WHY OBAMA-CARE WON'T WORK...EVER

Rather than write about the politics and failed media coverage of President Obama's health care plan like everyone else has, I've decided to do what few others have. I am simply going to explain why it will never work.

1. There will be a shortage of Doctors.

Many existing Doctors are not going to want the government telling them how to run their practices any more than they all ready do. They will also have beef with the government regulating how much they can charge and under what circumstances. They know how the government will be telling them who will be worthy of what treat too and probably won't want that on their conscience.
Prospective Doctors will be in short supply too. Think about it. Why would you go through 10-12 years of schooling to be a Doctor, just so you can be a government employee? Who wants to be a part of a profession that will most likely garner you a salary that is already in the crosshairs of the Obama administration ($250,000 and above)?
Any Doctor willing to stay on as a part of Obama's plan will be too busy to provide the quality of care that Americans have become accustom to. Now that health care will be "free", every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a hang-nail or runny nose is going to want to take advantage of their new "right" of nationalized health care by trying to see a Doctor every time they have a tummy ache. But can you blame them? After all, look how much we're going to be paying in taxes for this monster. The attitude will be one of two things: "Hey, free health care! Let's all go to the Doctor!" Or, "Hey, I'm payin' for this crap, so I might as well get my money's worth!"

If you think a hospital waiting room is crowded now, wait till you see one under socialized health care. It's really no different than what you might expect if McDonald's announced that they would be giving their food away for free...long, long lines, "get em' in-get em' out" style quality, and overworked staff.

2. Competition

One of the great things about free market health care is the fact that if you're not happy with an insurance plan, or company, you have the option of shopping around the many others competing for your premium dollars. The end result is lower prices and better quality service. That's because no one wants to lose a customer to the competition.

Under a government health care program, competition won't exist. Not because of any specific policy or clause in the legislation, but by simple attrition. For one thing, many (if not all) employers will simply drop their employee health care plans now that the tax payer will be shouldering the burden. This alone will be the death of many insurance companies.
The companies left standing will have the privelege of competing with the U.S. government. This is akin to putting the referee in the game as a player. The guy who makes the rules and has final say on who went "out of bounds" is now your competition.
This would be fair if private citizens (insurance companies) had the power to impose and collect taxes when money gets tight, write legislation favoring their outcomes, appoint officials that will see things their way, or enforce laws at their discretion.

3. Rationing

There will be rationing of health care, because there will be no choice. The laws of human nature as well as supply and demand will force it to become a reality. There are simply too many people who will be going to the Doctor's office for every little sniffle to be accomodated by the diminished pool of Doctors. The demand will simply be too high to be met by the supply. Rationing will need be imposed either by policy and legislation, or again...attrition.
Your age, weight, habits, and eventually even your value to the "collective" will be factors in whether you have access to health care.

4. It's unconstitutional.

I challenge anyone reading this to find anywhere in our constitution the part that empowers the government to take over our health care system...or any other private industry for that matter. Our founding documents were written for the sole purpose of preventing the government from doing things like this.


5. Quality control.

When your "government issue" Doctor amputates the wrong leg, who are you going to sue? Now that he no longer has a private practice, what is his incentive to go the extra mile to provide superior service? After all, now that he/she's working for Uncle Sam, he has no competition. As a government employee, his reputation is really not that important anymore, because as long as he meets his federal standard, or knows how to scam the system, he will still collect his paycheck.

7. Fewer innovations.

Now that the government has targeted those making $250,000 or more, and regulated the industry to the point of negative return, what will be the incentive of a pharmeceuticle to take the risk of developing a new drug? After all, now that we've deemed "profit" to be a sin, would we really want them to be successful anyway? Now that he has to answer to the full weight and power of the U.S. government, what Doctor in his/her right mind is going to step out on a limb and experiment with a new and ground breaking, yet risky medical procedure?

8. Beuracracy

Let me get this straight. We want the same people who brought us the I.R.S., D.O.T., F.E.M.A., Amtrak, D.M.V., the 9th Circuit Court, medicare, medicade, social security, and our current immigration policy to be in charge of what kind of health care our loved ones can get? Really?
The same group that gave us the $400.00 hammer and our current tax code are now going to be in charge of reducing the cost of health care? Really?!

