Okay, so it's one of those times of the year where I do a little thinking. A rare occasion, so don't get used to it. But I've had this "idea" rolling around in my head for a while and I want to get it out there for some comment.
I was raised in a world where "peace" meant, essentially, "aloha," "shalom." It was used as a greeting or a farewell. It was used as a term to tell another that they needed to "chill" or calm down. But lately, I've begun to think of "peace" in more classic terms - an absence of hostilities. So that is the context I'd like to couch my thoughts in - not love, or harmony, or anything along those lines. Just simply, an absence of hostility.
So, in my black-and-white world, I see to avenues to peace - at any cost or by any means.
"At any cost" means that no action, no sacrifice, no loss is so great that hostility will be allow to happen.
"By any means" means that no action, no sacrifice, no loss is so great that hostility will be allowed to continue.
My concern is that we, as a nation, have fallen prey to those who would have us in the "at any cost" position. Now, I'm not saying that we need to be the "world's policeman" nor the bully of the world, with the "by any means" position. And maybe that's the thing that's causing me to be unsettled - we ARE involved in a lot of hostility that isn't our concern. We are "policing" and/or "bullying" a lot of the world. Or are we? But I'm not going to get into that discussion here, today. It'll be a good one for another day. Possibly over coffee with someone, rather than here. Who knows?
But, what I'm intending here is that I get some feedback - hopefully some different perspectives - on my premise of how "peace" is attained.
I grew up with (and still embrace, in many areas) the attitude of "Is it really worth fighting over?" Generally, the answer is "No." So, I let it slide. But, in the past couple of decades, I've come to the mindset of "Well, maybe." on a number of issues. And have an attitude that I do find some things worth defending, worth fighting for, worth dying for. No, it's not the punk kid who scratched the paint on my truck or the jerk who cut me off in traffic. Sometimes, I even think the people who hurt my family aren't worth fighting over. Because sometimes, more often than not, there's a lesson to be learned that's more valuable than an offense to be "righted."
Saturday, February 27, 2021
Health Care Reform? Really?
Okay, I've taken a few weeks off. Well, nearly a month. But I've not had anything get me "fired up". Not that Piet's messages haven't been great, it's just that I haven't come home feeling like I needed to express what I'd received.
Then I was reminded about this whole "health care reform" fiasco. I mean, really, who decided this was needed? Who decided it was "health care reform"? And who really thinks that the government is the entity to run such an important and personal part of our lives?
I mean, the arguments FOR this reform aren't about "health care reform." We have the best medical system in the world. I have not heard even the most radical supporter of this "reform" give the vaguest anecdote about someone leaving our country for another country's health care. I'm sure one can find instances of someone with the money and influence leaving the country for treatment by a specific physician, or a specific facility because of their expertise or some other quality that makes them preferable. But has ANYONE honestly seen any indication that any other country has a better health care system - better doctors, better hospitals and facilities? Better pharmaceuticals could be argued - but only because the FDA is a flippin' joke. And there is just the beginning of a litany of reasons why the government is not the entity to put in charge of managing YOUR health care.
My assertion is, and has been for years, that there is no one on this planet who is even close to being as concerned about my health as I am. Therefore, I should be making the health care decisions for me. Not my doctor. Not my insurance company. And for damned sure, not some "civil servant" who is hired into a broken government system and whose performance review is based upon how much they cut costs over the past 12 months.
I'm not saying that American doctors are perfect. Not by a long shot. I've fired too many of them to believe that. But, I do believe they are, in general, the best on the planet when it comes to giving me medical counsel. And that, in my opinion, is what I pay them for. Not to lord the immense knowledge over me. Not to tell me how they believe I should live my life. But to give me advice, based upon years of education and experience. Any doctor who disagrees with my philosophy gets fired. Plain and simple. Because, you see, I am the one paying their salary.
And this brings me to the crux of the matter. The reason I felt like I needed to write this out. Because, you see, we do have the best medical system in the world and no one can argue to the contrary with any integrity at all. What has been argued for the past several months is "Who should pay for it?" Besides a few left-wing radicals, I've not heard anyone arguing whether or not our health care system needs reform, but whether or not how we pay for health care needs to be reformed. And, when you decipher what the radicals are writing, it still boils down to an issue of payment.
