AS I WAS THINKING

    Well, there I was reading a few tweets when I stumbled on to another problem I have with government provided healthcare and viewing it as a right. If it is indeed a right then it opens up the idea of someone, needing medical attention, suing the government, or the doctor, for not providing them with their "right" to healthcare. Another way to look at it is that government has the power, under the auspices of protecting ones rights to force certain people to go into the medical profession against their will so that they would be able to provide the citizenry with their right to healthcare. Otherwise, if individuals were left to pursue their own ambitions, the rights of millions of people could be compromised. Additionally, those who did want to pursue a medical profession would be required to study which ever field of medicine the government felt would best provide for the meeting of the medical rights of the people.
    Again, I reiterate, a right is not a right if it infringes on others rights. On the other hand, if we, as a nation, undertake the task of seeing that all who want healthcare are given every opportunity to purchase it, with some assistance if needed, then things fall in place without the heavy hand of government removing even more of our freedoms. It's not hard for me to show where half of my income is going to taxes today. With federal and state income taxes being just the most obvious. We pay a ton of property taxes, registration fees, in addition to inflated prices for goods due to tariffs and subsidies to certain business interests. Also, over 40 cents of the price of every gallon of gas goes to taxes. We have already lost the idea of a man owning the fruits of the sweat of his brow and the labor of his hands since over half of such fruit is forcefully picked by the government. With government run healthcare the government would take the final necessary step to accomplish it's socialistic goals. After that power play by the government it would only be a matter of time before we are a truly socialist country.
    I respect your desire to accomplish this if you wish but it would be best to start with a country that does not purport to protect our individual God given rights. In other words, please take your ideas somewhere else and let us rebuild a truly free society where free enterprise and free people can transform the whole world and make it a better place. You know, like happened before our governmental system was corrupted by men and women whose lust for power eroded the protections intended for the individuals.
    I'm not particularly fond of having Mr. Trump as president, but he may, in fact, be the kind of dramatic change that can start the pendulum swinging back in the direction of freedom. Just maybe.

IDEA ALERT (a solution to our healthcare debate)

    Finally, I think I have an answer to what's been ailing us. See what you think of this. People who want health insurance but who don't want to, ( or can't ), pay for it on their own and who are forced to take money from evil rich top one percenters, (which I presume presents a moral delemna for them), are about to be freed. Here's how it would work. Those who can buy actuary table based health insurance at face value will live with the restrictions of their plans. That is to say, they will buy insurance based on the risk factor associated with their lifestyle and dietary choices. On the other hand, those who's health insurance is being purchased or subsidized for them will be subject to lifestyle and dietary behavior guidelines which will reduce the risk to their health so as to limit the cost to those who are buying health insurance on their behalf.
    Those who are the recipients of free or reduced health insurance costs will be asked to reduce costs for those buying their healthcare. Seems like the fair thing to do. After a couple of generations the lower income segment of our society will emerge healthier and with higher life expectancies then the rich who are not conforming to such stringent health decisions. So eventually the rich will die off and we will be left with the poorer folks who by default are also more noble and trustworthy than the one percenters who are so very stingy with their wealth.
    Seems like this should be a win win to me. The poor can shoulder the sugar tax burden and will be directed to follow whatever "health" concerns are identified by the medical community, like cutting back on coffee for a while then resuming normal consumption and cutting cholesterol out of their diets for 20 or 30 years while we figure out it isn't really the consumption of it that raises our body's cholesterol, or significantly reducing salt intake for half a lifetime until we can confirm that it isn't as harmful as we once thought. The rich can be the "tasters" for the poor. I just don't see a down side. And we can hold on to a semblance of individual freedoms while doing this.
    Additionally, it's time to separate insurance from employment and introduce competition back into our insurance choices. HSA's would be a great start. Employers could contribute to the HSA as a benefit but the insurance part of it would be exclusive of the employment part. Then workers wouldn't feel so trapped,(something employers don't want),and could "shop" around for better pay without risking the loss of coverage.
    Just something to think about. By the way, check out the "Direct Care" and "Concierge" models that are beginning to spring up all across the country. I'm smelling a solution in the offing.

IS HEALTH INSURANCE A RIGHT (or a left)?

It seems dangerous to me to refer to the providing of heath insurance to every man, woman, and child, as a right. I understand that the word has a bit of latitude when it comes to it's definition but I would argue calling it a right establishes it as a basic human right in most peoples minds. And this is what I reject. The right to life, as represented in the Declaration of Independence, and protected in the Constitution, is the basic right of mankind, to live with the expectation that others will not take his life from him. This basic right results in laws against murder. Also, within the understanding of this right is the expectation that others will not impede his path toward his pursuits. Not that they will participate in his endeavors, (thought they may choose to do so), but that they will not intentionally block his activities to keep him from his pursuits. This right is contained within man's nature, placed there by his Creator. A man's rights are not dependent on others participation but rather on their refraining from behaviors which limit or remove this right.
If health insurance is a right then it is of a dissimilar nature than the right to life. In order to provide someone with insurance that has chosen not to purchase it (or is unable to purchase it) for themselves, it is imperative that others basic rights be subjegated to the ones for whom the right of insurance is being provided. This strikes me as an illogical and unethical position to take. Protecting my basic right to life is substantially different than a systematic infringement on others rights to provide me with something that has been deemed a right by public discourse. My right to life does not, and should not, imply a particular standard of living. A standard of living is the by-product of many things including my personal choices and should not default to a specific level.
Before you start in with the declaration of my being the personification of evil please understand that I am willing to have a discussion about wheather a country as wealthy as the free enterprise system has made us should provide some basic health insurance for our citizens. But I am not willing to mis-use the word "right" in the discussion. There are plenty of words in our language that have been absolutely obliterated by mainly politicians, we don't need to add more to the pile.