If ever there were a situation where people needed to put aside their political affiliations and use basic common sense to make a decision, this is that situation. It's time to see the big picture and accept the unintended consequences of this nightmare. The alternative is to wait and see how this plays out. Then when people start dying, we can sit around and wonder how this all happened and what we're going to do to fix it. By then it will be too late.

I found this site to be pretty informative about the specifics regarding the current health care bill being rushed through Congress. http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/19/the-hc-monstrosity/?dsq=13769492#comment-13769492

YARD SALE UNIVERSITY

What better way to spend a day off from work than to get up early in the morning, lug an assortment of various card and picnic tables into your driveway, and then proceed to haul every useless item in your possession out into the blazing sun for the whole neighborhood to enjoy? Yes, I'm talking about that staple of Americana...the yard sale.
At the "urging" of my wife, I was lucky enough to experience such a delightful event just yesterday. Though the entire "take" from our little venture wouldn't buy you a pair of shoes at the discount store, I did come away with a lesson worth passing on to others.

One of the first things you notice when having a yard sale is the diversity of people that somehow find your junk interesting. There seems to be no common thread regarding economic status, gender or...hygiene. People just show up for their own reasons and rummage through your stuff in hopes of finding lost treasure.
After many mini-vans and economy cars had come and gone purchasing a dollar's worth here and fifty cents worth there, a brand new Cadillac Escalade Hybrid came rolling in. The very well dressed lady who was driving it seemed like someone who might be more at home at Nordstrom's than here at "Roadhouse-Mart". As she proceeded to set the purchasing record for the entire day by taking an assortment of my wife's knick-knacks, trinkets, and bobbles off our hands, it dawned on me that this was a perfect example of why I don't resent "the rich".

After a stream of looky-loos, and penny-pinchers, this lady was single-handedly making our yard sale worth having. OK, maybe that's a generous exaggeration, but you get my point. On a very small scale, our tiny yard sale demonstrated the importance of affluence.
Think about it. If you own a store that sells widgets, who would you rather see walking through your door? A poor, penniless homeless guy, or J.P. Moneybags? This same principal applies at all economic levels. It is the "rich" man who buys the widgets...in bulk. It is the "rich" man who hires the employee and provides them with a paycheck along with an array of benefits.
When a truck factory or a lumber mill begins to slow down due to a bad economy, do the workers there hope to get a call from that guy who sleeps in the dumpster behind Hardee's, or from the guy who owns three yachts and two villas in France?
Has any business owner ever said to him/herself "Gee, I sure do wish some dirt-poor, broke people would show up right about now"? No.

I just think it's ironic when people complain about poverty and unemployment, yet vilify those who put people to work. The liberal is offended that someone would own three yachts, but forgets about the family who's father works for the yacht manufacturing company as a rail polisher. They forget about the kid working at the marina where one of these yachts are docked, trying to earn his tuition for college. They forget about the diesel mechanic who maintains the yacht's two Caterpillar motors, and his wife who needs a new car.

At the end of the day, it was the rich lady driving a vehicle I would never be able to afford who provided my family and I with the means to have a nice dinner out, and ice cream sundaes for dessert. Rather than be jealous or resentful toward this lady, I invite her to come to our next yard sale and relieve me of all our junk...because I love ice cream.

GET EM' YOUNG

Being a Dad has some lesser known advantages. One is being relieved of all that cumbersome spending cash that once weighed down my wallet pocket when I walked down the street, and another is having a legitimate excuse to watch cartoons.
The other morning I was watching cartoons with my daughter when during a commercial break, they ran an "animated short". This is a 15-30 second cartoon usually intended to teach a lesson of some sort to the kiddies. These "shorts" might relate a message about sharing one day, or manners the next. On this particular day, the message was, well...I'll let you decide.

The scene opens with two cute/cuddly characters passing a ball back and fourth on a blank field of white. Then a third not quite as cute/cuddly character comes along and takes their ball, and then proceeds to poke a hole in it, letting all the air out. He then walks away, leaving the two with a deflated rubber pancake.
The two then take the useless mass, stretch it out, and play "jump rope" with it, at which point the story ends.

What is this supposed to teach my kids? How to let someone get away with treating you like crap? How to get used to being taken advantage of? How to be a victim? How to be polite to bullies? How to deny yourself justice? How to allow a criminal to keep hurting others? How to empower the tyrant?

