Because you KNOW I can't stay away from political landmines for more than a week:
I have said before, and I will say again, if you ever want to fix a problem, you need to find the root cause. You can spend all season picking fruit off of a fruit tree. It will go dormant for a while, but will only continue to bear more fruit next year. If you don't like the fruit, you need to cut down the tree...at it's roots.
Why the new healthcare law will fail miserably (part 1):
1. It totally fails to address the real problems in the US healthcare system.
a. Over-indulgence by the insurance companies. The primary reason that people can not afford health care in this country is because health care costs are not driven by consumers. A true free-market society will balance off when supply meets demand. Because the healthcare system in this country is driven by a third-party payor (insurance companies), it does NOT balance itself because the third party payor can control both supply AND demand.
As a not-so-quick overview, here is how our healthcare was destroyed by the (unregulated) third-party payor system (values/amounts are not researched, documentable and provable numbers...they are estimates from my experience):
At one point, every insurance company re-imbursed at about the same level...about 85% of the billable dollar. The Healthcare Facilities happily allowed the insurance companies the 15%, as they brought in "guaranteed" reimbursement. both shared the same bed happily until the insurance companies realized the amount of available money out there. So, Insurance Company "A" ran a report and realized that they controlled 60% of the patients in a local market. When it came time to sign new reimbursement contracts, Co "A" refused to re-sign at 85% reimbursement. Instead they demanded the reimbursement drop to 70% of the billable dollar. The Healthcare Facility had a horrible problem. They were unable to survive on a reimbursement rate of 70 cents...but they were equally unable to survive if they became "out of network" for the 60% of their patients that Co "A" insured. Ultimately, the Healthcare Facility did the only thing that it could do to survive: sign the 70% reimbursement contract...and then raise prices 15% to make up for the difference. the following year, Insurance Company "A" drops reimbursement to 60%, and so on. This volleying game has now gone on, unchecked, for decades...until the point comes (and is passed) where an itemized bill reveals that an aspirin costs $3.00. The price is completely fictitious, based on the reimbursment rates of the third-party provider instead of on the actual free-market cost that would have balanced itself through the natural laws of supply and demand.
So, in 2010, here's what it looks like (and numbers are gut-averages, not to be taken to the bank): Insurance Company "A" reimburses at 45%, Company "B" at 55%, Public Company "C" at 22%, and Public Company "D" at 6% (and those are closer rates than you would like to believe).
Scenerio: a patient comes in with private insurance "A": they have services and receive a bill for $1000. They have a $100 deductible and a 20% co-pay. SO: they patient pays the first $300 (20% of 1000 plus 100). The insurance company re-imburses at 45%, so their portion should be $450, $300 of which has ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE PATIENT, so they actually only pay $150. The truth of the matter is that it actually only costs the Healthcare Facility about 25 cents on the billable dollar to see the patient. So, the actual bill, without a third-party pay system would have been $250. The patient would have been billed $250. But, this IS a third-party payor system, so instead the patient paid $300 (an extra $50, not to mention their premiums throughout the year). The insurance company paid $150 (substantially less than the premiums) and the hospital got paid $200 more than they spent. That sounds like a lot until you plug the actual numbers of patients into the reimbursement rates and realize that anyone on Public insurance actually costs the Healthcare Facility money...no profit, all loss. That loss is spread across the privately insured to balance the budget.
Here's who gets shafted in this system:
1. the insured patient. they are paying more than their fair share of the costs, so that the insurance companies can make money and so that the healthcare facility can see indigent patients.
2. the healthcare facility. they are legally forced to take the publically insured, regardless of profit/loss. so, the more the private insurances lower reimbursement, the less money there is to survive on. Quality cuts and staffing cuts are unavoidable
3. the taxpayer. everyone is worried about how much ObamaCare is going to cost the taxpayer. don't you realize that we ALREADY pay for indigent and publically insured patients through inflated healthcare prices and insurance premiums?
4. and most importantly, the uninsured. If they had $1000 bill, it only truly represented $250 in costs. But because of the whole third-party game, they actually receive a bill for $1000. If it weren't for the game, more people could afford healthcare itself...even withOUT insurance.
So what's my end point?
In walks the new healthcare law. what does it do to correct the horrible state of affairs in US healthcare? DEMAND that all citizens buy insurance. What? It's the insurance game that got us into the problem in the first place. Now, they will simply have more control over more people...giving them MORE bargaining power over the Healthcare Facilities, causing fictitious pricing to go even further out of control. This will cause increased premiums, passed on to the now-captive consumers.
And this is good for whom? I mean...OTHER than the insurance companies....
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Simple rules.
Ok, so I have decided that it is time to make a few simple rules for those who would like to date and have any hope at a functional relationship. So, I created a standard application with some questions and rules. Please fill out all questions completely.
1. Do you have a job?
a. yes, full-time.
b. yes, part-time
c. well, I'm an artist so I grab work where I can get it
d. no
2. How long have you been at your job?
a. 3 years or greater
b. 1-3 years
c. less than 1 year
d. unemployed
3. Where do you hope to be in this job in 5 years?
a. advanced at my job
b. advanced at a different job.
c. right where I am now.
d. sponging off someone else who has a job
4. Do you/have you ever done drugs?
a. no.
b. yes, but only if you count marajuana.
c. I have in the past, but have not in at least 3 years.
d. yes.
