Where has all the common sense gone?

    Does common sense and logical thinking evaporate? Sublimate? Hibernate? If not, why is it so hard to find these days? And while we're out with our flashlights in the night looking for common sense maybe we can locate that elusive critter called dialogue and civil discussion. Heck, I'd settle for any discussion, civil or otherwise. Do we take our positions so personally that we can't risk actually listening to the other side? Or have we prejudged the "other side" so negatively that we can't even stand to hear it?
    Newsflash. There are thoughtful, compassionate individuals who don't think "gun free" schools is the way to go in a country saturated with guns. Not offering an opinion on gun ownership here, just making an observation. We surround celebrities, public servants, politicians of every stripe with people trained in the use of firearms to protect their subjects from harm. Somehow, we have decided a cool-looking international symbol printed on a sign at the entrance of our children's schools is supposed to protect them. How could any gun-inflicted harm come to our children with such a solid line of defense right there at the school's entrance? If I may say, it doesn't seem to be working too well so far.
    Given the reality that gun confiscation would be messy at best and against our Constitution , and would take years to try to enforce, (likely with little success), it does not offer us an effective solution to this rising problem. Left-leaning ideological thinkers pretending to state their more conservative counterpart's positions by these vague and far reaching "silly" statements isn't exactly interpretable as offering a meaningful solution either. It seems like with such an important subject we need to have a discussion, not a verbal bumper sticker convention.
    By the way, if our children are the priority of our society (as they should be), maybe we should consider another shot at prohibition since drunk driving is one of the leading causes of death among young children. And don't forget that swimming pools claim far more innocent children's lives than guns. Guns are very powerful and need to be handled with the respect they deserve but honestly, fatal accidents involving guns are rare and these school shootings are not revealing a gun problem, they are revealing a society and culture problem.
    "There is no country in the world in which everything can be provided for by the laws; or in which political institutions can prove a substitute for common sense and public morality."
                                                          Alexis de Tocqueville

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.

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?

THANKS BUT NO THANKS

    So then, if the three of you haven't figured it our yet, I'm a bit of an odd duck. For further proof please keep reading.
    I don't order items off the "Senior Menu" in restaurants, not because I'm pretending not to be old when I am, but because I don't want others subsidizing my purchases. If I get a break, someone else gets a "non-break" as it were. Maybe when I'm on a fixed income and things are truly tight financially, but not now while I'm gainfully employed and can afford to buy my own lunch. While trying to figure out a way to retire ASAP I noticed that, on a retirement income, my wife and I could get insurance for $33 a month. That's thirty three dollars. not $330.00. This would make retirement close to doable but it ain't gonna happen. There is a movement afoot to grab all the freebies you can and just play the system for all it's worth. Why keep fighting when giving up is so easy and so lucrative. Just relax and let the government take care of you like so many of our countrymen have done. The problem is I'm smart enough to see that letting the government take care of me means asking them to take money from others and give it to me. In the case of health care it's pretty much milking the young folks to subsidize the older. A tempting proposition if one isn't particularly concerned about the loss of individual freedoms and liberty in general. As it turns out, I am interested in these things and I refuse to hand the government more power than it already has by playing along with their power grabbing ways. Sure, I could let others pay for my insurance and use that "extra income" to buy nicer cars and bigger TV sets. A kind of personal bait and switch if you will. Get help with the insurance from other hard-working Americans, then shift the money that I would have had to spend on health care over to a miscellaneous fund to buy electronic gadgets and such. What a deal. Except for the ones paying for my insurance. But then they don't really have a choice since the Supreme Court decided the government can force you to play the game. This is a game I refuse to participate in. I can afford health insurance if I sacrifice certain other luxuries. And that will lighten the tax load on the younger generation which, it appears, will be drowning in their elders' debts as they try to build their futures. There are better ways to improve the health care situation than single payer socialized approaches. And for a moment let's pretend there aren't; still, our Constitution is too valuable to the survival of our free and prosperous nation to trample it underfoot for the sake of someone's idea of what's fair. If someone who is driving a beater and only has one 32" flat screen in their house, a house that is sufficient but not exorbitant, and who is not refusing to work when they are capable, needs some help with their insurance premiums then, by all means, society should have a mechanism to help them. But offering someone with sufficient means a subsidized plan for $33 dollars a month by way of taking money from other people is simply stupid and self-destructive. Self-destructive to a free nation, but empowering to the ruling class.

