Is Health Care a Right?

The real issue can be properly stated this way, (and both sides will be correct if their main premise is correct, so it is crucial to get the main premise correct!)

Liberal Main Point: "Health Care is a right as much as the Police Department or Fire Department is!"

Conservative Main Point: "Health Care is not the same as Police or Fire protection because in those cases we are not talking about 'TRANSFER PAYMENTS', but instead we are talking about people DIRECTLY getting a SALARY to help whoever needs it and there is no need for competition.

We don't have competeting Fire Departments or Police Departments for good reason...we all agree that there is no need to have competition to keep the price down of those programs, but when it comes to health, we don't all have the same level of need, and therefore it is more like Car Insurance, we get to choose our level of coverage because ONE SIZE DOSEN'T FIT ALL like fire and police.

And most importantly....WE GET TO VOTE ON THE BUDGET for these things and if they are getting out of hand, we get to complain and actually do something about it.

So, in other words, we don't need to say that "We want to use the government to force our neighbors to pay for our Health Insurance, because we want to keep that decision to ourselves.

There are many things we could do to lower health insurance costs:

1. Allow interstate competition that is currently forbidden by this Administration and all others previous to it.

2. Give the tax break to individuals and not companies and make all insurance portable, with provisions for "break between jobs" provisions of various lengths that could be purchased as desired for increasing amounts and/or vouchers/tax breaks.

3. Make basic "Catostrophic" insurance so desirable that you get a rebate check if you show continous coverage for the previous tax year.

4. Allow for Vouchers that give an instant cash rebate if used to purchase a years worth of "Catastrophic Insurance" for the 50% of Americans that don't pay taxes.

5. And so on!

Also, Policemen and Firemen don't spend 10 years of their young lives and $75,000 to $100,000 getting the education and training so they can make a very nice living. If we remove the incintive to allow the best doctors to make the most money, then we will be dooming ourselves to "average" doctors at best!

And finally the "Government Option" will by it's very nature drive all other options out of business because no one can compete with an option that can print money and can therefore operate at a loss.

Competition is what lowers cost. High prices are the only cure for high prices in a competetive marketplace, because someone will always take less profit to make a profit that they were not getting before, and that by it's very nature makes the competition work harder to find ways to cut costs so they can get back the profit they lost.

This one fact is lost on the "do-gooders" in Washington who only care about winning votes by passing a law that "sounds good" but always fails. Have you ever heard of a $500.00 hammer? Only people in D.C. would purchase/pay for a $500.00 hammer but it happens in every bureaucratic department because there will always be waste and corruption when there are votes and other peoples money involved.

This administration is in bed with big pharma because it is once again all about the money!

Will Obama Attack Iran?

Obama may attack Iran within the next 12 months if I am reading things correctly. There are two main reasons for this possibility:

1. Obama is frustrated that he has been unsuccessful in negotiations with Iran and with Europe in his quest for other countries to help us fight the Talaban in Afganistan and in other places around the world. Other Countries such as Germany and France have told him to "bug off" when he has asked for help. Consequently he needs to boost his "savior" status by doing something on a grand scale that will get "world" attention and really do what others will see as his being able to cement his place in history as "the one" who started us on the path to "World Peace." Not to mention pick up his sagging poll numbers here in the U.S.

2. Obama is worried that if he doesn't do something soon, Israel will attack or bomb Iran in an attempt to stop the production of Nukes. Obama knows that if that happens Iran will seal off the Straights of Hormuz and this will cause China and Europe to panic and will push them into the deepest depression ever concieved because the price of oil would go up by several orders of magnitude. And China and Europe are telling him this and he is listening with the ear of a savior.

Inflation is Comming - BIG TIME!

About 20 years ago while in College, I came up with a formula for Inflation and my professor thought it was really good and very interesting and here it is....

Delta Inflation is equal to Delta M3 divided by Delta GNP.

Or in other words to simplfy the above formula....A change in Inflation is equal to the change of amount of money in circulation divided by the change in the gross national product.

This goes along with the classical definition of Inflation..... "Too much money chasing too few goods." Notice that there are really only two components to Inflation....Money and goods.

The pied piper of washington is going to ruin this country with run-away inflation because of his spending plans. When ever there is a deficit, there are three ways for the government to get the money to pay for it...