5. Do you take any prescription medication that makes you stupid if you fail to take it regularly?
a. I am not on any medications.
b. I am on medications, but nothing that alters my moods.
c. I am on medications that alter my moods, but I take them religiously.
d. I go on and off my meds more often than Simon Cowell hates singers.
6. Do you have your own apt/house?
a. I am a home-owner
b I rent my own place
c. I rent with room-mates
d. I live with my Mommy
e. I live with my parents, but I am their caregiver
7. If you have room mates, please describe them:
a. responsible (use this answer if you have no room-mates)
b. fairly responsible
c. pretty irresponsible
d. unable to commit to a houseplant
8. Are your room-mates:
a. respectful (use this answer if you have no room-mates)
b. respectful but forgetful
c. in need of being occasionally reminded that they are not the center of the universe
d. incapable of understanding that they may not be the center of the universe
9. Do you have a criminal record?
a. no
b. yes, but it was a single youthful indiscretion
c. yes, but it was because I was an activist
d. yes, but it was only because I got caught
10. Describe your education:
a. graduate degree
b. some college, but no degree
c. high school and college of hard knocks.
d. what does GED stand for?
11. Please put your iPod on shuffle and write down the first 20 songs that are listed
12. Upon completing # 11, I:
a. was totally honest, but you're going to think I'm a freak.
b. was totally honest, but hey, it's who I am.
c. ok, I took off one really embarrassing song.
d. I took off more than one song
13. List 10 of your favorite movies.
14. List 10 of your all-time favorite TV shows.
15. How often do you drink alcohol?
a. no more than two days in any given week, having no more than 2 drinks per day.
b. more than two days in any given week, but not having more than 2 drinks per day
c. no more than two days in any give week, but having more than 2 drinks per day.
d. more than any of the above scenarios.
16. Do you smoke?
a. no, never developed the habit.
b. no, I did but quit more than 1 year ago
c. yes, but only when I drink OR no, but quit less than 1 year ago.
d. yes.
17. Define your sex:
a. the same as is on my birth certificate.
b. the same as is on my birth certificate, but I get teased about my mannerisms
c. the same as is on my birth certificate, but I don't always dress that way.
d. different than is on my birth certificate.
18. Approximately what percentage of your body is covered with tattoos if dressed in cargo shorts and a t-shirt?
a. none
b. less than 1%
c. 2-5%
d. more than 5%
19. Do you have anything pierced that you would be embarrassed to show your grandmother?
a. no, and my grandmother is conservative
b. no, but my grandmother is thankfully liberal
c. yes, but my grandmother is conservative
d. yes, and my grandmother is liberal
20. Describe the total number of body piercings.
a. no more than 1 in each ear, and no more 2 more that are not visible if fully clothed
b. no more than 1 in each ear, and no more than 3 that are not visible fully clothed
c. 1 or more on my face
d. I set off metal detectors when driving near airports.
21. When was the last time you cried?
a. within the last year, but is not commonly more than once a month.
b. 1-2 years
c. 3 or more years
d. within the last year, and it occurs more often than once a month
22. What made you cry?
a. thoughts of family tragedy/associating with a situation, including movies/music
b. thinking about my past
c. fear of the future
d. who knows, it just happens
23. Describe your weight in conjuntion to your height and body frame?
a. I am proportionate, within 15 pounds
b. I am not proportionate; I should weigh 15-25 pounds less.
c. I am not porportionate; I should weigh 15-25 pounds more.
d. I am super skinny or obese.
24. List the first 4 words that come to mind when you think about your mother.
25. If someone stares at you blankly, how long does it take you to figure out that they are not interested in what you are saying?
a. less than a minute.
b. 1-2 minutes
c. 3-5 minutes
d. obviously, no one is ever 'not interested' in what I am saying.
26. Please exlpain the following statement in your own words: "God gave you 2 ears and one mouth for a reason."
27. When a friend says that they need help working on their house, do you:
a. grab your tool box and a gatorade.
b. evaluate your plans, but more than likely go
c. evaluate your plans, but more than likely do not go.
d. grab colour swatches in hopes of helping them buy new throw pillows
28. When you are on a second date with someone, do you:
a. offer to buy dinner, but let them pay only if you paid last time.
b. insist on buying dinner regardless of who paid last time
c. do not offer to pay for dinner if you paid last time.
d. come to dinner without any means of paying.
29. Describe your perfect first date.
30. Please explain the following statement in your own words: "sex fades, looks fade, even money can fade, so you better LIKE that person sitting across the breakfast table from you.
Thank you for your time.
Please tally your score as follows:
a=10 points
b=7 points
c=3 points
d=0 points
send your essays and your tallyed answers to me, only if your point total is more than 210, and you had no (none, nada, zip, not any) "d" answers.
yeah, this started out to be funny...but then I changed my mind....LOL
1. Do you have a job?
a. yes, full-time.
b. yes, part-time
c. well, I'm an artist so I grab work where I can get it
d. no
2. How long have you been at your job?
a. 3 years or greater
b. 1-3 years
c. less than 1 year
d. unemployed
3. Where do you hope to be in this job in 5 years?
a. advanced at my job
b. advanced at a different job.
c. right where I am now.
d. sponging off someone else who has a job
4. Do you/have you ever done drugs?
a. no.
b. yes, but only if you count marajuana.
c. I have in the past, but have not in at least 3 years.
d. yes.
5. Do you take any prescription medication that makes you stupid if you fail to take it regularly?
a. I am not on any medications.
b. I am on medications, but nothing that alters my moods.
c. I am on medications that alter my moods, but I take them religiously.
d. I go on and off my meds more often than Simon Cowell hates singers.
