November 4th 2008 was a historic day in United States for several reasons. The first of which and tremendously important to all the citizens of this country was the choice that was made for president of the most powerful country in the world. Barrack Obama, being a man of color represents a turning point in race relations and make up of the country. Through his election the onus of America being a racist nation, more so for people of color within it, than how it was perceived by the rest of the country, is over.
For years the old guard liberal hew and cry was that America was a white man controlled, racist nation incapable of understanding the plight of the Black man. It was a doctrine that the “Man” was forever holding them down, and that most Whites had a grievance with all people of color. This was used to initiate, affirmative action, and other racist programs supposedly designed to “level the playing field”. No longer does this argument hold water. Without the support and votes of a strong majority of white voters Obama would not have been elected.
This event is historic in another way. This is America’s first Marxist president.
Obama’s statements past and present reflect such ideals as, “redistribution of wealth”, and that there are, “too many restrictions in the constitution”, his words not mine. The redistribution of wealth is right from the foundation of Marxist ideology and the statement that there are too many restrictions in the constitution shows me that Obama has little understanding of the intent of our forefathers.
The Constitution was intentionally set up as being restrictive. It was made to limit the power of a central government from making a one-size fits all decision for the whole country. It was designed to give each state and community the CHOICE to decide for them selves what is best for them. It was restrictive in that it gives the power to the people, power to speak freely without repercussion, power to seek out that which makes them happy or to worship in whichever manner they want without interference from government.
With the Congress being controlled by Democrat representatives Obama will have a virtual open door to appoint judges that will in turn rule on constitutional issues with a bias toward “wealth re-distribution”. This is not conjecture on my part but in fact based on an interview with Obama in which he openly stated that one of his frustrations was the courts did not do enough to rule on the redistribution of wealth.
Again he has espoused a very negative view of our constitution and the role of the judicial branch of the government. If we are to survive this onslaught and attack on our basic freedoms and rights as listed in the constitution we must make our representatives aware that we see what the potential dangers in making the judicial branch of government a tool to undo the meaning and significance of that constitution.
This election IS historic, not to say all in a positive way, but could be a wake up call to all of us that cherish or freedoms and rights. Let’s not allow the positive aspect of this election to be tarnished with the possible erasure of our constitutional rights.
Although I am not a supporter of President elect Obama’s voting record or his campaign rhetoric I have a hope that he will not be as far left as he has appeared to many of us that are conservative and/or libertarian and pray that his vision is clear and his choices for our future are imbued with wisdom.
God Bless and good luck Mr. President.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Jefferson On Religion
For some reason last week while in deep contemplation the thought of Jeffersonian religious thought invaded my meditation, which led me to reflect on what is meant by freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state, maybe due to the fact that some of the most celebrated Christian Holidays are coming up soon.
Although Jefferson was a Christian, in that he thought that Christ’s teachings were, "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." he was often accused of being a libertine, or an atheist, because of his rather unorthodox approach to “religion”. He is often times referred to as a Deist, in other words, Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator, and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity, he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, even though as stated above he held that Jesus was the greatest of moral teachers.
The reason I bring up his personal belief is that I feel it is reflected in his statements regarding putting up a “wall between church and state”. He rightfully accused religions of the past of using their “power” for tyrannical control over a populous, and that government that established a “state” religion where guilty of the same tyrannical despotism.
What I have argued in the past, as have others who consider themselves Christians, is that our country was founded on Christian principles, and therefore the exclusion of the mention of Christian holidays, celebrations, and moral imperatives, such as the case against abortion, is contrary to the original intent of the founding fathers.
The argument on the other side of the debate states that the founding fathers and in particular Jefferson wanted no mention of ANY religion in the schools, or in any public institution. That religion was personal and should be kept separate.
Both are valid interpretations, but taken to the extreme on both sides.
Jefferson’s writings and statements I feel have been taken out of context to forward the thinking of the “no religious mention at all in public” types. For instance one quote (half quote) that is often used is one in which involved the Elementary School Act of 1817. The partial quote they use is: "No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools]…
However the whole quote says something quite different.
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."
This is quite different than banning all mention of religion in public schools, but in fact ONLY states that the banning of ANY books or materials regardless of subject (including that of a religious nature) is not acceptable, that any particularly denominational instruction or exercise, such as saying the Our Father, or reciting the Koran as a required function of everyday procedure was not to be allowed. However It did not ban the personal prayer in a school or government edifice.
The anti-religion groups have interpreted the separation of church and state in the severest of terms, to completely remove all mention and public expression of religion, using Jefferson’s criticism of organized church as their foundation. However, Jefferson although not a Christian by orthodox standards also believed that the decision was up to the individual AND COMMUNITY and that in a free society that expression was not to be suppressed in ANY way in particular by Federal Government edict.
Jefferson stated in a letter to Samuel Miller in 1808: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General (Federal) Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."
On the other side of the argument are the fundamentalist Christians that insist that Christianity, in particular, is the foundation of the country and those things such as prayer in school, the national celebration of Christmas et.al were understood to be a major part of this countries culture.
The truth is that religious Holiday celebration such as Christmas was outlawed in Puritan New England until 1856, so six of the thirteen original colonies didn’t even allow Christmas celebration as we do today. This restriction was based on the RELIGIOUS principles of the Puritan controlled government, and more than likely one of the things that Jefferson so abhorred. However it was the states that chose this restriction and not the Federal Government.