1. Taxes - He wants to just raise the taxes on the rich...but the truly rich have their money protected! Also raising taxes can often lead to less revenue because of the "Laffer Curve." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
UPDATE: 7-29-09 Actually the correct way to use taxes for the government to have more money to pay for it's spending is to lower taxes since this creates more profit for companies because people will then spend it and hence more taxes and more revenue.

2. Borrow - Borrowing money just makes more unemployment because it means less money for the private sector.

3. Inflation - Put more money in circulation - which has the effect of taxing all of us, rich and poor, because the price of everything goes up, (or more correctly the value of our money goes down.)

Value or Cost is equal to Demand over Supply.

Welfare Health Care ( Also known as Oboma Care ) will raise the cost of health care beyond belief.

Lets say that there are 100,000 doctors in this country and 70,000,000 people in the health care system. Now, all of the sudden we add 30,000,000 more people into the system with the same number of Doctors.... Value or Cost will be More demand over the same supply....

Volia - Much higher costs. Perhaps even double or more. It amazes me how Oboma doesn't acknowledge this very important fact. Either he doesn't understand or know it, or he is being dishonest to suit his goal of the "end justify's the means", meaning as long as everyone has health care, it doesn't matter the cost to the taxpayers, as long as they think they are getting taken care of.

This President will go down in history as the worst President we ever had because he will destroy our health care and our economy and even perhaps our freedom.

There you have it...math to prove my points. Of course proof is subjective. Proof is only what a person belives to be true, not what is true. Hence the same facts presented to a Jury, and often half of the Jury will see it 180 degrees from the other half.

Our Liberty continues to disappear!

This nation was founded upon "Individual Rights" and the concept is analogous to “inequality.”

The very concept of “Equality” is incorrectly tied to meaning everyone is the same economically and “thinks alike.” Hence the problem with “Politically Correct Speech.”

The thought police are out in Force. Notice what happened to “Miss California” when she merely expressed her opinion, (It happened to coincide with Mr. Obama’s, but then she wasn’t the Pied Piper of Washington), and so she is vilified.

I remember a Russian Immigrant speaking in Portland, Oregon several years ago and was questioned about Liberty in Russia. His response was that we here in America have lost sight of what Liberty really is….he said in Russia he could get on a soap box and say whatever he wanted, but the only thing was that the following week he would somehow loose his job and be told he was being moved into a different apartment, one that was somehow not as big or as nice. Notice what happens when one group finds out that you voted for prop 8? Some have lost their jobs because of speaking out by expressing their right to vote.

Individual Rights means being able to be “different.” Not just different, but different the way you want to be different as long as it doesn’t take away someone else’s right to be different. And yes, even if it offends others! There is no right to not be offended!
(And please don’t say that gay’s are not allowed to be different…. Neither Straights nor Gay’s can marry someone of the same sex, so there is no loss of freedom by Gay’s and they are allowed to be Gay!)

Which brings me to my biggest point about loosing sight of why we are loosing our Liberty….

We are letting “Group Rights” be the focus! Group Rights destroy Individual Rights!

When we allow any Group to dictate to another group, then we are truly living in a non-free society. A Democracy is where one group, (51%), dictates to another group, (49%), and thus we have the situation where the minority is told what to do by the majority. It is just as oppressive when the minority tells the majority what to do.

We are being lead down a path to where one group is telling the other groups that we all should be “equal”, meaning equal in terms of economics. They do not want to have a multi-class society, they want everyone to be “Upper Class” which is not possible, so we wind up “redistributing the wealth” of the Upper Middle Class to the Middle Class and Lower Class.

The true Upper Class will always be able to find loop holes to stay wealthy. Do you think Ted Kennedy will ever not have his opulence? John Kerry his opulence? No!!!!

The way to accomplish this transfer of money from the Upper Middle Class to the Lower and Middle Class is by taxation.

Equality of opportunity is what should be the goal, not just “Equality.” In a truly free society there must be “winners and losers” in every phase of life. It is through competition that we all grow our society to become wealthier as a whole, not by taking money from one group and giving it to another.

But there are many who don’t want anyone to ever loose, so they build safety nets in every area of our lives, and in so doing, destroy the very essence of what makes us free...the right to succeed only is there if we have the right to fail!

If everyone is the same, we can’t choose to be something different, and loss of choice is loss of freedom.

Today is my 65th Birthday

Well, not much happening today...just chillin....

I am still alive and kicking, so no complaints.

