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?

A Time for …?

Today’s USA Today had a headline that read, “Now what?  Obama, Republicans face choices of compromise or conflict.”  That may be true for Obama but sadly, each time that Republicans have gotten any kind of power in recent times, they took another choice: Cave.

Mainline Republicans want so much to be loved by Democrats and the main stream media that they have been willing to sacrifice values and their political careers to get on their good side.

When will the learn that some people live to hate them?

This new crop of Republicans in congress seem to have heard the message that this election was not an embracing of Republicans but a repudiation of the Obama plan.  The Republicans seem to have heard this but I doubt the President has.

For once the people have had a chance to speak where Obama and Congress were forced to listen, and for many of them, the message was, “Good bye!”

President Obama in his address yesterday essentially said that he lost track of the voters but that we were not smart enough to understand his policies so he should have explained better.  Which pieces of his policies did the voters not understand?

Was it Cap and Trade, which promised to raise energy prices and put coal miners out of work?  This in a time when unemployment is still very high and most families don’t have a lot of extra money to spend on higher energy bills?

Was it treating the Christmas underwear bomber as a criminal which allowed him to “lawyer up” in place of treating him as the terrorist he is?

Was it the give away programs to the labor unions (Harry Reid owes them big time for his re-election)?

Was it the rising debt that will bankrupt our children and grandchildren as it races to $14 Trillion?

Was it the growing government?  During this time of unemployment, the federal payroll continued to grow.

Was it ObamaCare, the unprecedented takeover of the health system?  I don’t think it was just an unfortunate coincidence that the last big Republican take over of the House happened after HillaryCare was soundly rejected by society.

Every one of the problems that these “fixes” were designed to address have  fixes.  Many of the fixes don’t require rampant socialism.

It is doubtful that the new Congress can repeal ObamaCare outright.  Obama still has the veto pen.  They can, however, deny funding for the federal programs and enact legislation that address the real problems without sacrificing liberty and our futures.  If necessary, we can address some of the more rational fixes.

I sincerely hope the new Congress will follow the mandate given to them in this election.  Let’s break with tradition.  It will take some compromise and a lot of conflict.  Let’s not cave this time.  Maybe the Democrats and media won’t like them but “We the People” will.

A New Beginning or More of the Same?

OK, we all know that the Republicans have taken control of the US House of Representatives.  They seem (as of this writing) not to have taken control of the Senate.  Is this good?  It depends on which side of the aisle you find yourself.

For Republicans, this may be the best result.  They may not be able to undo the unpopular policies such as ObamaCare or bailouts. They don’t have the votes to override a Presidential veto and Democrat Senators can block their proactive legislation.  They can, however, not fund them.  Money is the grease of politics.   Without money, the programs will grind to a halt.  Afterall, how many bureaucrats will work for free?  Their main task will be to show the American public what they try to do and make the case in 2012 that they need help by having more Republicans in office (including the Presidency).

On a related note, the Republicans picked up several state legislatures and governorships.  This year’s census will reapportion the seats in the House of Representatives and the states set their districts.  This can be important for the next round of national elections.

For Democrats, the moderates lost.  There mostly Liberal Democrats got reelected.  Will there be conciliation or will there be entrenchment?  They can pass any bill they want (except spending bills which Constitutionally must start in the House) but will the Republican-controlled House pass them also?

The victor in 2012 will the one who can blame the other side the best.

For President Obama, this is a national repudiation of his policies.  As seen in the past few weeks, there have been empty seats at places where he spoke to support some candidates.  This in itself is telling.  Who would not want to see the President in person, regardless of your political persuasion?  People for whom he campaigned simply lost.

The next two months will be important.  Will outgoing Democrats push through more unpopular bills that Obama will quickly sign or will they finally listen to the people whom they still represent until January 3rd?   Will President Obama reach out to the new Republican majority in the House?  Will there be gridlock?

If Harry Reid’s comment in his victory speech is any indication, We’re not in for a change of direction.  He simply called this “the next round”.  To him and the remaining liberal Democrats, the next two years will have many bloody battles.

One thing is certain, there are now several unemployed Democrats.  I wonder how this will affect the jobs numbers next month.