Things such as the Pledge of Allegiance didn’t have the statement One Nation under God until 1954 or in God we trust on our money until 1957, both initiated due to the Cold War fear of Godless communism.
In summation both sides have valid points, and both appear to be using Jefferson as their Champion, however if Jefferson’s writings are taken as a whole and not expurgated or take out of context the separation of religious practice and government went BOTH ways. Neither group should hold judgment or control over the other. To ban the FREE expression of a religious event of ANY denomination or belief system was in his mind as repugnant as civil law being decided on by any religious group or Church.
Although Jefferson was a Christian, in that he thought that Christ’s teachings were, "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." he was often accused of being a libertine, or an atheist, because of his rather unorthodox approach to “religion”. He is often times referred to as a Deist, in other words, Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator, and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity, he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, even though as stated above he held that Jesus was the greatest of moral teachers.
The reason I bring up his personal belief is that I feel it is reflected in his statements regarding putting up a “wall between church and state”. He rightfully accused religions of the past of using their “power” for tyrannical control over a populous, and that government that established a “state” religion where guilty of the same tyrannical despotism.
What I have argued in the past, as have others who consider themselves Christians, is that our country was founded on Christian principles, and therefore the exclusion of the mention of Christian holidays, celebrations, and moral imperatives, such as the case against abortion, is contrary to the original intent of the founding fathers.
The argument on the other side of the debate states that the founding fathers and in particular Jefferson wanted no mention of ANY religion in the schools, or in any public institution. That religion was personal and should be kept separate.
Both are valid interpretations, but taken to the extreme on both sides.
Jefferson’s writings and statements I feel have been taken out of context to forward the thinking of the “no religious mention at all in public” types. For instance one quote (half quote) that is often used is one in which involved the Elementary School Act of 1817. The partial quote they use is: "No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools]…
However the whole quote says something quite different.
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."
This is quite different than banning all mention of religion in public schools, but in fact ONLY states that the banning of ANY books or materials regardless of subject (including that of a religious nature) is not acceptable, that any particularly denominational instruction or exercise, such as saying the Our Father, or reciting the Koran as a required function of everyday procedure was not to be allowed. However It did not ban the personal prayer in a school or government edifice.
The anti-religion groups have interpreted the separation of church and state in the severest of terms, to completely remove all mention and public expression of religion, using Jefferson’s criticism of organized church as their foundation. However, Jefferson although not a Christian by orthodox standards also believed that the decision was up to the individual AND COMMUNITY and that in a free society that expression was not to be suppressed in ANY way in particular by Federal Government edict.
Jefferson stated in a letter to Samuel Miller in 1808: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General (Federal) Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."
On the other side of the argument are the fundamentalist Christians that insist that Christianity, in particular, is the foundation of the country and those things such as prayer in school, the national celebration of Christmas et.al were understood to be a major part of this countries culture.
The truth is that religious Holiday celebration such as Christmas was outlawed in Puritan New England until 1856, so six of the thirteen original colonies didn’t even allow Christmas celebration as we do today. This restriction was based on the RELIGIOUS principles of the Puritan controlled government, and more than likely one of the things that Jefferson so abhorred. However it was the states that chose this restriction and not the Federal Government.
Things such as the Pledge of Allegiance didn’t have the statement One Nation under God until 1954 or in God we trust on our money until 1957, both initiated due to the Cold War fear of Godless communism.
In summation both sides have valid points, and both appear to be using Jefferson as their Champion, however if Jefferson’s writings are taken as a whole and not expurgated or take out of context the separation of religious practice and government went BOTH ways. Neither group should hold judgment or control over the other. To ban the FREE expression of a religious event of ANY denomination or belief system was in his mind as repugnant as civil law being decided on by any religious group or Church.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Can We Drill Our Way Out of the Oil Crisis
The simple answer is no we can’t, however here is a better question. Can we, as a nation, afford to not drill for more oil here while we transition to alternative energy platforms?
The answer to that is the same, no we can’t, on several levels. The first and foremost is plain and simple economic reasons. While some politicians claim that we should focus strictly on finding, and implementing alternative energy sources, and just “bite the bullet” putting up with a “little inconvenience” for a while, they are neglecting to mention that what they consider a “little inconvenience”, to some is the choice between having heat in their home vs. having food on the table.
Americas productivity, and economic strength has been, and is still dependent on “cheap energy”. Up until the mid 70’s that was the case, and the U.S. economy was its strongest when we had cheap energy, and as we have seen, manufacturing, especially, was hurt when escalating costs, and limited supply became a factor since then. A number of factors played into the loss of this “cheap energy”, starting with the divestiture of Oil Company owned wells in the Mid East, and then the subsequent rules, and regulations imposed on U.S. oil companies domestically added to the problem. This would not have been too important an issue as technology came up with an alternative that “could save the day”, nuclear power.
So what happened to that new technology? Congress is what happened, scare tactics from many sources, especially groups like Greenpeace, pushed to have the technology buried. I can go into all the reasons they claimed, but suffice it to say the cost/emissions/waste arguments are all specious, but they prevailed anyway, because the media picked up their banner, and ran with it without any true research into the facts, and the general public bought into the scare tactics, and summarily Congress reflected this in bills that would essentially stop all future production of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel sources.