To be certain, I've heard some eloquent arguments for "public option", "single-payer system" and "government controlled system," among others. But, when you get right down to it, these are not going to work. No way, no how. The entire premise is laughable to any freedom-loving person. And even lethally frightening to people with obscure, or "un-sexy" diseases. If we were to put our government in charge of paying for health care, with what must be a limited budget, then nothing short of rationing care is possible. It happens today, only that it's private individuals who, through their level of financial resources, do the rationing. If any one entity, even if it's not the government, holds all of the money that can be spent on medical care, then that entity will have to determine who gets their treatment paid for and who does not. Or even who gets treated and who does not. After all, with only so much money, they can only pay for a certain amount of care. So, it is by definition a self-limiting, self-rationing system. The only questions are: Who makes the decisions on who gets treated and who does not? And how do they make that determination?
Let's look at something concrete. AIDS came to America in the late 1970's and came into the public eye in the early 1980's. I don't recall exactly what year this occurred, but prior to that it wasn't very well known. And it was, to most people - most voters, a source of off-color jokes for many years after that, but not a serious topic deserving serious concern. Then, one day, someone funded some research which led to a published study showing that everyone's flippant attitude about AIDS was actually helping the disease spread - and the fastest growing population of AIDS patients were not long-practicing homosexuals in San Francisco, but heterosexuals, in their prime, across the country. Then it became a serious issue. Something voters were concerned about. And that is when government-funded programs to research and treat AIDS would have been started under a government-run system. Not a decade before, when the disease was discovered. It was too inconsequential. As a "gay" disease it wasn't a political issue because the gay community wasn't all that influential. The openly gay community and those who sympathized with their cause was still pretty small and, frankly, seen as a political liability. The only reason AIDS research started as early as it did was because privately-held and publicly-held pharmaceutical and medical research companies saw the opportunity to make a profit by helping AIDS victims. Now, don't think I'm saying that a bunch of greedy bastards saw that there was a buck to be made. I'm sure there are enough voices out there raising that cry without me doing so. But I honestly believe the reason many people go into these fields of pharmaceutical and medical research and development is because they want to help make people's lives better. And they are funded by businessmen (and women) who, by definition, are willing to invest to make a profit. And, if that profit goes away, so does their willingness to pump money into new and emerging technologies, therapies and drugs. Sure, some will see an opportunity to be philanthropic or seek a tax shelter, but nothing like the money being poured into it today. And boosting the taxes to pay for a government-funded system will dry up that money completely.
Plain and simple, controlling the money gives options. The question is, who do you want controlling the money?
If the investors control the money to fund research and development, then they will invest in companies that will create a profit. And, in the medical world, that means keeping up with "the next big thing" coming down the pike. A cumbersome governmental bureaucracy is highly unlikely to be proactive about this. Just think about how long it took the state (whatever state you're in) to get the license bureau computerized to the point that it wasn't a day-long activity to get a 15-minute transaction accomplished. In some states, it may still be an all-day ordeal. In Missouri, I can now take care of a lot of government interaction on-line and trips to the license bureau take minutes instead of hours. A couple of years ago, it wasn't like that and it was a long, slow process getting there.
And if I control the money to pay for my treatment, I have the option of deciding whether or not to pay for a treatment I decide is or is not the best option for me. What this means is that I don't have some paper-shuffling clerk in a government office telling me I can't have a highly-promising protocol because it's not approved AND in the same breath telling me I must submit to a treatment/therapy/protocol that I find myself morally, ethically, or even health-wise objecting to OR risk being imprisoned (literally or via involuntary quarantine). As little attention as the people who currently pay for medical services give to "preventative medicine", and this includes Medicare and the VA, how can anyone believe it will change under a mandatory, government-run system. Sorry, but that's just some pie-in-the-sky scheme that politicians are selling people they want to control - something to win votes.