Seriously, If the message was "how to deal with adversity", then they could have just as easily had the ball deflate via a poke from a sharp rock or stick, as opposed to a bully getting his jollies. But they chose a bully scenario for a reason...to teach our kids the liberal "virtue" of pacifism. Let's not teach our children to stand up for themselves or others. No, no, no. Let's teach them how to be good little push-overs and compliant little worker bees. Let's not teach them about justice or consequences. No, no, no. Let's teach them that bullies and tyrants will stop being bullies and tyrants, so long as you let them do what they want to you.

The only one I can think of that would benefit from promoting such a concept would be someone (or group of someones) that aspires to control others with as little resistance as possible. I wonder who that might be.

"IMPORTANT" NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

HEADLINES:

"Micheal Jackson Dead At Age Fifty", "Micheal Jackson Dead!", "King of Pop Dies", "Jackson Family Mourns Passing of Micheal", "M. J. Found Dead", "Jackson Dead!", "M.J. Passes", "Jackson Found Dead!", "World Mourns Jackson Death!", "Tragic Death of Pop Icon", "Entertainment Legend Dies", "World Shocked By Death Of Micheal Jackson", "Questions Surround Jackson Estate", "Nation Mourns Death Of King Of Pop", "Nation Shocked by Death of M.J.", "M.J. Dead!", "Rest In Peace Micheal", "Doctor Questioned In Jackson Death", "Micheal Jackson's Tragic Death", "King of Pop Dead At Fifty!", "M.J. Dead At Fifty", "Some Bill Or Something Passes In Congress" (page 8-C...below the fold).


Even a truck drive'n, terminally white, no-talent, redneck like myself can appreciate the historic musical achievements of Micheal Jackson. Face it, hits like "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" can even be heard blasting from a certain eighteen wheeler driven by your's truly on occasion.
Jackson's death following such an "unusual" life is without a doubt newsworthy, but let's be reasonable. Once the announcement of his death is aired, it's time to move on to issues that actually will effect your life. On the same day that Congress narrowly passes a bill that will in all likelihood destroy our nation as we know it, all of media decides that the only thing worth talking about is the death of a guy who sang songs and danced.
Media reports on every channel were streaming into the newsrooms as if we were waiting to see Jackson spring back to life and moonwalk out of the Coroner's office. I think it's just great that we live in a world where average people can name you no less than three Micheal Jackson albums off the top of their head, but have no idea what the term "cap and trade" means. But after watching the media coverage this week, it's no wonder.

Priorities People!!!

...AND IRAN...IRAN SO FAR AWAY!

On any given day, I dread turning on the news because I am sure to see something that makes me want to build a bunker and teach my family tactical defense techniques. With so much of humanity willing to turn a blind eye to tyranny and the loss of their own liberties, there is just so little to root for lately. Think about it, if your favorite baseball team decided to walk off the field and forfeit the game because they just didn't feel like getting dirty or risking an injury, then who or what would you root for? Sadly, this is the mentality of a growing percentage of people these days. "Conflict resolution" and moral relativity have taken the place of knowing right from wrong and acting decisively. Add apathy into the mix and you end up with a nation of pointless do-nothing robots willing to offer themselves to any dictator or thug that happens to talk his way into power.

Enter Iran. Since I started paying attention to the world around me (September 11, 2001), I have heard more often than not about the oppression of the younger/more "moderate" Iranian youth that are being held down by the Mullahs and ruling class of Iran. As one who generally does not trust Muslims, I admittedly have been very skeptical of these claims. I may have to change my tune.
As I see the footage being smuggled out of Iran via "Twitter", and other Internet venues not currently being shut down by the Iranian "government", I am reminded of America's own rough road to freedom. Though our particular situation may have been slightly different, the underlying desire for freedom is one we should all be able to identify with.
As I watch these young Iranians try to express their want of basic liberty while under the guns of radical tyrants, all I can do is root for the underdog and write in their support. I can only hope that our own administration's lack of willingness to support them does not result in an over-confident Iranian revolution that is ultimately put down via rifles and grenades. You see, after years of President Bush's support of their cause, the Iranian youth may have chosen a poor time to launch their first salvos toward freedom. I fear that they have not gotten the memo that the "new guy" in all likelihood will probably leave them out in the cold, resulting in a massacre, followed by intense resentment of more promises not kept by the "ugly Americans".
As President Obama focuses his attention on how to ruin our health care system, there are people out there willing to give their lives so that they may break free of their government's grip. We on the other hand try to find new ways to have our government tighten theirs.