Add to the erroneous treatment of nuclear as an alternative, that same group of Greenies, where well on the way to stopping the construction of refineries in the United States, further hindering our ability to produce cheap energy. In fact due to aging facilities we actually have 20% fewer oil refineries today than we did in the 70’s.
So what was/is the fallout? Well there are numerous repercussions many not felt right away, but over time, as we see now they are devastating. Over the past thirty years it has cost us our once unmatched manufacturing industry, which in turn cost American’s jobs, and subsequently forcing U.S. businesses into foreign lands in order to be able to maintain their profits. Some of those jobs were absorbed into the “services” industry, but now with oil reaching far over the $100.00 a barrel cost, we are now seeing even the services industries like trucking, and other forms of transportation being adversely affected, and in turn the cost of goods including food are also increasing. Add to this the cost of business, heating and cooling offices, stores, warehouses etc. And the consumer with rising fuel costs, for travel, work commute, heating, food, and a myriad of other expenses can no longer afford to spend as we once did. Once again we see more loss of income, and jobs for the average middle class American. It is a cascading effect that will eventually destroy not only our quality of life, but if not stopped the country itself, along with all our freedoms. Which is the second reason for more domestic drilling - security. By our continued use of foreign sources for oil we are at risk of being shut off, which can have devastating effects, i.e. the gas crunch in the 70’s, and also impact our national security.
Now some of our elected leaders are telling us we need to deal with a “little inconvenience” while we transition to new technologies for energy. How much more will we as a country be able to sustain before we loose what little manufacturing and service industry we have left?
Can we drill our way out of the problem - no emphatically NO, but we need to maintain our ability to sustain our current businesses as well as the quality of life for middle, and lower class working families. Allowing American oil companies to drill for more domestic petroleum, and by lifting restrictions on refineries, and nuclear power, while we develop new technologies to get away from the use of petroleum energy is necessary. Providing tax incentives to oil companies, and other domestic energy producing companies instead of taxing them more, which will only trickle back down to those that are most affected, the lower, and middle class, would be the intelligent, practical, and safe way to proceed.
The answer to that is the same, no we can’t, on several levels. The first and foremost is plain and simple economic reasons. While some politicians claim that we should focus strictly on finding, and implementing alternative energy sources, and just “bite the bullet” putting up with a “little inconvenience” for a while, they are neglecting to mention that what they consider a “little inconvenience”, to some is the choice between having heat in their home vs. having food on the table.
Americas productivity, and economic strength has been, and is still dependent on “cheap energy”. Up until the mid 70’s that was the case, and the U.S. economy was its strongest when we had cheap energy, and as we have seen, manufacturing, especially, was hurt when escalating costs, and limited supply became a factor since then. A number of factors played into the loss of this “cheap energy”, starting with the divestiture of Oil Company owned wells in the Mid East, and then the subsequent rules, and regulations imposed on U.S. oil companies domestically added to the problem. This would not have been too important an issue as technology came up with an alternative that “could save the day”, nuclear power.
So what happened to that new technology? Congress is what happened, scare tactics from many sources, especially groups like Greenpeace, pushed to have the technology buried. I can go into all the reasons they claimed, but suffice it to say the cost/emissions/waste arguments are all specious, but they prevailed anyway, because the media picked up their banner, and ran with it without any true research into the facts, and the general public bought into the scare tactics, and summarily Congress reflected this in bills that would essentially stop all future production of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel sources.
Add to the erroneous treatment of nuclear as an alternative, that same group of Greenies, where well on the way to stopping the construction of refineries in the United States, further hindering our ability to produce cheap energy. In fact due to aging facilities we actually have 20% fewer oil refineries today than we did in the 70’s.
So what was/is the fallout? Well there are numerous repercussions many not felt right away, but over time, as we see now they are devastating. Over the past thirty years it has cost us our once unmatched manufacturing industry, which in turn cost American’s jobs, and subsequently forcing U.S. businesses into foreign lands in order to be able to maintain their profits. Some of those jobs were absorbed into the “services” industry, but now with oil reaching far over the $100.00 a barrel cost, we are now seeing even the services industries like trucking, and other forms of transportation being adversely affected, and in turn the cost of goods including food are also increasing. Add to this the cost of business, heating and cooling offices, stores, warehouses etc. And the consumer with rising fuel costs, for travel, work commute, heating, food, and a myriad of other expenses can no longer afford to spend as we once did. Once again we see more loss of income, and jobs for the average middle class American. It is a cascading effect that will eventually destroy not only our quality of life, but if not stopped the country itself, along with all our freedoms. Which is the second reason for more domestic drilling - security. By our continued use of foreign sources for oil we are at risk of being shut off, which can have devastating effects, i.e. the gas crunch in the 70’s, and also impact our national security.
Now some of our elected leaders are telling us we need to deal with a “little inconvenience” while we transition to new technologies for energy. How much more will we as a country be able to sustain before we loose what little manufacturing and service industry we have left?
