doctors are forced to perform CYA tests and procedures.  Everyone wants an MRI for a hangnail.  People go in to the doctor and demand that they prescribe that new medicine they saw on TV.

There are other reasons, too.  Costs to create new drugs, hospital expenses and medical equipment are all factors as well.  The net, however, is not to grab control of the industry.

Don’t get me wrong.  There are some good provisions buried somewhere deep in the ObamaCare bill.  Those should be culled out, debated and, if truly beneficial to the American people and not just to lawyers or other special interests, passed as separate bills once the overall bill is repealed.

There are reasonable things that we can do to get health costs under control.  Rationing and socialism are not among them, however.  Let’s get rid of this fiasco and debate features we can understand.

A Portend of Things to Come?

USA Today reported in an article that “hospital care [is] fatal for some patients.”  Apparently about 15,000 Medicare patients die each month partly from shoddy hospital care.  On a regular basis we hear of abuses in VA Hospitals or, as in this case, with Medicare recipients.

Medicare, Medicaid and VA Hospitals are all run by the government.  So will ObamaCare.  Government-controlled health care will have all the problems, regardless of what it is called.  Is that the kind of care you want?

Any time you read “VA Hospital” or “Medicare” or “Medicare”, you can substitute “ObamaCare” with little chance of misrepresentation.

There is a commercial on television where a man is bitten by an animal and goes into the emergency room.  The receptionist tells him that someone will be with him in 28 days.  Michael Moore to the contrary, this is typical of poorly run, over-extended socialized health plans.  Scarce resources will be rationed and unless you are well connected, they won’t be rationed to you.

I applaud the lame duck Congress in not funding ObamaCare in the last session.  I hope the new Congress will take a very close look at the bill and be very careful in what they do fund.  True, there are some good provisions.  Those should be funded and promoted.  It’s good politics and it’s good public policy.  However, the rest should be allowed to die.

It may require that the rest of the government be cut back to a shoestring budget to prevent diverting other money to ObamaCare, but would cutting back everything else really be a bad thing?

Sauce for the Goose

You probably know the saying, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”  It flies in the face of double standards.  It says that if you can do something, so can I.  Conversely, if some consequence for bad behavior for you is fitting, then the same consequence is fitting for me if I do the same thing.  Everybody plays by the same rules.  It’s the antithesis of means testing. Let’s look at this with a bit of retrospective regarding last year’s failed Swine Flu (H1N1) pandemic.  Please don’t get me wrong.  My heart goes out to all the families who lost loved ones due to the disease.  My criticism is with its handling.

States do means testing for their benefits and tax policies.  Hospitals do means testing for how much they charge their patients.  Rich patients or those with insurance pay more than poor patients with no insurance.  State-run clinics means test for how much patients pay for their services.  Means testing determines Medicare coverage.  Means testing determines how much of your Social Security income is taxed.  Means testing is a way to regulate the supply or cost of a good or service by manipulating the price paid by the consumer.

Businesses don’t do means testing but they do practice supply and demand.  The price of oil goes up therefore making gas more expensive.  Some people modify their driving habits to use less gas and thus not spend as much.  If things cost more then either you spend more or you cut down on your consumption.

Means testing is as well ingrained in the health care industry as supply and demand is in the rest of the capitalist system.  So why are states upset when pharmacies vary their charges for Swine Flu or other vaccines?  Some claim price gouging such as what happens when stores jack up the price of water after a hurricane cripples the water supply of a town or region.

The problem? There were claims this last flu season that the varying cost of Swine Flu vaccine from state to state and within a state, sometimes by as much as $75 across the state, was price gouging.  Ignore the fact that some pharmacies have to mix their own formula for children’s doses (ever hear of increased labor costs?  Ever hear of malpractice insurance?  Someone has to pay for them to take the risk of mixing the vaccine themselves.)  Ignore the fact that the vaccine itself was in short supply in some places.  One place charged $49 and another charged over $90 for the same dose.  Often these were in the same area and it was relatively easy to get from one place to another.

The solution?  Chris Dodd, retiring Democrat Senator from Connecticut, wanted a government investigation and the Mississippi State Attorney wanted people to report any price gouging they found.  Of course this begs a very important question.  What is price gouging here?  If the drug store I visit charges $90 I should report them, right?  Forget the fact that I can go to another pharmacy across town and pay only $49.  The government needs to do something for me because I’m too lazy to shop around!  His committee investigation should have its results about a year and a half after the Swine flu has long subsided and the next flu season that’s coming kicks in so don’t hold your breath for meaningful results.  Perhaps they’ll have something before the next manufactured “crisis”.