BEWARE DRINKERS

 In case you missed the announcement, I'm patiently waiting for our country to take another shot at prohibition. See my earlier blog for details. But let me offer a friendly warning to my friends who choose to consume adult beverages. Beware of the socialists amongst us. There was a report on the news today about how many more health problems drinkers have and how, because of Obamacare, those costs burden us all. Socialised medicine, or single payer, or Obamacare, provides an end run to the sluggish and painfully slow process of passing legislation. With the government in control of health-care they will seize control of your behavior and force you into life-style choices you are opposed to. Instead of the predictable and non-discriminatory actuary table determining your premiums and thereby offering a type of incentive to alter your behavior, or not, depending on your personal choice. Your decisions will be dictated by the benevolent government who will be acting on behalf of the people who will be reacting to the latest pseudo-scientific study showing that YOU are costing us all lots of money so you will be required to change your behavior. After all, it isn't fair to the rest of us that men engage in sexual behavior with other men which increases their risk for contracting AIDS resulting in higher health-care costs for all of us. (Yeah, right, like that's gonna happen). Anyway, you get my point. The government already knows how much water you should need to flush your toilet and take a shower. They already figured out that you need smaller, lighter, more dangerous cars to drive so we don't kill the Earth. Additionally, they see the sacred wisdom in using everyone's money to finance the harvesting of body parts from unborn, and born, children for profit. By using everyone's money then we all have blood on our hands, not just the animals we are employing at these houses of worship. So, as you can see, there are none more qualified to tell you what to eat and drink, how much you can eat and drink, and when you can eat and drink those pre-determined amounts of food and liquid. After all, if the government didn't have your best interest at heart would they have offered you "free" healthcare?

Slipping Away

: rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons
Still trying to work through this whole discussion of health care being a right. If a right belongs, "fundamentally to all persons", as Webster suggests, then people in third world countries are being denied their right to health care. In these countries there may not be a doctor, let alone a clinic or hospital, within hundreds of miles of any given person or village. Should we be denying aid to these countries until they "get their act together" regarding human rights? How can something be a "right" that is dependent on a country's economic activity? With no economic activity, there are no resources to train and equip doctors and nurses, nor are there people capable of developing technologies and techniques for the resolution of physical problems and disease. There is no time here to expand this discussion to include all of the pieces of the health care industry required to develop and deliver health care. Are we then left with a different list of "rights" for individuals based on the economic conditions of the country they live in? Or, as I suspect, are we left with a discussion about ethics based on a country's ability to provide for its citizens? For me to participate in an ongoing discussion such as this one, I want to be working with the right vocabulary so as to have the ability to articulate my position clearly. I don't think this dialog is about "rights". At least not if we use the standard definition. When my wife and I purchased a car from a new car dealer many years back, the first thing I did, when informed of the "value" of my trade-in was to let the salesman know that I was well aware of my car's value and he was overstating it several-fold. I suggested he tell me what the wholesaler that he was in touch with was actually going to give him for the car; then we could discuss how much they were willing to come off of their inflated price. (I didn't use the word "inflated"). That way, we were both working with what might be called full disclosure. Of the $2,500 that was coming off of the $9,999 price on the car, (after substantial negotiations) only $750 was accounted for by my trade in. He would much rather that I believed they were giving me twice what my car was worth so they could pocket a generous profit while making me feel good about the deal. Instead, we both knew what my car was worth and could then focus on the inflated price of the car my wife and I wanted to buy. If you want to continue calling health care a right, have at it, but I will sit on the side-lines waiting for the real discussion to begin. By suggesting it is a right you are necessarily calling a lot of thoughtful, compassionate people mean and hateful by default. What other kind of person would deny someone a basic human right. I'm not sure how the whole "gotta buy it" thing works into this subject of rights either, but that's another occasion waiting for my time. Speaking of time, it appears I have run out of it for this particular endeavor. Thank you and have a nice day; I mean, if you want to.