Can we drill our way out of the problem - no emphatically NO, but we need to maintain our ability to sustain our current businesses as well as the quality of life for middle, and lower class working families. Allowing American oil companies to drill for more domestic petroleum, and by lifting restrictions on refineries, and nuclear power, while we develop new technologies to get away from the use of petroleum energy is necessary. Providing tax incentives to oil companies, and other domestic energy producing companies instead of taxing them more, which will only trickle back down to those that are most affected, the lower, and middle class, would be the intelligent, practical, and safe way to proceed.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Affirmative Action - A Racist Policy
Most people who will read the title of this post will think the usual, that I am going to engage in the “backlash” or “reverse discrimination” argument, sorry I’m not going there, in fact it might surprise people, but affirmative action is white racism against blacks.
In my minds eye I can see the shocked look on people reading this, but in truth this is the case. Think about this for a moment, has ANY other group had to have quotas drawn up in order to excel in business or schooling? No, even the Irish when they came to this country, when they were met with “Irish need not apply” didn't need government intervention to get beyond this. Did the Asian population that came here (many as slave labor and/or indentured servants) need to have the government mandate quotas for them to build their businesses or attend the schools of their choice? No, not one group of people that came here willingly or as forced labor have been subject to being labeled as “required” to be hired to fill a quota.
What the white establishment, starting with LBJ, and furthered by Richard Nixon, which was the first president to establish “quotas” for federal government employment, and carried on through today are saying, is that if you are black you don’t have the ability to make it on your own. Harsh accusation you may say, but it really isn’t, it is sadly the innate racism that is subconsciously taught to most Anglos. I do not believe that it is an intentional slight to those of color, but never the less it is what it is - racism.
Historically we should have known this, as a similar, “white guilt” scenario played out hundreds of years ago regarding the native peoples in the northeast part of this continent in which, the bleeding hearts of the day chagrined at the treatment of these people decided that they would help by giving them food and clothing, just enough to help them subsist, and inevitably those brave hunters stopped hunting, and became the first victims of welfare.
My belief is that this type of pandering is meant not to really erase bigotry, but to garner votes and to quell white guilt. Social Welfare programs directed at people of color, employment quotas, and other “free ride” measures are in fact more detrimental to those of color than they are helpful. Regardless of what skin color you have, if you find that you can “get over” on the system, and receive a living, or get ahead without having to really work at it you will take that route. In some cases many of the poor, white, and black have found that it is easier to live in relative poverty (by U.S. standards) and not have to work, but still be able to feed your family and enjoy certain “luxuries” sufficient.
On the flip side of this there are those that poverty is not acceptable regardless of the color of their skin. One huge example that comes to mind is a Black woman by the name of Madam Sarah Walker. Ms. Walker was the FIRST female millionaire, black or white in the U.S. She did this in a time that there were no affirmative action programs, and not even many anti-discrimination laws, and in the south, to boot. According to the liberal racists in our country without their help no black person should be able to do this.
We have just come out of Black History month not long ago, and if anyone bothered to listen to some to the programs on T.V. or read about the accomplishments of many Black entrepreneurs, politicians, scientists, educators, and military hero’s they would have noticed that the vast majority of them did this in a free society unburdened with discriminatory affirmative action programs. They didn’t need whiteys help to excel, or become wealthy, all they needed was the OPPORTUNITY to do so, and even in a nation that has a long history of prejudice they did accomplish much, and maybe it was just that environment of adversity that made them strong.
Like all the people that have migrated here or came here as forced labor, people of color should have the same rights and privileges as everyone else, there is no doubt about that, but to mandate employment, or to provide handouts to any group is NOT helping them, but trapping them in a never ending cycle of dependence, dependence on government, and not on them selves. Providing people, any people, with handouts does not encourage them to excel, but in fact does the opposite, it locks them into a pseudo-comfort zone that invariably is stagnant and unproductive.
Like most liberal thinking the desire, and intent to help is honorable, but the implementation of the laws/mandates are typically counter productive, and in fact do more to harm to those that they are trying to help, than good.
In my minds eye I can see the shocked look on people reading this, but in truth this is the case. Think about this for a moment, has ANY other group had to have quotas drawn up in order to excel in business or schooling? No, even the Irish when they came to this country, when they were met with “Irish need not apply” didn't need government intervention to get beyond this. Did the Asian population that came here (many as slave labor and/or indentured servants) need to have the government mandate quotas for them to build their businesses or attend the schools of their choice? No, not one group of people that came here willingly or as forced labor have been subject to being labeled as “required” to be hired to fill a quota.
What the white establishment, starting with LBJ, and furthered by Richard Nixon, which was the first president to establish “quotas” for federal government employment, and carried on through today are saying, is that if you are black you don’t have the ability to make it on your own. Harsh accusation you may say, but it really isn’t, it is sadly the innate racism that is subconsciously taught to most Anglos. I do not believe that it is an intentional slight to those of color, but never the less it is what it is - racism.
Historically we should have known this, as a similar, “white guilt” scenario played out hundreds of years ago regarding the native peoples in the northeast part of this continent in which, the bleeding hearts of the day chagrined at the treatment of these people decided that they would help by giving them food and clothing, just enough to help them subsist, and inevitably those brave hunters stopped hunting, and became the first victims of welfare.
