Monday, July 27, 2009


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.

Saturday, July 11, 2009


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 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.

Sunday, July 5, 2009


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 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.