I hope everyone else is as blessed as I am. I have a wonderful wife, 3 wonderful children, a really terriffic little dog, 7 grandchildren and a roof over my head.

Did I mention my computer that allows me to visit the Blogosphere?

Prop 8 Battle

The prop 8 battle may very well wind up in court and if it does, I somehow doubt the people who will be there defending the "Yes" side will be able to recognize the proper way to defend against the other side. Here is the statement that they should use that can't be refuted.

Their argument is based upon "gays" not having a right that "straights" have. It is called the "Equal Protection Clause" in the Constitution.

I don't think they can articulate that position when they stick to that premise.

If they try to say that they can't marry who they love, then the argument is not about equal rights, but that one group wants to change the definition of marriage, and that is not what their "legal" argument is.

It is based upon "Equal Protection" which suggests that "straights" have "more" rights. They don't. Straights have the same "rules" of marriage that gays do. Neither can marry the same sex.

There is no denial of rights! And this is the proof:

If a "gay male" and a "straight male" both want to marry the same guy....(The same gay male), both the straight male and the gay male have equally the same rights and same restrictions. They both are not allowed to marry another male.

This and only this statement should be argued in front of the judges. Normally the other side will try to change the subject or just attack the statement, but the "Yes" side should stick to this one and only one position because it completely refutes their argument that there are rights being denied to the gay person that the stright person has under the "Equal Protection Clause" of the California Constitution. THIS IS JUST A LIE!

Try to show how one side can marry the same sex, while the other side can't marry the same sex! What if a straight male wanted to marry another straight male just to get the benifits of the marriage contract? They are denied the same as if two gays want to do the same thing.

Therefore under the "Equal Protection Clause" there is no need for a change to the Constitution, and Prop 8 was properly voteded on as an "Admendment" and not a "Change."

I challenge anyone to show how gays are being denied a "right" to marry the same sex and the "straights" somehow are allowed!

Who are the “Absolutists?”

There is a great deal of hubris in those who are so “positive”…. so “absolutely sure” of things.

Question One: Is Evolution Random or Directed?

Group One “knows as a surety” that Evolution is Random and Undirected.
Group Two “believes” that it was “directed” and not random…that the “Cambrian Explosion” should bring doubt to any reasonable person.

Which group “shouts” that the other is wrong without any doubt? The one that merely “believes” or the one that says it is not possible for them to be wrong because “science” says they are right? And science has never been wrong before…correct? One group says that science has got it “mostly” right, but there are still some “missing” details that are yet to be explained such as perhaps “macro” evolution may require intervention and direction.


Question Two: Is Man Made Global Warming a “closed case?”

Group One says that there are "no" credible dissenters because they are "all" biased by money, and therefore they "all" have "no" valid points. (Notice the absolutes?)
Group Two says that most of the “grant” money is on the side of the “sky is falling” group and there are credible scientists who don’t have any “dog in the fight.” And that government money is just as valid of a reason to doubt as corporate money because they both can corrupt.

Group Two says that man may be contributing to Global Warming, but what is the exact amount and is it really a cause for "fear mongering?"

Which group is again the one that “shouts” that the other is wrong without any doubt…. the one that says there is Global Warming but they are skeptical about just how much is man made, or the “chicken little” side that is “completely convinced” with no room for doubt? That they "know" that no matter what man's contribution, they "know" that there is no room for doubt that the consequences are known as a surety....that there "will be" catastrophic events. ( Note...not that there "may be", but that there "will be.")

Question Three: Is the other political view “ALWAYS” wrong?

Group One says that the other group is not just misguided but is stupid and malevolent and “never” has a good plan or policy.
Group Two says that the other group is not malevolent and not stupid, but they think that the other group is usually just wrong. Group Two is willing to listen and have a dialog.

Which group is it that is so unreasonable to say that the other group is “ALWAYS” wrong? Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn by accident.


Question Four: Is there a God?

Group One says they are “sure” that there is not one. They are not just “agnostic” but are “sure.” They “know” that there is no God.
Group Two says they are not sure but that is why they have a “belief.” They believe that faith is by definition without proof.

What is ironic is that Group One is the group that usually says, “There are no Absolutes”, which by definition is wrong because the statement itself is an “absolute” statement.

Group One would have us believe that “everything” is relative, even morals and ethics.
Group Two says they believe that there are absolutes and one of them is morality.

So, which side uses the term "belief" with a great deal of regularity, and which side is often hostile to the very mention of the word?