My belief is that this type of pandering is meant not to really erase bigotry, but to garner votes and to quell white guilt. Social Welfare programs directed at people of color, employment quotas, and other “free ride” measures are in fact more detrimental to those of color than they are helpful. Regardless of what skin color you have, if you find that you can “get over” on the system, and receive a living, or get ahead without having to really work at it you will take that route. In some cases many of the poor, white, and black have found that it is easier to live in relative poverty (by U.S. standards) and not have to work, but still be able to feed your family and enjoy certain “luxuries” sufficient.
On the flip side of this there are those that poverty is not acceptable regardless of the color of their skin. One huge example that comes to mind is a Black woman by the name of Madam Sarah Walker. Ms. Walker was the FIRST female millionaire, black or white in the U.S. She did this in a time that there were no affirmative action programs, and not even many anti-discrimination laws, and in the south, to boot. According to the liberal racists in our country without their help no black person should be able to do this.
We have just come out of Black History month not long ago, and if anyone bothered to listen to some to the programs on T.V. or read about the accomplishments of many Black entrepreneurs, politicians, scientists, educators, and military hero’s they would have noticed that the vast majority of them did this in a free society unburdened with discriminatory affirmative action programs. They didn’t need whiteys help to excel, or become wealthy, all they needed was the OPPORTUNITY to do so, and even in a nation that has a long history of prejudice they did accomplish much, and maybe it was just that environment of adversity that made them strong.
Like all the people that have migrated here or came here as forced labor, people of color should have the same rights and privileges as everyone else, there is no doubt about that, but to mandate employment, or to provide handouts to any group is NOT helping them, but trapping them in a never ending cycle of dependence, dependence on government, and not on them selves. Providing people, any people, with handouts does not encourage them to excel, but in fact does the opposite, it locks them into a pseudo-comfort zone that invariably is stagnant and unproductive.
Like most liberal thinking the desire, and intent to help is honorable, but the implementation of the laws/mandates are typically counter productive, and in fact do more to harm to those that they are trying to help, than good.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Health Care Costs - Why is it so high?
This election has brought a number of issues to the table but one in particular that is a concern for many Americans is the rising cost of health care. Obama, Hillary and even McCain want to get government involved in some form of other, not that is bad, just that we need to be cautious as to what kind of involvement.
Obama’s plan has some good points regarding reduction of cost, including electronic records keeping, and is the most detailed plan I have seen from the three candidates. Although not the same as the Canadian or U.K. socialist health care it would be another Washington run bureaucracy, destined to cost more to run than what it would save on the other end.
Hillary actually has a rather interesting plan, at least at face value, she plans of providing tax cuts to all those that have health care insurance and opening up the same insurance programs, until now only available to members of Congress to the general public. The problem with her plan is that it doesn’t get to the root of the problem and that is, why is the cost so high to begin with, again a band-aid on a wound that needs to be sutured.
McCain’s plan is strikingly similar to Hillary’s plan however he has added a little more meat and potatoes to his plan by supporting tort reform to help lower the cost of health care and modernization of records systems. This is a good start, but not the entire picture of WHY our costs are through the roof.
The knee jerk attitude of many is to blame the insurance companies. Believe me when I say I have no love for insurance companies, but they are NOT the prime cause for the escalating costs, but merely a secondary symptom of what is truly ailing the countries health care system. Much like the oil companies being blamed for the increase in fuel costs the insurance companies are being made the fall guy for the problems with health care.
Malpractice suits have been another knee jerk answer for the increasing health care costs but in truth the cost of medical insurance for doctors to protect themselves from malpractice is less that 1% of the current costs. However it does play a role in other respects that I will discuss later in this article.
So what are the real causes you ask? There is no simple answer to the problem, no silver bullet to kill the inflationary monster of health care, but a series of issues some of which we ourselves are to blame.
The major reason for increase in these costs is something many of us would not expect or even think of, and that is TOO MUCH health care. We have become a nation of hypochondriacs in many ways, we go to the doctor or hospital for ailments that we think we may have because of some ad or some documentary we saw on TV last night.
To further exacerbate the issue doctors are ordering tests and medications that are unnecessary and/or even harmful and causing other illness. It is not because doctors are trying to milk the patient for more money, because in most cases the doctor receives no moneys for these tests. So why do they do it? Simply because of the aforementioned issue about malpractice suits. In order to avoid these suits doctors are doing more tests and issuing more medications in the belief that if it APPEARS that they are doing all they can the patient will be less likely to sue.
There are some doctors however that DO over proscribe medications for personal gain, fortunately not many, but enough to cause concern. The era of “specialization” has also been a factor in that these doctors are paid by the case, furthering the number of surgeries and or procedures that may not be always necessary. Again I want to stress here that this is but a fraction of the doctors in this country, but still a concern and an expense in both dollars and lives in some cases.
There are some other issues that are causing these increases, some recognizable and some not so apparent. One of those less apparent is the cost of records keeping. The vast majority of hospitals have not switched to electronic records keeping and this slows the process down to be able to access and transfer patient data. Medications and previous test results as well as patient histories are being lost or to slow to arrive, once again costing us millions of dollars in proper medical care.
Pharmaceutical companies are also to blame. Their advertising has people running to their doctors for the latest magic bullet remedy. Add to this the control U.S. pharmaceutical companies have on the FDA and Congress. They have effectively stopped the import of many drugs from competing companies from other nations giving them a virtual monopoly on the industry. They have also hidden the fact that many of the drugs we take for one ailment of another are no better than some of grandma’s remedies.