I find it amazing that people who spent the last 8 years protesting, sometimes violently, government control and government invasion into their privacy and everything that Big Brother "W" was doing are now blindly willing to fall into line and drink the Kool-Aid because of a change in administration. I just find a certain lack of integrity in that behavior.
Well, my "proof-reader" says their eyes glazed over back in the fifth paragraph, so I'll not go into this much more. But I would like to make one final point : without calling anyone's morals or ethics into account, I believe most doctors do what they do because (1) they are capable and (2) it pays "well". I've known enough doctors to know that some make highly enviable salaries and others would probably live better if they were to do I quit to go to college. So, I'm not saying they're all a bunch of money-grubbing jerks. But, the schools that educate them could be another matter. And I digress... My point is that if you take away the financial incentive, you will lose - quite possibly within a generation if not sooner - all of your specialists. Your neurosurgeons, your pediatric specialists, your infectious disease specialists, all of them. Not that you wouldn't find someone to do the job, but you would not have caliber people willing to dedicate 12 years or more to learning such a technical job just to come out of school and walk into a fixed income, living off of the tax-payer's dime.
So, you see, all of these articles in Rolling Stone and The Village Voice and what-not decrying our health care system would end up being self-fulfilling prophecies. Not an indictment of how things are, but of how they would become.
Then I was reminded about this whole "health care reform" fiasco. I mean, really, who decided this was needed? Who decided it was "health care reform"? And who really thinks that the government is the entity to run such an important and personal part of our lives?
I mean, the arguments FOR this reform aren't about "health care reform." We have the best medical system in the world. I have not heard even the most radical supporter of this "reform" give the vaguest anecdote about someone leaving our country for another country's health care. I'm sure one can find instances of someone with the money and influence leaving the country for treatment by a specific physician, or a specific facility because of their expertise or some other quality that makes them preferable. But has ANYONE honestly seen any indication that any other country has a better health care system - better doctors, better hospitals and facilities? Better pharmaceuticals could be argued - but only because the FDA is a flippin' joke. And there is just the beginning of a litany of reasons why the government is not the entity to put in charge of managing YOUR health care.
My assertion is, and has been for years, that there is no one on this planet who is even close to being as concerned about my health as I am. Therefore, I should be making the health care decisions for me. Not my doctor. Not my insurance company. And for damned sure, not some "civil servant" who is hired into a broken government system and whose performance review is based upon how much they cut costs over the past 12 months.
I'm not saying that American doctors are perfect. Not by a long shot. I've fired too many of them to believe that. But, I do believe they are, in general, the best on the planet when it comes to giving me medical counsel. And that, in my opinion, is what I pay them for. Not to lord the immense knowledge over me. Not to tell me how they believe I should live my life. But to give me advice, based upon years of education and experience. Any doctor who disagrees with my philosophy gets fired. Plain and simple. Because, you see, I am the one paying their salary.
And this brings me to the crux of the matter. The reason I felt like I needed to write this out. Because, you see, we do have the best medical system in the world and no one can argue to the contrary with any integrity at all. What has been argued for the past several months is "Who should pay for it?" Besides a few left-wing radicals, I've not heard anyone arguing whether or not our health care system needs reform, but whether or not how we pay for health care needs to be reformed. And, when you decipher what the radicals are writing, it still boils down to an issue of payment.
To be certain, I've heard some eloquent arguments for "public option", "single-payer system" and "government controlled system," among others. But, when you get right down to it, these are not going to work. No way, no how. The entire premise is laughable to any freedom-loving person. And even lethally frightening to people with obscure, or "un-sexy" diseases. If we were to put our government in charge of paying for health care, with what must be a limited budget, then nothing short of rationing care is possible. It happens today, only that it's private individuals who, through their level of financial resources, do the rationing. If any one entity, even if it's not the government, holds all of the money that can be spent on medical care, then that entity will have to determine who gets their treatment paid for and who does not. Or even who gets treated and who does not. After all, with only so much money, they can only pay for a certain amount of care. So, it is by definition a self-limiting, self-rationing system. The only questions are: Who makes the decisions on who gets treated and who does not? And how do they make that determination?