I don’t know what Dodd’s committee intends to accomplish.  Maybe he’s jealous over the competition for medical care dollars.  Maybe he’s looking for ways to get pointers on how to ration health care under the guise of caring what happens to you.  Maybe it’s good that he’s retiring.

I don’t see how the variation in prices for H1N1 vaccine was price gouging but then again, I’m not a government hack, so what do I know?  It’s supply and demand.  You want what I have, here’s the price.  If enough people refuse to pay the price and go somewhere else, maybe I’ll consider lowering my price before the vaccine I’m holding goes bad or isn’t needed.

Don’t like the price, maybe WalMart has a better price.  Not everyone advertises “Always low prices … Always” (or at least used to.)  Use your phone and call around.  By the way, at what price is it gouging?  Who sets the standard?  Maybe we need to fix the price and be done with it.  Hmmm… Sounds like socialized medicine is one more step closer.  The current year’s flu vaccine is currently about $25 at my local food store pharmacies.

What do you think ObamaCare will do?  Means testing is the centerpiece of government programs.  Government bureaucrats, not your doctor, will regulate how much health care you can get.  They will limit the supply regardless of the demand.  They will limit it depending on your income, age, and current health.  Ignore the fact that health care is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution as a federal responsibility.  They will control your access to health care and you will lose your freedom of choice about it.  Get used to it.  It’s coming.

People look to the UK for the model of government- run health care.  The claim is that it is second to none, and it is … when you can get it.  The trick over there is convincing the government that you truly are worthy of being treated for your ailment.  The same will be true here.

Socialized medicine only works when the government has enough of your money to spend freely.  As the amount of your money decreases, so does the quality of the health care they’ll allow you to receive.

I can hear the campaign slogans in the New World Order: Want a vaccine?  Then vote for me!  I’ll make sure you get it or die trying.

Can Businesses Bailout the Government? – Part 3

In Part 1, I discussed the problem of overspending and how government cannot get us out of the mess it has gotten us into.  Part 2 discussed some of the signs that we may be at the point of no return and some of the consequences.  Here I’d like to discuss some of the solutions.

Follow the US Constitution.  If it’s not there, you can’t do it, even if you think it will “promote the general welfare”.  That phrase is a platitude, not a mandate.  The mandates are clearly spelled out.

Eliminate all programs not constitutionally mandated.  If the rationale is “it’s for the general good” without some justification from a Constitution’s specific Article and Section, it has to go.  Here are a few examples.

Welfare is not the responsibility of the government.  It is the responsibility of the Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, socially-conscious atheists and the states in which the people reside.

Bring our troops home.  Not necessarily right this instant from Iraq or Afghanistan since there is unfinished work there.  Rather bring them back from Germany, the UK, Korea, Japan, Iceland, and the dozens of other places that they are deployed.  Our troops exist to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, not the friends of the government.  They’re not there as the pawns of the UN when it doesn’t like something.  If some country wants our expertise and training, let them pay for it fully.

Cut the pay and the days that Congress is in session.  There was never an intent for professional politicians when the Constitution was created.  Make them work in the real world so they understand real world problems.  Congress onlyunderstands what it is spoon-fed through its taxpayer-provided boondoggles and junkets.  Let them see first hand in their own businesses what they’ve done to the American people.

Eliminate Congressional pensions.  They’re the servants of the people, not the employees.  They should serve and then get back to their outside jobs.  Entrenchment in government only brings contempt toward the people they are called to serve.

Make Congress subject to every law they impose on the rest of us.  This means that their private pension plan will be folded into Social Security and they’ll get the same benefits the rest of us get.

Dismantle Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  This has to be done over time without pulling the rug out from under anyone but entitlements like this have got to stop.  I’ve not thought out how to do this completely yet, but when I do, I’ll write about it.  I’d like to hear your views.

Pass an Amendment to give the President line-item veto authority.  Congress passes the bills it sends to the President and the President getst the blame because he is forced to sign bad legislation to get one small good item.  Let him cut out programs that he feels are wrong.  Congress can always override his veto if they disagree.  Right now the President gets blamed for a lot of bad legislation that is really Congress’ fault.  Give him (or her) line item veto authority and then the blame will squarely fall on the Oval Office.

Promote the arts through public service broadcasts and strong copyrights, not failed giveaway programs.  The Constitution has limited authority here which does not include the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts, or National Endowment for the Humianities, among other give-away programs.  Make these organizations not-for-profit or non-profit entities and let “we the people” support the ones we feel are worthy of our dollars.

Promote the sciences by having strong patent laws that are vigorously enforced.  Let Science and Society decide what to work on through corporate and private funding.  If Branson wants to build a rocket ship to go to the Moon, we should let him and let him reap the benefits.  Our space program should be limited to national security.  Granted that includes some research but I don’t think “the breeding habits of Belgian endive” ranks as a national security issue.