Holistic medicines and health care are equally being sloughed off as “witch doctor” treatments. One example is the thousands of cases of chronic back pain. Today’s practitioners of medicine arbitrarily recommend spinal fusion, yet there has been no independent testing done to prove that this procedure actually works. Another example is carpel tunnel syndrome which medical doctors recommend surgery as the only answer. Both of these conditions I have personally seen and experienced being corrected by chiropractic and until fairly recent this form of treatment wasn’t even covered by most insurance companies.
I’m sure that there may be other factors involved like the illegal alien use of hospitals and never paying, and although part of the problem, I feel that it is one that we may not see an end to, due to the fact that none of the mainstream candidates nor enough in Congress want to stop this particular problem, it would be best that we focus on the main issues that I have mentioned above.
So how do we fix these problems?
1. Tort reform to lessen the inclination for doctors to over proscribe, as well as cut the cost of malpractice insurance.
2. Require all hospitals, clinics and private practice doctors to maintain electronic records keeping in order to facilitate less costly and quicker more accurate records keeping.
3. Open up our borders to allow foreign drug companies to compete in this market. This will not only lower prices due to competition but also possibly open up new remedies that previously have not been allowed in this country.
4. Tied into this is to restrict the pharmaceutical companies regarding their involvement with the FDA and AMA.
5. Disallow medical practitioners from owning stock in pharmaceutical companies. This removes any possible complicity on the part of doctors to proscribe needless drugs.
6. Restrict Doctors from being paid by the case and instead provide a salary a couple of the more prestigious hospitals are now doing.
7. And finally as with any issue research and education for the public and the medical industry on alternative remedies and cures.
Obama’s plan has some good points regarding reduction of cost, including electronic records keeping, and is the most detailed plan I have seen from the three candidates. Although not the same as the Canadian or U.K. socialist health care it would be another Washington run bureaucracy, destined to cost more to run than what it would save on the other end.
Hillary actually has a rather interesting plan, at least at face value, she plans of providing tax cuts to all those that have health care insurance and opening up the same insurance programs, until now only available to members of Congress to the general public. The problem with her plan is that it doesn’t get to the root of the problem and that is, why is the cost so high to begin with, again a band-aid on a wound that needs to be sutured.
McCain’s plan is strikingly similar to Hillary’s plan however he has added a little more meat and potatoes to his plan by supporting tort reform to help lower the cost of health care and modernization of records systems. This is a good start, but not the entire picture of WHY our costs are through the roof.
The knee jerk attitude of many is to blame the insurance companies. Believe me when I say I have no love for insurance companies, but they are NOT the prime cause for the escalating costs, but merely a secondary symptom of what is truly ailing the countries health care system. Much like the oil companies being blamed for the increase in fuel costs the insurance companies are being made the fall guy for the problems with health care.
Malpractice suits have been another knee jerk answer for the increasing health care costs but in truth the cost of medical insurance for doctors to protect themselves from malpractice is less that 1% of the current costs. However it does play a role in other respects that I will discuss later in this article.
So what are the real causes you ask? There is no simple answer to the problem, no silver bullet to kill the inflationary monster of health care, but a series of issues some of which we ourselves are to blame.
The major reason for increase in these costs is something many of us would not expect or even think of, and that is TOO MUCH health care. We have become a nation of hypochondriacs in many ways, we go to the doctor or hospital for ailments that we think we may have because of some ad or some documentary we saw on TV last night.
To further exacerbate the issue doctors are ordering tests and medications that are unnecessary and/or even harmful and causing other illness. It is not because doctors are trying to milk the patient for more money, because in most cases the doctor receives no moneys for these tests. So why do they do it? Simply because of the aforementioned issue about malpractice suits. In order to avoid these suits doctors are doing more tests and issuing more medications in the belief that if it APPEARS that they are doing all they can the patient will be less likely to sue.
There are some doctors however that DO over proscribe medications for personal gain, fortunately not many, but enough to cause concern. The era of “specialization” has also been a factor in that these doctors are paid by the case, furthering the number of surgeries and or procedures that may not be always necessary. Again I want to stress here that this is but a fraction of the doctors in this country, but still a concern and an expense in both dollars and lives in some cases.
There are some other issues that are causing these increases, some recognizable and some not so apparent. One of those less apparent is the cost of records keeping. The vast majority of hospitals have not switched to electronic records keeping and this slows the process down to be able to access and transfer patient data. Medications and previous test results as well as patient histories are being lost or to slow to arrive, once again costing us millions of dollars in proper medical care.
Pharmaceutical companies are also to blame. Their advertising has people running to their doctors for the latest magic bullet remedy. Add to this the control U.S. pharmaceutical companies have on the FDA and Congress. They have effectively stopped the import of many drugs from competing companies from other nations giving them a virtual monopoly on the industry. They have also hidden the fact that many of the drugs we take for one ailment of another are no better than some of grandma’s remedies.
