Smarter Than Thou!

A NON-LESSON FROM HISTORY

     I look at things in this way.  IF a policy is wrong THEN there has to be a reason why it is.  That is, there should be no need to leave reality behind when opposing a policy, such as Bam-Bam’s health payment program.  And IF the opponents make a horrible mistake THEN the defenders should point out this defect.

   The opposition to Bam-bam’s plan ranges from the intellectual (“The president is a stupid head!”) to the personal ”Barack is a stupid head!”).  But one conservative objection is that the “public option” will do away with private health payment companies.  Being restricted by the need for profit, and forced to compete with tax supported government agencies, no private firm could survive. 

    This sounds sensible.  However, if history can teach us anything (and it may), this is actually nonsense.  In the educational field there have been public-private parallel systems for long over one hundred years.  Private, often for profit, schools exist at every level, in direct competition with public, tax financed schools.  A large enough percentage of people has been, and still is, quite willing to pay the “extra” for the extra service.  Public options do NOT eliminate private firms.  Other industries can provide additional examples.  

Unless human nature has changed in the last six months, the same situation will continue.  And neither the defenders nor the attackers notice this. 

Paying extra for extra quality is an American tradition.  Continue it, but subscribing to the A&E, at $30 per year.  

PUBLIC PRIVACY

LET me see if I correctly understand one aspect of the health care issue correctly, or not?  As of this writing it seems that the sides are “flexible,” and little, or nothing, is fixed.  However, a necessary aspect is that the federal government will be much, much, much more involved than before. 

     Even if the government is not paying for everything, and dictating to doctors what they cannot, and must, do, there will be some kind of boards or commissions, which are federal in nature.  And these boards will make recommendations and/or set standards.  So patients will have to communicate, even if only indirectly, with them.  This form of communication may be simply having medical records reviewed by the boards. 

      In other words, what you do, have done, and have had done to you, will be presented to total strangers.  Records will be put into central locations and these total strangers will have some influence, if not direct control, over what happens to you, and or what treatments you are permitted to obtain.

      Now consider the following.  The strongest advocates of the federal involvment in health care are the most Liberal people.  These are PRECISELY the same ones who love abortion so much.  And they argued abortion on the basis of “privacy.”  They did not want the government in their bedrooms, as if abortions usually take place in bedrooms, and the decision to execute her child should be made by the mother, privately, secretly, in possible consultation with “her god” and her doctor, at the most. 

     So the exact same ideological forces which demanded a total iron curtain between government and “medical practice” (sic) now demand that the government run medical practice, and know, as much as possible.  And no one else seems to have noticed. 

 

LIKES AND DISLIKES

     Recently I saw some program which dealt with anti-Semitism.  The causes were, yawn, attributed to “Christianity.”  The concept of anti-anything-ism interested me so I decided to comment on it. 

    Anti-Semitism is dislike of a Jew, simply because he is a Jew.  I am not dealing with real “hate crimes,” by which I mean the violation of rights of certain people solely because they are who they are.  In case you did not know, EVERY ACTION attributed to Hitler, with regard to the Jews, was first mandated by Martin Luther.  I am not concerned with such gross immorality, not being a “devout” Lutheran. 

      Instead I am simply dealing with like and dislike.  I like the Yankees and dislike the Red Sox. This is because, often, they do things which I do not like, namely hurt the Yankees’ chances of getting to the World Series.  I hold, as an absolute, that I am allowed to do this.  I mean I am allowed, morally, legally, ethically, socially, etc, to like and to dislike.

      Are there Jewish characteristics, habits, customs, values, etc?  There must be, as there are Jews, who are distinct from other groups and nationalities.  That is, Jews, generally, have certain TENDENCIES, or lack of them, more than others.  So do Irish, and Puerto Ricans, and Poles, and Mexicans, and Indians.  And I may---simply as a matter of taste, if for no other reason---prefer, like, favor, enjoy, etc, certain national ten dices and dislike others.  I repeat:  I really am allowed to like what I like.  This is part of my pursuit of happiness. 

      Thus, I may be anti-Semitic---or anti-English, or anti-anyone---if I want to.  And if a certain characteristic is offensive to me, because it is against etiquette, politeness, courtesy, etc, then it is not my fault, but (if there is any fault) the fault of those who misbehave.  And we shall not make “progress” in this field until we admit these truths.  

     A certain way to learn what you should like is to subscribe to the A&E for $30 a year.  You will like it; guaranteed.  

CHEERIOS AND KINGSHIP

     WHEN it happened I was, along with many others, was both puzzled and amused.  The Obama administration had “attacked” Cheerios.  They declared it to be a drug!  The cereal had claimed some effect in reducing cholesterol.  And as such it was subject to be subject to federal regulation.  It seemed utterly ridiculous… at first. 

     Then I thought about it and it made sense.  Obama has already conquered several big industries.  He has effective control over finance, banking and automobiles.  He does not properly “run” them, but they have to worry about him in everything they do.  He is, in effect, a super-Czar.  They have “rights” only as long as he, or the sub-Czar, permits.  So the first business decision is based upon the question:  “What would the Czar think of this?”

       Having conquered General Motors he moved on to General Mills.  A new part of Americana has been re-identified, by administrative decree (as if from God).  A new creation has been achieved.  A new strange god (Obama) is in the temple.  Food industrialists also need to submit and serve.  

      And an astounding result was that the American Medical Association, which has always and vigorously opposed socialized medicine, has now endorsed Obama’s health plan.  The fact that no one really knows what is in it makes no differnce.  The Czar’s power is based upon no principles.  The AMA has simply bowed to reality.  It will endorse whatever he proposes, because they have seen, and fear, what he has done.  Recently AARP also became (justifiably?) terrified and endorsed a program which will execute elderly people. 

     The dominos are falling.  Yes, Obama is a cereal killer. 

DEFENDING THE EXPECTED

IF the Mass Media is to be believed, once again, the executives of the bigger banks, etc, have awarded themselves big(er) bonuses.  I am referring to the banks and insurance companies which were given bail out funds by the current, or previous, administrations.  For some reason, this type of news tends to irritate most people. 

    I am not most people.  I do not see the cause of the anger.  Let us be fashionably Keynesian in our analysis.  George Greedy, a CEO, gets an extra 40 or 50 million dollars while his company’s stock falls.  What is this other than the concentration, in the wallet of George, of a large amount of funds?  This is what taxes do.  The entire Obama goal is to take money from many (in taxes) and then give it to few (in bail outs).  The planned money movement is from the masses to the elites. 

     And this is exactly what is happening with the bonuses.  The CEO may well spend it… on another boat, another work of art, or jewelry for his mistress(es).  This puts the money in the hands of (other) people who should be likely to spend it, and, according to Obama-onomics, will restart the economy.  What is the problem?

      Had the money been left in the hands of the common people they may have used it to pay off debts, which yields no net gain to the economy.  Only spending, spending, spending does.  So it is necessary, for the plan to work, for the rich to get richer, so that their serfs will spend.  I ask again:  Why is anyone bothered by this? 

     Isn’t this exactly what, and whom, the American people voted for?