6. Do you have your own apt/house?
a. I am a home-owner
b I rent my own place
c. I rent with room-mates
d. I live with my Mommy
e. I live with my parents, but I am their caregiver
7. If you have room mates, please describe them:
a. responsible (use this answer if you have no room-mates)
b. fairly responsible
c. pretty irresponsible
d. unable to commit to a houseplant
8. Are your room-mates:
a. respectful (use this answer if you have no room-mates)
b. respectful but forgetful
c. in need of being occasionally reminded that they are not the center of the universe
d. incapable of understanding that they may not be the center of the universe
9. Do you have a criminal record?
a. no
b. yes, but it was a single youthful indiscretion
c. yes, but it was because I was an activist
d. yes, but it was only because I got caught
10. Describe your education:
a. graduate degree
b. some college, but no degree
c. high school and college of hard knocks.
d. what does GED stand for?
11. Please put your iPod on shuffle and write down the first 20 songs that are listed
12. Upon completing # 11, I:
a. was totally honest, but you're going to think I'm a freak.
b. was totally honest, but hey, it's who I am.
c. ok, I took off one really embarrassing song.
d. I took off more than one song
13. List 10 of your favorite movies.
14. List 10 of your all-time favorite TV shows.
15. How often do you drink alcohol?
a. no more than two days in any given week, having no more than 2 drinks per day.
b. more than two days in any given week, but not having more than 2 drinks per day
c. no more than two days in any give week, but having more than 2 drinks per day.
d. more than any of the above scenarios.
16. Do you smoke?
a. no, never developed the habit.
b. no, I did but quit more than 1 year ago
c. yes, but only when I drink OR no, but quit less than 1 year ago.
d. yes.
17. Define your sex:
a. the same as is on my birth certificate.
b. the same as is on my birth certificate, but I get teased about my mannerisms
c. the same as is on my birth certificate, but I don't always dress that way.
d. different than is on my birth certificate.
18. Approximately what percentage of your body is covered with tattoos if dressed in cargo shorts and a t-shirt?
a. none
b. less than 1%
c. 2-5%
d. more than 5%
19. Do you have anything pierced that you would be embarrassed to show your grandmother?
a. no, and my grandmother is conservative
b. no, but my grandmother is thankfully liberal
c. yes, but my grandmother is conservative
d. yes, and my grandmother is liberal
20. Describe the total number of body piercings.
a. no more than 1 in each ear, and no more 2 more that are not visible if fully clothed
b. no more than 1 in each ear, and no more than 3 that are not visible fully clothed
c. 1 or more on my face
d. I set off metal detectors when driving near airports.
21. When was the last time you cried?
a. within the last year, but is not commonly more than once a month.
b. 1-2 years
c. 3 or more years
d. within the last year, and it occurs more often than once a month
22. What made you cry?
a. thoughts of family tragedy/associating with a situation, including movies/music
b. thinking about my past
c. fear of the future
d. who knows, it just happens
23. Describe your weight in conjuntion to your height and body frame?
a. I am proportionate, within 15 pounds
b. I am not proportionate; I should weigh 15-25 pounds less.
c. I am not porportionate; I should weigh 15-25 pounds more.
d. I am super skinny or obese.
24. List the first 4 words that come to mind when you think about your mother.
25. If someone stares at you blankly, how long does it take you to figure out that they are not interested in what you are saying?
a. less than a minute.
b. 1-2 minutes
c. 3-5 minutes
d. obviously, no one is ever 'not interested' in what I am saying.
26. Please exlpain the following statement in your own words: "God gave you 2 ears and one mouth for a reason."
27. When a friend says that they need help working on their house, do you:
a. grab your tool box and a gatorade.
b. evaluate your plans, but more than likely go
c. evaluate your plans, but more than likely do not go.
d. grab colour swatches in hopes of helping them buy new throw pillows
28. When you are on a second date with someone, do you:
a. offer to buy dinner, but let them pay only if you paid last time.
b. insist on buying dinner regardless of who paid last time
c. do not offer to pay for dinner if you paid last time.
d. come to dinner without any means of paying.
29. Describe your perfect first date.
30. Please explain the following statement in your own words: "sex fades, looks fade, even money can fade, so you better LIKE that person sitting across the breakfast table from you.
Thank you for your time.
Please tally your score as follows:
a=10 points
b=7 points
c=3 points
d=0 points
send your essays and your tallyed answers to me, only if your point total is more than 210, and you had no (none, nada, zip, not any) "d" answers.
yeah, this started out to be funny...but then I changed my mind....LOL
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Off of politics; still about idiots.
I thought that I would try to be a little helpful this morning. The best way that I could think to do that would be to impart a little wisdom to the driving-impaired.
My Ode to the three jack-asses driving 58 mph down I-55 this morning, side by side, 3 miles of traffic backed up behind them:
KNOCK IT OFF!
1. The name of the training book you had in Driver's Ed was called "Rules of the Road," not "Suggestions to be Ignored."
2. When on a limited access expressway, slower traffic keeps right and the left lane is for passing. No, REALLY! Read the rule book! It's in there! If you don't know what a 'limited access expressway' is, hand me your license right now, and no one will get hurt.
3. That thing in the middle of your windshield is called a "rear-view mirror." If you look in it once in a while, you may notice that you are NOT the only driver on the road. If traffic is clear in front of you and backed up behind you, there is a problem. The problem is YOU.