Go figure.

SOMEBODY CALL A DOCTOR!

This article is a little late in the offering, but hey, it's my blog therefore my schedule. A few weeks ago, the Obama administration publicized it's intention to reverse a policy which allowed Doctors to exercise their right to refuse to perform some "medical" procedures that they might find morally reprehensible.
To understand just how tyrannical this reversal is, you first have to understand that Doctors are American citizens too. That means that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights just like any other citizen. Essentially, this decision takes the power of a Doctor to run his own practice as he sees fit, and hands it directly to some bureaucratic government "committee" at the point of a gun (yes, the police and/or government officials that would be charged with enforcing this policy will most likely be armed). Not to mention the fact that Doctors take an oath to "do no harm".
Though the reversal is an obvious attempt to subvert the pro-life movement and "weed out" Doctors who don't tow the pro-infanticide line, abortion is not the only "procedure" this decision calls into question.
Consider this, a mother brings her 12 year old daughter to a plastic surgeon in hopes of getting her breast implants. An ethical doctor would immediately refuse the operation, but under this new policy reversal, he wouldn't be allowed to refuse. Maybe a crack addict comes into a Doctor's office in hopes of having some of his less vital organs removed so that he may sell them for crack money. According to President Obama, the Doctor will have no choice but to perform the operation.

Considering President Obama's "hope" of socializing our health care system, I have to wonder if he's really thought this one through. You see, under socialized health care, Doctors are already going to become an endangered species without taking their ethical decision making power away. So couple this reversal with the idea of turning private practice Doctors into government employees, and only one question comes to mind. Why be a Doctor?
Really. Why go through all those years of medical school, make all those personal sacrifices, and go to all that expense so that at the end of the day you will be nothing more than a tool to be used at the government's beck and call.
I can't imagine working so hard to become a Doctor, when you would have so little control over your own professional destiny. To have so many of your decisions made by bureaucrats, regardless of their ethical merit, success, or viability just doesn't seem worth the effort.

...AND JUSTICE FOR SOME


One of the less exciting but probably most important issues facing America today is the nomination of Supreme Court Justices by our President. Let's face it, a majority of the present day Supreme Court has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peal (as my Grandfather used to say).
Obama's pick of Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice is very telling. Not for the reasons most bloggers are talking about today, (mainly her liberal leaning record) but for Obama's criteria for nominating her. Empathy. How can you be impartial if you're empathetic? There is a reason that statues of "Lady Justice" are always depicted with her wearing a blindfold. There is reason for the slogan "Justice is blind". When you wear a black robe and hold the fate of some one's or even an entire nation's future in your hands, you are duty bound and constitutionally required to NOT be "empathetic".
Realizing that five minutes had gone by without holding a press conference, Senator Charles Schumer ran over his grandmother and pushed a pregnant woman out of the way in order to get his mug in front of camera to support Obama's nomination. For my liberal readers, that was a joke. Schumer's criteria for Supreme Court Justice was stated by the horses mouth as follows;

"Judge Sotomayor meets three very important standards in filling this Supreme Court vacancy—excellence, moderation and diversity".

Excellence? Isn't that a matter of opinion Chuck?

Moderation? Is that in the constitution? Can you "moderate" law, or case precedent?

Diversity? Is that in the constitution? Does Sotomayor's judicial "excellence" reside in the color of her skin? The color of her hair? The color of her eyes? The particular type of genitalia she happens to have? Or are we celebrating diversity of thought? Like when the you applaud the diverse opinions of all Americans...as long as they're liberal. Right Chuck? Get it? "Right"?

Consider this. You get on a commercial jet airliner and they're expecting some bad weather during your flight. You are informed that your pilot was hired because of the color of her skin and the fact that she is a female. She was also given consideration because of her "empathy" for people who refuse to fly. You ask the flight attendant if the pilot actually knows how to fly a plane and she goes into a long flowery speech about the pilot's "compelling life story". You insist that she tell you the pilot's qualifications and are immediately called a "racist" and escorted off the jet way. Two hours later, the plane crashes into the sea.

A President with actual experience (or one that doesn't hate America), realizes that the nominee's knowlege of and adherance to the constitution is really the only criteria he needs to be concerened about.