Saving the Earth is a Dangerous Proposition

Sort of odd times we live in, eh? We are so concerned about smokers that we all but ban them from society. Poor things are just too stupid to make good decisions so we have to step in with the force of law and save them from themselves. Yes, I know some people are "allergic" to cigarette smoke. Just like milk and peanut butter and gluten. But any substantial health issues are reserved for the person who has decided to smoke, not the general public. Please don't point to the many studies about second-hand smoke as proving otherwise because I will ask you to take a close look at those studies and see that they are far from convincing. Even if they had more damning data in them I could suggest looking at all the other "scares" the media, with their cherry-picking of studies, have foisted on us in the past. Even some of the more authentic concerns have been found to be less ominous than first thought; cholesterol being the most recent. Alar, silicone breast implants, DDT and others come to mind. The greatest health threat from smoking is to the one smoking, not the whole of society. So I say, let them have the freedom to choose to smoke. And when they come to your house I'm sure they will gladly go outside, and the free market will see to it that there are plenty of smoke-free restaurants available. On the other hand, the behavior that takes many more innocent lives from our society every year than smoking could ever hope to, is celebrated and so comfortably ingrained in our culture that it is absolutely immovable. Drinking is just one of those things that we do. You know, like kids having sex. There's just nothing you can do about it. Boys will be boys, girls will be girls, and innocent dead people will be, ah, I guess they will just be dead. Oh well. So now I'm headed to work every morning, passing bicycles on a narrow, busy, 2-lane road with no shoulder, contemplating the fact that the danger they are putting themselves and everyone who passes them in, is forgiven because they are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to save our poor, delicate planet we call earth, from those money-grubbing rich bastards who don't give a rip about it. So as the death toll rises from this behavior it will be quickly forgotten and forgiven. As the cyclists and the motorists fail at trying not to put themselves in situations that sometimes takes a life, it will simply be a necessary loss to aid in the salvation of Mother Earth. Meanwhile, we are ticketing people who choose not to wear a seat belt in order to save them from their idiocy. It seems to me there is certainly idiocy on display but that it resides right in front of our faces, and is the direct result of some nuanced action by our powerful, ostensibly benevolent government to further the "general welfare" of our country. I think our country would be "generally" better off if they took a more constitutional approach to our welfare.

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.

Rights and Lefts

OK, ready, begin. I'm about to take a stab at a difficult issue to see if I can bring some resolution to my beliefs. It seems the word "right" is being used and abused these days. Similarly, I would say a significant part of our language has been used and abused and rights, seems to be the most recent fatality. There are plenty of bumper sticker phrases to go around here like, "your rights stop at the end of my nose" for instance. I suppose there is some truth to be gleaned from that phrase but plenty of room there, too, to move away from what a right is. In my considering of this subject I've concluded that a true "right" is an intrinsic ingredient in our existence. Again, I'm not pretending to be an expert, simply trying to express my understanding in an articulate manner. And my understanding is that a right is at the foundation of being human. A right to life would seem a good place to start. I believe that simply by being human we have a right to expect that other humans will not arbitrarily take our life. This "right" has been violated at many points in history and is yet today. I do not believe that people have a right to food. I believe they have a right to pursue an enterprise which would result in obtaining food. I believe they have the right to expect that someone, or some entity, will not impede their acquiring food. That is to say, to forceably intervene to keep one from receiving food. I know I'm opening a lot of ground here and the discussions could be endless as to the exact interpretation of the words I'm using. However, what I am trying to counter is the idea that a right includes delivery. At this point in the United States, the "right" to food will quickly come to mean I can sit in front of my flat-screen HD tv and expect a pizza every 4 or 5 hours. I know that is an exaggeration but I would submit that a large percent of our social security budget goes to what would have been considered an exaggeration to those who first envisioned it. Yes, healthcare is the issue that has brought this discussion to my mind and I submit to you that healthcare is not a right. If it is then we need to start with 3rd world countries and work our way back to the richest nation this world has ever known. A right, I believe, runs deep in our lives, deeper than a product of this world if you will. I think the richest country in the world could reasonably be expected to make healthcare affordable for all who want it but I do not believe it to be a right and there are so many better options than giving the government even more control of our lives and destroying the incentive to attract the best talent to the medical field. I know lots of people die without healthcare. I also know many more die with it. Is poor or non-existent healthcare one reason people die? Yes. And some of those people could easily afford healthcare but simply choose not to purchase it. Do people with good healthcare die because they eat too much, or the wrong kinds of food against their doctors suggestion? Yes. And I would submit to you that if the government gets control of healthcare they will effectively have control over things you choose to eat, activities you engage in, and any other choice that could cause you to be a burden to society. After all, you are spending societies money when you make bad choices, therefore, society, (or the political class more specifically), will dictate much of your life. This is not what I want. It is what I believe is coming.
Well, since I started this picture thing guess I'll stick with it. No real reason it needs to directly tie in with the blog I suppose.