4. Your car is equipped with pretty blinking lights called 'turn signals.' It lets other drivers know what you are planning to do, so that they don't inadvertantly kill you.
5. When you see a sign telling you that the lane you are in is going to end ahead, this would be a clue that you should try to get into the OTHER lane. By the way, the reason that the other lane is travelling so slowly is because of all the jack-asses in the closing lane, who try to cut in at the last minute, causing everyone else to have to slam on their brakes. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Pick a side.
6. When you pass an accident, judge the distance between you and the car in front of you before you rubberneck. When you are done gawking, re-judge the distance to the car in front of you. If you are further behind them than before, then YOU are the reason for the traffic jam, NOT the accident....
7. When you pass a policeman with a radar gun, it is not necessary to slow down 10 mph under the speed limit.
8. Likewise, when an officer already has someone else stopped, it is unlikely that he will stop what he's doing to chase you down. You're not that important. He doesn't care WHOSE ticket-money it is.
9. When on a country blacktop, please don't pull out in front of a car moving at full speed, if you plan to drive 40 mph...or WORSE, if you plan to turn again at the next intersection.
10. Inclement weather can impair driving. You can not drive 80 mph and expect everything to be the same. Likewise, there is no real reason to slow down to 20.
11. When a stoplight turns green, please give the person in front of you time to move their foot from the brake pedal to the gas pedal before blaring your horn.
12. When parking, please notice that there are other cars around you. Parking with an extra 10 feet behind you and an extra 10 feet in front of you, is actually taking 2 spaces. If you can't parallel park, please don't try.
13. Parking across 2 parking spaces in a parking lot does not make you look cool...it makes you look like a D-bag. Seriously, you're not as cool as you think you are and neither is your car.
14. That horrible sound you hear when your bass is cranked up to '11' is called harmonic distortion. People who actually understand music usually avoid it, so they can hear things like the words or the melody. As a sidenote, if I wanted to hear your music, I would play it myself. As another sidenote, blowing yet another set of woofers does not make you cool, but it will make you deaf.
15. No one who has ever had to make a car payment for more than a year thinks it's a good idea to spend more money on their rims and speakers than on the entire rest of their car. Seriously.
This has been a public service announcement.
My Ode to the three jack-asses driving 58 mph down I-55 this morning, side by side, 3 miles of traffic backed up behind them:
KNOCK IT OFF!
1. The name of the training book you had in Driver's Ed was called "Rules of the Road," not "Suggestions to be Ignored."
2. When on a limited access expressway, slower traffic keeps right and the left lane is for passing. No, REALLY! Read the rule book! It's in there! If you don't know what a 'limited access expressway' is, hand me your license right now, and no one will get hurt.
3. That thing in the middle of your windshield is called a "rear-view mirror." If you look in it once in a while, you may notice that you are NOT the only driver on the road. If traffic is clear in front of you and backed up behind you, there is a problem. The problem is YOU.
4. Your car is equipped with pretty blinking lights called 'turn signals.' It lets other drivers know what you are planning to do, so that they don't inadvertantly kill you.
5. When you see a sign telling you that the lane you are in is going to end ahead, this would be a clue that you should try to get into the OTHER lane. By the way, the reason that the other lane is travelling so slowly is because of all the jack-asses in the closing lane, who try to cut in at the last minute, causing everyone else to have to slam on their brakes. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Pick a side.
6. When you pass an accident, judge the distance between you and the car in front of you before you rubberneck. When you are done gawking, re-judge the distance to the car in front of you. If you are further behind them than before, then YOU are the reason for the traffic jam, NOT the accident....
7. When you pass a policeman with a radar gun, it is not necessary to slow down 10 mph under the speed limit.
8. Likewise, when an officer already has someone else stopped, it is unlikely that he will stop what he's doing to chase you down. You're not that important. He doesn't care WHOSE ticket-money it is.
9. When on a country blacktop, please don't pull out in front of a car moving at full speed, if you plan to drive 40 mph...or WORSE, if you plan to turn again at the next intersection.
10. Inclement weather can impair driving. You can not drive 80 mph and expect everything to be the same. Likewise, there is no real reason to slow down to 20.
11. When a stoplight turns green, please give the person in front of you time to move their foot from the brake pedal to the gas pedal before blaring your horn.
12. When parking, please notice that there are other cars around you. Parking with an extra 10 feet behind you and an extra 10 feet in front of you, is actually taking 2 spaces. If you can't parallel park, please don't try.
13. Parking across 2 parking spaces in a parking lot does not make you look cool...it makes you look like a D-bag. Seriously, you're not as cool as you think you are and neither is your car.
14. That horrible sound you hear when your bass is cranked up to '11' is called harmonic distortion. People who actually understand music usually avoid it, so they can hear things like the words or the melody. As a sidenote, if I wanted to hear your music, I would play it myself. As another sidenote, blowing yet another set of woofers does not make you cool, but it will make you deaf.
15. No one who has ever had to make a car payment for more than a year thinks it's a good idea to spend more money on their rims and speakers than on the entire rest of their car. Seriously.
This has been a public service announcement.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The abortion contortion
title partially stolen. =D
Ok, so yesterday's post stirred up quite a bit of strife. I want to personally thank Jeff, who was the only one of my friends to actually post his comments for others to see. Everyone else berated me in private. The conclusion that I came to? Everyone thinks that compromise is the answer...as long as it is everyone one else who is doing the compromising. No wonder the divorce rate is nearing 70%.