Article 1, Section 8 is not a sand box for faceless bureaucrats who mandate social programs in our schools.  Federal grants must be limited only to programs that directly support the Constitutional mandates for the Federal government.  “Oh, I’m sure there is a military benefit there someplace” is not sufficient.

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.  Let everyone (not) practice as he or she sees fit.  Nobody says you have to look at my Nativity scene or his Menorah.  What’s the matter?  Got a guilty conscience?  Allowing something is not promoting it.  After all, isn’t that the argument these same people use to justify giving out condoms in schools?

Strip the courts of their “legislation from the bench” rulings.  If it’s a good, constitutional idea, put it into law.  If not, nullify it through the judicial oversight powers granted in the Constitution.  The same goes for extra-constitutional Executive Orders from the White House.  If it’s your jurisdiction, then by gosh and by golly, step up and do your job!

I believe Congress does not nullify these judicial legislators and executive orders because (a) they like what they mandate but the elected representatives don’t have the honesty to go on record to put it into law, or (b) they’re so busy doing their own unconstitutional activities that they don’t have time to do their constitutionally-mandated responsibility of being the check and balance over the Presidency and the Judiciary.

Eliminate Labor Union welfare.  Congress is getting read for yet another labor union bailout.  All this does is attempt to buy the votes of the labor unions at the expense of the American people.  What did the Chrysler buyout gain the US citizens?  They’re still losing money and Fiat is struggling to get them profitable.

Eliminate “corporate welfare” by ending subsidies to farmers, manufacturers and businesses.  If they can’t stand on their own, they should fail.  This will immediately encourage competition that will make goods and services better and cheaper.  Small, family-owned farms can get tax breaks if necessary but let’s let food be cheaper for all of us.  Farmers know the benefit of crop rotation and letting soil rest.  If necessary, encourage that through a tax break but let them assume a lot of the responsibility themselves.  In no way should we ever pay a farmer (corporate or “little guy”) not to plant crops.  Remove quotas for tobacco, sugar and other crops as well.  If they want to grow it, let them compete like the rest of us have to.

Eliminate import quotas. Soft drinks use corn syrup because sugar is too expensive.  It’s too expensive because we have import quotas.  This same explanation holds for other foods and goods as well.  Quotas limit supply which drives up prices.

Ethanol from corn is a horrible idea.  It takes corn away from the food supply for both people and animals, thus driving up prices for food.  Ethanol or methanol from farm waste or other crops that rest the land is a much better idea.

Man-up on unfair trade.  Don’t waste years of hand wringing over countries undercutting their prices and currency.  If they violate a trade agreement, call them on it with sanctions immediately.  That’s one Constitutional mandate Congress seems to forget about until some country has destroyed some segment of the US economy.

Promote manufacturing here at home.  Cut taxes of companies that build or renovate manufacturing facilities.  Technology is wonderful.  Use it to automate factories and train workers to be the technicians that run the technology.  You’ll save the environment, too, by not having to ship raw goods overseas and finished goods back.

Unravel the health care mess Congress created. Congress created the health care “crisis” with its over-regulation in the 1960s and its foisting HMOs on the unsuspecting public in the 1970s.  Real health reform is when the individual, not an “insurance” company or HMO bureaucrat, along with the doctor decide what is needed.  Put in real medical tort reform to bring down costs and make people pay for “scheduled maintenance”, just like they have to do for their cars.  I don’t put in an insurance claim every time I change my oil.  Why should I do it for a runny nose?  Expand the use of tax-free medical Health Savings Accounts for normal visits and allow all people to set up one.  Save insurance for the truly catastrophic and expensive events.  That’s what you do for your house, right?  What’s your home insurance deductible?

Abortion is a medical and moral decision, not a political one.  It should be handled like every other medical procedure with states allowing and limiting how and when they can be performed, just like they limit who can perform an appendectomy or write a prescription.  On the moral side, let the debate be handled at the state level.  In addition, parents or legal guardians must be involved when minor children have this procedure.  The political cop-out here is that the courts can appoint some hack to approve the abortion for a young girl even when the parents are still “fit” to be parents.  Politics have made a complete mess of this (and other) situation.

I know that as we dismantle the unconstitutional programs that there will be a lot of bureaucrats and hard working people who will have to get real jobs in the real world.  Nevertheless, with all of the extra money people and companies will save through reduced taxes and reduced regulation, new opportunities will open up.  Many can become entrepreneurs and small business owners in their own right.  They can do it, that is, if they haven’t forgotten how to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. 

OK, maybe they can’t do it.  However, we should not eliminate Corporate Welfare only to replace it with Bureaucratic Welfare.  Oh, right, we already have Bureaucratic Welfare.  It’s called “Government Jobs”.