Let's look at something concrete. AIDS came to America in the late 1970's and came into the public eye in the early 1980's. I don't recall exactly what year this occurred, but prior to that it wasn't very well known. And it was, to most people - most voters, a source of off-color jokes for many years after that, but not a serious topic deserving serious concern. Then, one day, someone funded some research which led to a published study showing that everyone's flippant attitude about AIDS was actually helping the disease spread - and the fastest growing population of AIDS patients were not long-practicing homosexuals in San Francisco, but heterosexuals, in their prime, across the country. Then it became a serious issue. Something voters were concerned about. And that is when government-funded programs to research and treat AIDS would have been started under a government-run system. Not a decade before, when the disease was discovered. It was too inconsequential. As a "gay" disease it wasn't a political issue because the gay community wasn't all that influential. The openly gay community and those who sympathized with their cause was still pretty small and, frankly, seen as a political liability. The only reason AIDS research started as early as it did was because privately-held and publicly-held pharmaceutical and medical research companies saw the opportunity to make a profit by helping AIDS victims. Now, don't think I'm saying that a bunch of greedy bastards saw that there was a buck to be made. I'm sure there are enough voices out there raising that cry without me doing so. But I honestly believe the reason many people go into these fields of pharmaceutical and medical research and development is because they want to help make people's lives better. And they are funded by businessmen (and women) who, by definition, are willing to invest to make a profit. And, if that profit goes away, so does their willingness to pump money into new and emerging technologies, therapies and drugs. Sure, some will see an opportunity to be philanthropic or seek a tax shelter, but nothing like the money being poured into it today. And boosting the taxes to pay for a government-funded system will dry up that money completely.
Plain and simple, controlling the money gives options. The question is, who do you want controlling the money?
If the investors control the money to fund research and development, then they will invest in companies that will create a profit. And, in the medical world, that means keeping up with "the next big thing" coming down the pike. A cumbersome governmental bureaucracy is highly unlikely to be proactive about this. Just think about how long it took the state (whatever state you're in) to get the license bureau computerized to the point that it wasn't a day-long activity to get a 15-minute transaction accomplished. In some states, it may still be an all-day ordeal. In Missouri, I can now take care of a lot of government interaction on-line and trips to the license bureau take minutes instead of hours. A couple of years ago, it wasn't like that and it was a long, slow process getting there.
And if I control the money to pay for my treatment, I have the option of deciding whether or not to pay for a treatment I decide is or is not the best option for me. What this means is that I don't have some paper-shuffling clerk in a government office telling me I can't have a highly-promising protocol because it's not approved AND in the same breath telling me I must submit to a treatment/therapy/protocol that I find myself morally, ethically, or even health-wise objecting to OR risk being imprisoned (literally or via involuntary quarantine). As little attention as the people who currently pay for medical services give to "preventative medicine", and this includes Medicare and the VA, how can anyone believe it will change under a mandatory, government-run system. Sorry, but that's just some pie-in-the-sky scheme that politicians are selling people they want to control - something to win votes.
I find it amazing that people who spent the last 8 years protesting, sometimes violently, government control and government invasion into their privacy and everything that Big Brother "W" was doing are now blindly willing to fall into line and drink the Kool-Aid because of a change in administration. I just find a certain lack of integrity in that behavior.
Well, my "proof-reader" says their eyes glazed over back in the fifth paragraph, so I'll not go into this much more. But I would like to make one final point : without calling anyone's morals or ethics into account, I believe most doctors do what they do because (1) they are capable and (2) it pays "well". I've known enough doctors to know that some make highly enviable salaries and others would probably live better if they were to do I quit to go to college. So, I'm not saying they're all a bunch of money-grubbing jerks. But, the schools that educate them could be another matter. And I digress... My point is that if you take away the financial incentive, you will lose - quite possibly within a generation if not sooner - all of your specialists. Your neurosurgeons, your pediatric specialists, your infectious disease specialists, all of them. Not that you wouldn't find someone to do the job, but you would not have caliber people willing to dedicate 12 years or more to learning such a technical job just to come out of school and walk into a fixed income, living off of the tax-payer's dime.