Since the bulk of the angry statements were about abortion, I thought it would be fun to dive in a little deeper. To see how well this works, please note that as of 5:55 this morning, the number of Facebook friends that I have is 241. I suspect it will change as the day progresses....
I am the first to say that I have no clue where I stand on Abortion. Somewhere in the middle of the bell curve, for sure, but exactly where I stand really can't be nailed down. I don't know why, perhaps because I really do see validity in almost every argument. At the same time, I get angry at every argument. So, if you ever wondered what a schozophrenic blogger would look like, you need to look no further. This post WILL be psycho, as I make statements and then disagree with myself....
As I stated yesterday, I'd like both camps to compromise. A fair compromise (to me, but no one else, apparently) would be to make abortion easily accessible for cases of rape, incest, fetal genetic disorders, or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. The compromise is that abortion would NOT be easily accessible for those who simply think it is an alternative birth-control method (down to 240 friends already...LOL).
I was told by my friends from both camps that this is an unacceptable compromise. The problem is that both camps look at this issue as either a fundamental right (which means all or nothing) or as a fundamental 'sin' (which also means all or nothing).
I have heard arguments on both sides. I have even argued for certain points on both sides. Ultimately, I don't believe that this is a politcal argument about 'choice' as much as it is a social argument about 'responsibility.' (239, I'm guessing).
Do I believe that abortion kills a baby? yes. Do I believe that some pregnancies could destroy the life of the mother? yes. The arguments here get so bitter, that it concerns me. If a woman has been sexually assaulted, I can't imagine the torture of having to carry that baby to term and then have to face the incarnate form of your worst nightmare. Still, I know of no other violent crimes where part of the healing process involves killing one of the victims. This is why I stand in the area of comprmise. The emotional well-being of the life in front of me (the raped woman) HAS to bear some weight upon the argument. The same holds true for a woman whose life is jeopardized by the pregnancy. It is a choice that no one should ever have to make. BUT, if it was my wife's life in danger, make no mistake, that I would not lose my wife to a situation that could potentially end in the loss of both mother and child. The risk is too great. If that makes me a murderer, then so be it.
The flip side of the coin, requires the same hard compromises. A woman's right to her own body is about as fundamental as any right can get. And yet, excluding the situations listed above, pregnancy, in 2010, IS a choice. There are more contraceptive choices on the market today than ever before...and yet unwanted pregnancies rise. This is why I argue this is not a question of choice, it is a question of responsibility. If you don't want to get pregnant, take a pill...get a shot...use a gel...get an IUD...use condoms. If a woman doesn't want to take the responsibility for her actions, I have a problem with allwoing her to just kill the afore-known result of her irresponsible actions (I'm betting I'm down to 231, on that point).
Now, before I'm crucified by the pro-choicers for that statement, let me quickly turn back to the pro-life crowd, primarily the religious-right: Much of the abortion problem is a direct result of the failure of the Church. Abstinence works. But the cold-hard truth is that many, if not most people are NOT going to abstain. And I'm talking about people WITHIN the Church. I don't know that I have EVER belonged to a church for an extended period of time that did not have an "unwed mother accident." Often, these go un-noticed. They go un-noticed because the woman gets an abortion, rather than to face the shunning of other church members. If the church really wants to make a difference in unplanned pregnancies, there are two things that need to be done: 1. Help people who have made mistakes instead of ostracizing them (for SURE, I lost 3 or 4 more there). PEOPLE make mistakes...isn't that why we NEED the church, because we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?!? How quick we are to judge others. And rather than facing the condemnation of others, many choose to end the pregnancy, privately, so that they can continue to be accepted by people who don't understand acceptance. One 'unforgivable' mistake to try to cover up another, lesser mistake.
2. Lose the fear of educating young people to the consequences and choices. Yes, I believe that abstinence is the perfect solution (100% effective against pregnancy). But not everyone will abstain. So the tough choice is: do we teach them, and risk being accused of putting our 'seal of approval 'on teen sex by doing so, or do we pretend that everyone will just abstain and then hope for the best?
Mature discussions need to happen on both sides of this argument, and compromise is possible. But both sides have to be able to let go of absolutes and accept that, sometimes, what seems to be an unacceptable compromise inadvertantly does more good for more people....and isn't that the goal that we all have?
Ok, so yesterday's post stirred up quite a bit of strife. I want to personally thank Jeff, who was the only one of my friends to actually post his comments for others to see. Everyone else berated me in private. The conclusion that I came to? Everyone thinks that compromise is the answer...as long as it is everyone one else who is doing the compromising. No wonder the divorce rate is nearing 70%.
Since the bulk of the angry statements were about abortion, I thought it would be fun to dive in a little deeper. To see how well this works, please note that as of 5:55 this morning, the number of Facebook friends that I have is 241. I suspect it will change as the day progresses....
I am the first to say that I have no clue where I stand on Abortion. Somewhere in the middle of the bell curve, for sure, but exactly where I stand really can't be nailed down. I don't know why, perhaps because I really do see validity in almost every argument. At the same time, I get angry at every argument. So, if you ever wondered what a schozophrenic blogger would look like, you need to look no further. This post WILL be psycho, as I make statements and then disagree with myself....
As I stated yesterday, I'd like both camps to compromise. A fair compromise (to me, but no one else, apparently) would be to make abortion easily accessible for cases of rape, incest, fetal genetic disorders, or when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. The compromise is that abortion would NOT be easily accessible for those who simply think it is an alternative birth-control method (down to 240 friends already...LOL).