non sequitur

I'm not sure I spelled sequitur correctly, nope, oh, well, you'll never know since I've corrected it now. Guess I pulled one over on you, huh?
Ever notice how common it is to have people comment on how important their good health is. Yea, we've had a pretty bad run of luck lately but at least we still have our health. You're only as old as you feel and I feel like I'm in my 20's. We never had all the things we wanted in life but we had our health. Why is it that something that is so important it seems to transcend every other aspect of our lives is something we don't want to have to pay for? We'll drive to a doctor appointment in our new 20,000 dollar car then complain that our co-pay went up from 10 to 15 dollars. Isn't something a little out of whack here? We are going to bankrupt the country so people who own nice cars, HD flat screen tv's and nice houses, and who pay no income tax, can push their health care on to the tax payers. We need to look at the many ways we can make our health care system much more responsive to peoples needs and more affordable without destroying our economy.
Here's what I think is actually going on. It's, I believe, a little like the man-made global warming situation. Intellectuals, (this is sorta funny so I have to tell you, I misspelled intellectuals) who are smart enough to think for those of us who aren't, figure they need to perpetrate these scare tactics in order to scare us into doing what they know is best for us. They are either lacking confidence in their persuasive abilities, or in the general public's IQ. You see, it doesn't matter that there is little evidence pointing to man's involvement in global climate change, what matters is that the smart people help guide this country to the right moral choice as pertaining to our consumption habits. We use entirely too much of the worlds resources, so we hand the world a tool to beat us over the head with. Man-made global warming to be exact. Health care, on the other hand, is a tool to move this country toward a more socialist disposition. We need to be brought in line with the rest of the world. No one country should be more successful or prosperous than any other country. It just isn't fair.
If employees were taking home the money their employers are spending on their health care they could purchase insurance on their own that would be much more appropriate for their needs and would often cost less than the employer is paying and would go with the employee if they found a better job or were terminated. Additionally, in the case of HSA's a nice nest egg could be accumulated over the life of a younger worker putting money into his account. In conclusion, if good health really is such a wonderful thing then I say to the American people, put "your" money where your mouth is, not mine.

Healthcare Thoughts

Warm biscuits with melted butter and a coating of grape jelly that my granddaughter helped make in Texas. Wow, God is so good. He gave me taste buds and a sense of smell so I could really enjoy this treat. What a creative idea. I'm able to nourish my body and receive a bit of joy all at the same time. If I had created the world it would have been much less imaginative. Need some nutrition? Just walk on up to this "filling station" and we'll throw a little in your tank. Instead of such a calculated, matter of fact approach, we are inundated with beauty and good things to remind us of His love. Sorry to make you wait but I needed to finish my biscuits while they were still warm. Now, back to our regularly scheduled blog.
My wife, yesterday, went to the hospital to have a liver biopsy taken. It all started several days earlier, with a blood test that showed elevated levels of some enzyme. This prompted the doctor to want a closer look at the situation. After a sonogram and a CT, which showed some nodules, a yet closer look was indicated. While in the operating room the doctor, through conversation with my wife, decided a couple of extra samples would be a good idea to check for another possible explanation for her condition. A call to a pathologist confirmed this to be a good idea, since they were already taking some biopsies anyway. I don't want to fill this blog up with anecdotal information as I know it can be a weak argument, but I have to react to what I know and then try to analyse external information taking into account what I have experienced. My experience with the healthcare system, to this point, has been a good one. Yes, I have been frustrated dealing with insurance companies who say this or that is covered then try not to pay when the bill comes. But in the end, my wife has prevailed and they have paid. I would say I have had more problems straightening out mis-understandings with the government. Whether it's getting a paid tax liability off our record or fighting over flood insurance that I don't believe we should need to have. I am not sceptical of the idea of us having the best healthcare in the world, but, even if my lack of scepticism has resulted in me accepting a "less than the best" system, I'll take it. I cannot imagine how these things would unfold under the weight of an incredible governmental bureaucracy. Waiting, who knows how long, to get a biopsy taken, then, what kind of treatment are you left with. Are the doctors hands tied. Is he able to make that phone call and take more samples than originally agreed on to cover another possible cause for the patients problem or is he a human machine carrying out his orders, knowing that the reimbursement will be the same either way and the patient can just wait in another line for another biopsy if it comes to that. The progression from blood test to biopsy was about a week for my wife. How long will that progression take with a government administered program? Can't we just make our current system better? If we introduce competition, in a real way, to the healthcare system then, I believe, we go a long way toward making it affordable for all. Those who still can't afford it, and want it, the government can help. With "real" competition the government will not need to control our lives like they will feel compelled to do with government healthcare. The government can concentrate on keeping us safe from terrorists and keeping our country on solid financial footing instead of telling us what we can eat, or how much we can eat, or what activities we can engage in. With a truly competitive environment in the insurance industry the actuary tables become the motivation for disciplining our choices. If we pay more for insurance because we smoke we have a built in incentive to quit. I understand the need for basic coverage for all, but giving discounts for lifestyle choices or refraining from more risky activities, would seem a doable option. Even now, if someone manages to go on a parachute jump without procuring the proper insurance, we are not going to with hold medical care from that individual. In fact, it is the stated policy of our medical institutions to not with hold medical care from any individual in need of emergency procedures. So I say true reform is indicated, not an overhaul. Free up the insurance companies from the heavy hand of government imposed restrictions, mandates and cost controls and then have a method of helping those who need assistance to make their premium payments. I don't have time here to address the historical issues that have led us to our current, inefficient, national medical condition, but I think we can fix it without setting us on a long slow decline into medical mediocrity that is the assured outcome of direct government involvement.
Film at 6.