So, you see, all of these articles in Rolling Stone and The Village Voice and what-not decrying our health care system would end up being self-fulfilling prophecies. Not an indictment of how things are, but of how they would become.
Ground-zero Mosque
I have to say that I think it is obscene that anyone would want to build a Muslim mosque, THIS mosque, so close to the site of the WTC. I also think it is obscene that we continue to have porn stores open in and near residential neighborhoods. That is how I feel.
But, that does not give me the legal or moral high ground to say it can't be built. I don't own the property. I didn't write (or even vote on) the zoning codes. And I really don't have a dog in this fight. Yet, if they bought the property, legally, and they're obeying the codes and laws, who are we to tell them how they can or cannot use their private property?
You see, I believe the principles laid out in the Constitution of the United States are kind of like the teachings in the Bible - you don't get to pick and choose what you like and what you don't. Now, I am "fairly" certain that the Founding Fathers were not considering the rights of Muslims when they adopted Freedom of Religion as part of the very first Amendment to the Constitution. But they were concerned about the rights of individuals to worship God as they see fit without having the government step in and say what is and what isn't allowed. And if you're going to make that kind of law to keep the Presbyterians from going to war with the Baptists, you have to accept that it's going to go beyond what you see today. People will push it beyond what you have in mind. What is "Christianity" will be redefined. What is "religion" will be redefined.
P.S. For those who haven't noticed, this is a LOT more about the last two paragraphs than the first.
P.P.S. This is a LOT shorter (and a lot later) than it started out to be, but it makes my point without rambling on and on, trying to cover this and a bunch of other stuff. I think I'll try to follow this example from now on.
But, that does not give me the legal or moral high ground to say it can't be built. I don't own the property. I didn't write (or even vote on) the zoning codes. And I really don't have a dog in this fight. Yet, if they bought the property, legally, and they're obeying the codes and laws, who are we to tell them how they can or cannot use their private property?
You see, I believe the principles laid out in the Constitution of the United States are kind of like the teachings in the Bible - you don't get to pick and choose what you like and what you don't. Now, I am "fairly" certain that the Founding Fathers were not considering the rights of Muslims when they adopted Freedom of Religion as part of the very first Amendment to the Constitution. But they were concerned about the rights of individuals to worship God as they see fit without having the government step in and say what is and what isn't allowed. And if you're going to make that kind of law to keep the Presbyterians from going to war with the Baptists, you have to accept that it's going to go beyond what you see today. People will push it beyond what you have in mind. What is "Christianity" will be redefined. What is "religion" will be redefined.
P.S. For those who haven't noticed, this is a LOT more about the last two paragraphs than the first.
P.P.S. This is a LOT shorter (and a lot later) than it started out to be, but it makes my point without rambling on and on, trying to cover this and a bunch of other stuff. I think I'll try to follow this example from now on.
Are we REALLY recovering?
I read an article yesterday that the newly sworn in House of Representatives actually read the Constitution on the House floor. Like it meant something. Amazing! We could be headed in the right direction. But then, most of the members didn't stick around to hear it read. Oh well, it's a start.
I read this article earlier today and found it share-worthy. I posted it on Facebook and almost immediately started getting positive feedback and "likes" on my link. So, the question is am I really so isolated from reality that even my friends have the same delusions as I do or are we on the right track?
Well, I find it very encouraging that we have a stronger, more vocal movement - from the grassroots on up - that is concerned with getting the national/federal government back within its Constitutional bounds. And that includes the judiciary. Hallelujah!
I read this article earlier today and found it share-worthy. I posted it on Facebook and almost immediately started getting positive feedback and "likes" on my link. So, the question is am I really so isolated from reality that even my friends have the same delusions as I do or are we on the right track?
Well, I find it very encouraging that we have a stronger, more vocal movement - from the grassroots on up - that is concerned with getting the national/federal government back within its Constitutional bounds. And that includes the judiciary. Hallelujah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)