I was told by my friends from both camps that this is an unacceptable compromise. The problem is that both camps look at this issue as either a fundamental right (which means all or nothing) or as a fundamental 'sin' (which also means all or nothing).
I have heard arguments on both sides. I have even argued for certain points on both sides. Ultimately, I don't believe that this is a politcal argument about 'choice' as much as it is a social argument about 'responsibility.' (239, I'm guessing).
Do I believe that abortion kills a baby? yes. Do I believe that some pregnancies could destroy the life of the mother? yes. The arguments here get so bitter, that it concerns me. If a woman has been sexually assaulted, I can't imagine the torture of having to carry that baby to term and then have to face the incarnate form of your worst nightmare. Still, I know of no other violent crimes where part of the healing process involves killing one of the victims. This is why I stand in the area of comprmise. The emotional well-being of the life in front of me (the raped woman) HAS to bear some weight upon the argument. The same holds true for a woman whose life is jeopardized by the pregnancy. It is a choice that no one should ever have to make. BUT, if it was my wife's life in danger, make no mistake, that I would not lose my wife to a situation that could potentially end in the loss of both mother and child. The risk is too great. If that makes me a murderer, then so be it.
The flip side of the coin, requires the same hard compromises. A woman's right to her own body is about as fundamental as any right can get. And yet, excluding the situations listed above, pregnancy, in 2010, IS a choice. There are more contraceptive choices on the market today than ever before...and yet unwanted pregnancies rise. This is why I argue this is not a question of choice, it is a question of responsibility. If you don't want to get pregnant, take a pill...get a shot...use a gel...get an IUD...use condoms. If a woman doesn't want to take the responsibility for her actions, I have a problem with allwoing her to just kill the afore-known result of her irresponsible actions (I'm betting I'm down to 231, on that point).
Now, before I'm crucified by the pro-choicers for that statement, let me quickly turn back to the pro-life crowd, primarily the religious-right: Much of the abortion problem is a direct result of the failure of the Church. Abstinence works. But the cold-hard truth is that many, if not most people are NOT going to abstain. And I'm talking about people WITHIN the Church. I don't know that I have EVER belonged to a church for an extended period of time that did not have an "unwed mother accident." Often, these go un-noticed. They go un-noticed because the woman gets an abortion, rather than to face the shunning of other church members. If the church really wants to make a difference in unplanned pregnancies, there are two things that need to be done: 1. Help people who have made mistakes instead of ostracizing them (for SURE, I lost 3 or 4 more there). PEOPLE make mistakes...isn't that why we NEED the church, because we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?!? How quick we are to judge others. And rather than facing the condemnation of others, many choose to end the pregnancy, privately, so that they can continue to be accepted by people who don't understand acceptance. One 'unforgivable' mistake to try to cover up another, lesser mistake.
2. Lose the fear of educating young people to the consequences and choices. Yes, I believe that abstinence is the perfect solution (100% effective against pregnancy). But not everyone will abstain. So the tough choice is: do we teach them, and risk being accused of putting our 'seal of approval 'on teen sex by doing so, or do we pretend that everyone will just abstain and then hope for the best?
Mature discussions need to happen on both sides of this argument, and compromise is possible. But both sides have to be able to let go of absolutes and accept that, sometimes, what seems to be an unacceptable compromise inadvertantly does more good for more people....and isn't that the goal that we all have?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
50%, plus1 rule
This may come as a surprise to some people, but I actually consider myself a moderate. I say that because my thoughts often don't divide nicely down the party lines. If forced to choose about fiscal issues, I generally side with the GOP. If forced to choose about social issues, I often side with the Democrats.
I guess ultimately, the polarization of the 2-party system is frustrating me. While I definitely see the positives in it, I also see the negatives.
Here is what I would like to see (in my own little world):
A true third-party viability...even if it only existed long enough to scare the doo-doo out of the 2 parties that currently enjoy their strangle-hold on the average american. It seems that both sides are out to strangle...they just do it with noticable different grips.
As I've said before, I believe that most opinions, if graphed, display as a bell-curve. There are outlyers to the far right and to the far left, but the majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle. I believe that it is time to elect candidates who represent the views of those in the middle...the "average american"...instead of the ideologies of the outlyers.
I truly, TRULY believe that most americans (minimum of 50%, plus 1) could come to a compromise on a vast majority of political issues if things like lobbyists and religious pressures were removed. Unfortunately, politicians often feel more pressured by special interest groups than they do by the voters, themselves.
When did compromise become a bad word? We do it every day in our work and family lives. We understand that it is necessary for survival. yet, when it comes to politics our country takes a maverick, "all or nothing and take no captives" attitude. I believe that there is something GROSSLY wrong with politics when a bill can pass senate or house negotiations and the voting is straight down party lines. This tells me that party politics are more important than people.
While I understand that some issues are divisive and will never reach a consensus due to personal liberties and religious beliefs (abortion comes to mind). I believe that it is possible to find common ground among MOST people that reside within the middle section of the bell-curve. And isn't that what democracy is really all about? I believe in democracy. I also believe that there are compromises out there:
1. Abortion. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could live with the following compromise:
Keep abortion legal in cases of rape, incest, fetal genetic problems, and a medical situations affecting the life of the mother. But, not allowing abortion to be used on-demand, as in birth control. instead, provide prevalaint options.
Yes, some "pro-choicers" will balk at it and, yes, some "pro-lifers" will balk at it. BUT, I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could live with it as a compromise.