Holistic medicines and health care are equally being sloughed off as “witch doctor” treatments. One example is the thousands of cases of chronic back pain. Today’s practitioners of medicine arbitrarily recommend spinal fusion, yet there has been no independent testing done to prove that this procedure actually works. Another example is carpel tunnel syndrome which medical doctors recommend surgery as the only answer. Both of these conditions I have personally seen and experienced being corrected by chiropractic and until fairly recent this form of treatment wasn’t even covered by most insurance companies.
I’m sure that there may be other factors involved like the illegal alien use of hospitals and never paying, and although part of the problem, I feel that it is one that we may not see an end to, due to the fact that none of the mainstream candidates nor enough in Congress want to stop this particular problem, it would be best that we focus on the main issues that I have mentioned above.
So how do we fix these problems?
1. Tort reform to lessen the inclination for doctors to over proscribe, as well as cut the cost of malpractice insurance.
2. Require all hospitals, clinics and private practice doctors to maintain electronic records keeping in order to facilitate less costly and quicker more accurate records keeping.
3. Open up our borders to allow foreign drug companies to compete in this market. This will not only lower prices due to competition but also possibly open up new remedies that previously have not been allowed in this country.
4. Tied into this is to restrict the pharmaceutical companies regarding their involvement with the FDA and AMA.
5. Disallow medical practitioners from owning stock in pharmaceutical companies. This removes any possible complicity on the part of doctors to proscribe needless drugs.
6. Restrict Doctors from being paid by the case and instead provide a salary a couple of the more prestigious hospitals are now doing.
7. And finally as with any issue research and education for the public and the medical industry on alternative remedies and cures.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Cost of Oil - How and Why?
I have read dozens of articles on predictions, reasons, and effects of the huge cost of oil today, and none of them seem to explain WHY the prices have more than tripled in the last two years, other than “fear” that we will soon run out of oil due to the increasing growth and demand in China and India. Frankly I am at a loss as to all the reasons why and can only speculate that there is something more than “fear” of running out of fossil fuels, that has triggered these prices.
Think about this, Mobil/Exxon, Shell and many more of the large oil conglomerates are investing in “alternative” fuels, such as hydrogen and bio-fuels, like ethanol. Major automobile companies are also switching gears to create vehicles that run on these fuels, or electric power. Toyota with their decade long investment in hybrid cars, Honda, GM and Ford all rolling out hybrids. GM is also looking at all electric, which they already had pretty much done in the 70’s but found little INTEREST and was too cost prohibitive due to the technology of that time regarding battery power. Today they are working with a Watertown MA, company that has developed or is in the final stages of developing a lithium-ion battery that is cost effective, reliable, safe, and long lived. Germany and other European countries have rolled out hydrogen based public transportation developed by a consortium of Euro-oil companies (Shell being one), BMW, and government agencies. Shell has also setup Beta Sites for hydrogen fueled vehicles here in the U.S. based in California and Washington D.C.
What is my point in mentioning all this? Simply that until there is a serious demand for alternative fuels none of these programs will come to fruition. Point in case is the GM attempt in the 70’s to produce and market an all-electric car – no one wanted it. My feeling is that the high oil prices is an attempt by oil companies, auto manufacturers, and other fossil fuel dependent business to create a market more open to development and sales of these alternative energy sources.
Unfortunately petroleum will still be a necessity for years to come due to the fact that it is not just used in the production of fuel, but also used in products that we use every day, from plastics to cosmetics, to even pharmaceutical products. It is my feeling that once a better fuel market has been established we will see a marked drop in crude oil prices but this will take years to happen.
In the meantime the poor and middle class will suffer the most, as they will not have the finances to be able to keep up with the rising costs of products and services due to the increase in prices due to transportation and production costs. This has me concerned in that it will give an excuse for the government to increase its involvement into the lives of the citizen population. The paradox is that this would be the right thing to do, to assist as a temporary situation, but as we have seen from the past once a “safety net” or entitlement is in place it never leaves and once again the government becomes more of the Nanny state than previous.
I do not think that the crude oil price increase is due to some sort of calculated conspiracy to grow government, but I do think that it will afford some of our politicians the opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and that we should be cautious of how our elected officials will deal with the inevitable repercussions of the crude oil increases.
Think about this, Mobil/Exxon, Shell and many more of the large oil conglomerates are investing in “alternative” fuels, such as hydrogen and bio-fuels, like ethanol. Major automobile companies are also switching gears to create vehicles that run on these fuels, or electric power. Toyota with their decade long investment in hybrid cars, Honda, GM and Ford all rolling out hybrids. GM is also looking at all electric, which they already had pretty much done in the 70’s but found little INTEREST and was too cost prohibitive due to the technology of that time regarding battery power. Today they are working with a Watertown MA, company that has developed or is in the final stages of developing a lithium-ion battery that is cost effective, reliable, safe, and long lived. Germany and other European countries have rolled out hydrogen based public transportation developed by a consortium of Euro-oil companies (Shell being one), BMW, and government agencies. Shell has also setup Beta Sites for hydrogen fueled vehicles here in the U.S. based in California and Washington D.C.
What is my point in mentioning all this? Simply that until there is a serious demand for alternative fuels none of these programs will come to fruition. Point in case is the GM attempt in the 70’s to produce and market an all-electric car – no one wanted it. My feeling is that the high oil prices is an attempt by oil companies, auto manufacturers, and other fossil fuel dependent business to create a market more open to development and sales of these alternative energy sources.