2. Healthcare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could have lived with a reform bill on healthcare that provided subsidies for lower incomes without changing the system for those who are happy with their healthcare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would have been satisfied to see these subsidies back-charged to the insurance companies in "forced risk pools." (like is done with auto insurance) This would have seen a huge number of people insured, with the least disruption. A compromise that would help many, without changing the system for all, billed to those that make the profits.
3. Immigration. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a program that helps people to become legal, making it dependendent upon becoming a productive, working citizen (and consumer, btw) within a reasonable time-frame.
4. Welfare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a welfare scale-back that puts some accountability on the recipient (drug testing, a time-frame to become independent of the system, perhaps a sliding payment scale that helps those that help themselves by supplementing income for those that take any job they can find, at any salary).
5. Fiscal Responsibility. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a scale-back in government spending by hiring indepenedent consultants to find waste and fraud. Only pay the consultants a percent of the money they save.
Am I wrong? Or am I in the 50%, plus 1?
I guess ultimately, the polarization of the 2-party system is frustrating me. While I definitely see the positives in it, I also see the negatives.
Here is what I would like to see (in my own little world):
A true third-party viability...even if it only existed long enough to scare the doo-doo out of the 2 parties that currently enjoy their strangle-hold on the average american. It seems that both sides are out to strangle...they just do it with noticable different grips.
As I've said before, I believe that most opinions, if graphed, display as a bell-curve. There are outlyers to the far right and to the far left, but the majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle. I believe that it is time to elect candidates who represent the views of those in the middle...the "average american"...instead of the ideologies of the outlyers.
I truly, TRULY believe that most americans (minimum of 50%, plus 1) could come to a compromise on a vast majority of political issues if things like lobbyists and religious pressures were removed. Unfortunately, politicians often feel more pressured by special interest groups than they do by the voters, themselves.
When did compromise become a bad word? We do it every day in our work and family lives. We understand that it is necessary for survival. yet, when it comes to politics our country takes a maverick, "all or nothing and take no captives" attitude. I believe that there is something GROSSLY wrong with politics when a bill can pass senate or house negotiations and the voting is straight down party lines. This tells me that party politics are more important than people.
While I understand that some issues are divisive and will never reach a consensus due to personal liberties and religious beliefs (abortion comes to mind). I believe that it is possible to find common ground among MOST people that reside within the middle section of the bell-curve. And isn't that what democracy is really all about? I believe in democracy. I also believe that there are compromises out there:
1. Abortion. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could live with the following compromise:
Keep abortion legal in cases of rape, incest, fetal genetic problems, and a medical situations affecting the life of the mother. But, not allowing abortion to be used on-demand, as in birth control. instead, provide prevalaint options.
Yes, some "pro-choicers" will balk at it and, yes, some "pro-lifers" will balk at it. BUT, I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could live with it as a compromise.
2. Healthcare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) could have lived with a reform bill on healthcare that provided subsidies for lower incomes without changing the system for those who are happy with their healthcare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would have been satisfied to see these subsidies back-charged to the insurance companies in "forced risk pools." (like is done with auto insurance) This would have seen a huge number of people insured, with the least disruption. A compromise that would help many, without changing the system for all, billed to those that make the profits.
3. Immigration. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a program that helps people to become legal, making it dependendent upon becoming a productive, working citizen (and consumer, btw) within a reasonable time-frame.
4. Welfare. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a welfare scale-back that puts some accountability on the recipient (drug testing, a time-frame to become independent of the system, perhaps a sliding payment scale that helps those that help themselves by supplementing income for those that take any job they can find, at any salary).
5. Fiscal Responsibility. I believe that most americans (50%, plus 1) would support a scale-back in government spending by hiring indepenedent consultants to find waste and fraud. Only pay the consultants a percent of the money they save.
Am I wrong? Or am I in the 50%, plus 1?
Friday, May 7, 2010
Fixing Welfare
I seem to get my best thoughts while in my car. On the way to work this morning, I had another perfect solution. Once again, the White House refused my call. It could be because it was 4 a.m., but I really am beginning to see a pattern here.
anyway....
I have a proposal that would affect the way we handle welfare/unemployment/even social security.
My proposal is that the government gives every newborn a savings account, depositing $10,000 into it. With a half-way normal amount of interest, the 10K should turn into about 30K by the time the 'child' is 21, 100K by the time the 'child' is 40, and nearly a quarter of a million dollars by the time the child retires. At retirement, the governement gets their entire 10K investment back, and the citizen gets to use the rest of the money to supplement his/her retirement.
In between 21 and 65, this money is earmarked to be used to supplement income during times of unemployment. Think about it: a man is 40, making 60K a year, and loses his job. Currently, he would make 66% of his wages for about a year, until unemployment runs out. Then, he either has to take whatever job he can find, or lose everything. Under my program, he would be able to take another job at less money...say 50K a year, and be able to dip into his "fund" and draw an extra 10K/year out of his fund for a set number of years, while he adjusts his payments and lifestyle to the new income level.
The key is that once the fund is gone, it is gone. If someone chooses to use it all during times of unemplyment during their 20's (when the value of the fund is still pretty low), then that is all there is. No more welfare, no more public aid. If someone is vigilant and uses the money wisely, they retire in additional comfort.
Because the original investment is returned to the government upon retirement, the program actually costs the government next to NOTHING.
There. next problem?
anyway....
I have a proposal that would affect the way we handle welfare/unemployment/even social security.
My proposal is that the government gives every newborn a savings account, depositing $10,000 into it. With a half-way normal amount of interest, the 10K should turn into about 30K by the time the 'child' is 21, 100K by the time the 'child' is 40, and nearly a quarter of a million dollars by the time the child retires. At retirement, the governement gets their entire 10K investment back, and the citizen gets to use the rest of the money to supplement his/her retirement.
In between 21 and 65, this money is earmarked to be used to supplement income during times of unemployment. Think about it: a man is 40, making 60K a year, and loses his job. Currently, he would make 66% of his wages for about a year, until unemployment runs out. Then, he either has to take whatever job he can find, or lose everything. Under my program, he would be able to take another job at less money...say 50K a year, and be able to dip into his "fund" and draw an extra 10K/year out of his fund for a set number of years, while he adjusts his payments and lifestyle to the new income level.
The key is that once the fund is gone, it is gone. If someone chooses to use it all during times of unemplyment during their 20's (when the value of the fund is still pretty low), then that is all there is. No more welfare, no more public aid. If someone is vigilant and uses the money wisely, they retire in additional comfort.
Because the original investment is returned to the government upon retirement, the program actually costs the government next to NOTHING.
There. next problem?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
New Welfare Society
I've decided that it is time to 'give in' to the fact that we are going to become a socialistic, welfare state. So, rather than fight it, I've decided the better option is to embrace it...with a couple of minor changes. Here are my immediate thoughts:
Let's go ahead and have a public health insurance option (hey, it only creates a million pay-to-play government hand-out jobs, while unemploying 750,000 actual insurance company employees). BUT, I want to make a minor change. Approximately 4 hours wages are deducted from my paycheck every week to pay for my health insurance. Then, there are the co-pays and deductibles. So, let's make the new, improved, public option that is fairly distributed. Everyone has to work 4 hours a week for the government...public service, if you will. cleaning bathrooms in parks, painting benches, cleaning up litter, etc. Then, instead of co-pays and deductibles, additional work hours are added to make up for usage.
The beauty is that this program levels the playing field for every single American. This plan costs no consumer a single penny. Rich and poor are treated the same. Those who consume the most, 'pay' the most. The government program would cost more, but the government would be spending less money on public works programs. I love this thought.
Need a pap smear? Go work at the homeless shelter for an evening. Need a colonoscopy? clean graffiti off of sidewalks for a weekend. Need a face-lift? scrub toilets at local parks every weekend for a month.
Gravely ill, would create a problem. I suppose if someone was so ill that they couldn't work off their debt, it would be cheapest and most humane to just have them euthanized. Hell, work off a tummy tuck by euthanizing sick folks for a weekend....
Nah...that wouldn't go over well. Strike that thought, I'm just thinking out loud. Hey, wait, I have a BETTER idea for the gravely ill: Someone ELSE 'works' off their debt. Since some people already work 40-50 hours a week, how about we have the unemployed work off the debt? Hey, what else are they going to do...they're unemployed, they may as well do SOMETHING. It sounds ludicrous at first...but I'm SURE that unemployed people would not mind paying for the healthcare of their fellow man any more than 'rich' people mind paying for it now. In today's system the 'rich' pay for it out of their abundance of money...under my plan the unemployed pay for it out of their abundance of time. It's no less fair.... It might even encourage the unemployed to go out and get a job. Hmmm. Added bonus!
I thought about running for congress. how important do you have to be before you are assassinated instead of just murdered?
Let's go ahead and have a public health insurance option (hey, it only creates a million pay-to-play government hand-out jobs, while unemploying 750,000 actual insurance company employees). BUT, I want to make a minor change. Approximately 4 hours wages are deducted from my paycheck every week to pay for my health insurance. Then, there are the co-pays and deductibles. So, let's make the new, improved, public option that is fairly distributed. Everyone has to work 4 hours a week for the government...public service, if you will. cleaning bathrooms in parks, painting benches, cleaning up litter, etc. Then, instead of co-pays and deductibles, additional work hours are added to make up for usage.
The beauty is that this program levels the playing field for every single American. This plan costs no consumer a single penny. Rich and poor are treated the same. Those who consume the most, 'pay' the most. The government program would cost more, but the government would be spending less money on public works programs. I love this thought.
Need a pap smear? Go work at the homeless shelter for an evening. Need a colonoscopy? clean graffiti off of sidewalks for a weekend. Need a face-lift? scrub toilets at local parks every weekend for a month.
Gravely ill, would create a problem. I suppose if someone was so ill that they couldn't work off their debt, it would be cheapest and most humane to just have them euthanized. Hell, work off a tummy tuck by euthanizing sick folks for a weekend....
Nah...that wouldn't go over well. Strike that thought, I'm just thinking out loud. Hey, wait, I have a BETTER idea for the gravely ill: Someone ELSE 'works' off their debt. Since some people already work 40-50 hours a week, how about we have the unemployed work off the debt? Hey, what else are they going to do...they're unemployed, they may as well do SOMETHING. It sounds ludicrous at first...but I'm SURE that unemployed people would not mind paying for the healthcare of their fellow man any more than 'rich' people mind paying for it now. In today's system the 'rich' pay for it out of their abundance of money...under my plan the unemployed pay for it out of their abundance of time. It's no less fair.... It might even encourage the unemployed to go out and get a job. Hmmm. Added bonus!
I thought about running for congress. how important do you have to be before you are assassinated instead of just murdered?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