Unfortunately petroleum will still be a necessity for years to come due to the fact that it is not just used in the production of fuel, but also used in products that we use every day, from plastics to cosmetics, to even pharmaceutical products. It is my feeling that once a better fuel market has been established we will see a marked drop in crude oil prices but this will take years to happen.
In the meantime the poor and middle class will suffer the most, as they will not have the finances to be able to keep up with the rising costs of products and services due to the increase in prices due to transportation and production costs. This has me concerned in that it will give an excuse for the government to increase its involvement into the lives of the citizen population. The paradox is that this would be the right thing to do, to assist as a temporary situation, but as we have seen from the past once a “safety net” or entitlement is in place it never leaves and once again the government becomes more of the Nanny state than previous.
I do not think that the crude oil price increase is due to some sort of calculated conspiracy to grow government, but I do think that it will afford some of our politicians the opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and that we should be cautious of how our elected officials will deal with the inevitable repercussions of the crude oil increases.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Cost of Illegal Immigration
As those who read my posts here, and on JMO – Sound Off, know, one of my biggest issues with our current government is total lack of action regarding illegal immigration. It has been brought up to me on several occasions the totally erroneous statement that “it would cost too much to round up and deport these criminals out of the country”. I have yet to see figures that prove this by those that hold to that argument. I, on the other hand, have seen proof of it being completely the opposite - it costs us more to allow them to stay than it would to deport them all – all 12-20 million of them.
The Council on Immigration Studies estimated in 2004 the annual cost of illegal immigration to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 BILLION dollars, that was three years ago. This study is reflected by other studies such as the 1997 National Research study, the 1998 Urban Institute study, and even the Inspectors Generals office of the Treasury. Research findings where gathered from the Census Bureau and the National Research council. Also I might remind those reading this that at the time of this study there were an estimated 8.7 million illegal aliens in the country and that has nearly doubled since then and continues to grow at an estimated 500,000 more a year, thereby increasing the studies estimate to 20 Billion plus a year.
For those interested in reading the study: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
These studies deal primarily with the direct effects of illegal immigration as it relates to taxes, welfare, and job loss for legal American’s, however there are other hidden cost’s that are not taken into account. Some of those not mentioned in this or other studies include the misuse of hospital services, primarily on the border, but are now happening all over the U.S. in which these social leaches are using medical services and NEVER paying for it. The extreme criminal element from street gang violence and drug dealing (supported, by the way, by subversive terrorists groups like MEChA) as well as murders, and rapes has cost millions of dollars in destruction and loss of life. Add to this the FACT that 30% of the current U.S. prison population is illegal immigrants primarily from Mexico, of which the American taxpayer is paying for their incarceration. Add these all up and we are looking at an estimated 340 BILLION a year, a hundred billion more than the most critical liberal think tanks claim it would cost to depart them all.
And that is still not the entire picture, each year dozens of law enforcement people are killed or severely injured by these malcontents and asinine laws like the current law in Los Angeles California which restricts law enforcement from going after these people for immigration violations, further prohibit the just imprisonment and expulsion of these individuals. These laws are also repeated in cities like New York, Chicago, and even San Diego, Houston, and Boston, making our major cities virtual havens of crime.
Which brings me to my next point the “how” would I propose to round up and deport theses people if they are all “underground”. But first it is important to bring up the liberal side of the argument that claims it would be too expensive to validate my earlier statement. Their argument is based on “studies” by liberal think tanks like the Center for American Progress, that have projected a cost of some 230 to 250 billion over a five year period and on the surface that would seen to validate their argument however they are basing this on employing “mass deportation”, with only a small change in strengthening law enforcement practices, which is NOT what I am advocating, Even they admit that with just this ONE change the result would be a 10-20% voluntary exodus out of the country by illegals.
Now let’s look at what can be done to truly effect “voluntary” deportation. First we must enact legislation that turns around several of the laws in place that enable the illegals, such as the ridiculous restrictions on local law enforcement to go after illegal immigrants. Second we need to refine, and redefine the 14th amendment that makes any child born in the U.S. an automatic citizen. Third we need to increase and enforce fines and penalties on employers that hire illegals. We also need to mandate that anyone using certain hospital and/or welfare services, other than emergencies, must have some form of proof of legal residence in the U.S. such as a valid drivers license. These steps alone will not totally correct the problem, but will probably increase voluntary deportation by another 20-30%, or even more, meaning that almost half those here illegally will have no more reason to be here, as they can no longer suck off the government teat, and will have to return to where they came from.
As for the seriously criminal element like the rapists, murderers, terrorists, and drug dealers we treat them as we would ANY criminal, once found guilty they should be incarcerated and when completing their sentence they be immediately deported with the caveat that if caught back in the country illegally they will be subject to the death penalty. Of course we also need to erect a truly protective fence between our southern borders and increase our border enforcement on both the northern and southern borders, or all of this will be a meaningless exorcise.
For some these recommendations may seem severe, but we are talking about the cultural, and economic survival of our country as well as our sovereignty. We should be treating this as we would any invasion, as that is just what this is - an invasion - by those only interested in pillaging our nation of it’s wealth and for many like those that are loyal to the Mexico First extremists like MEChA to also conquer our nation, and turn it into a subdivision of Mexico.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
