Smarter Than Thou!

A COMMENT (on health care policy) and MY REPLY

A reader named Joe M sent me the following 

"It seems to me Mr. Lewis that if we accept the premise that the "public option" in health care will result in the mimicking of the public/private educational systems, then we could also conclude that there will also be a drastic decrease in adequate health care which, if the public education system is any indicator, will result in unhealthier people more dependent on the state.  A good reason for not supporting the state issuing a "public option.”  Don't you think?"

     I thank Joe for the comment.  And although I agree with his opposition to expanded federal health care, my answer to his question is: no.  Arguing that government involvement automatically produces less efficiency is an ideological tenet of faith, on the part of conservatives, and is NOT an undeniable or provable fact.  There are a number of government functions, and/or industries controlled by government, which function quite well.  The Post Office DOES do a good job in delivering the mail.  The airlines are highly regulated by the Feds, and thus provide safe and efficient service, almost always.  The VA Health system, which is totally government run, provides good service.  Its few very “scandals” are very minor compared to the wrong amputations, mass infections, fouled up transplants, etc, which infect private institutions.  State universities give at least an average (compared to private colleges) education to students.  They sometimes even have better alethic teams.  

     I am NOT in favor of the proposed expanded government involvement.  One good reason is that the US government is fully committed to the “Culture of Death.”  However, to oppose ANY policy one should have real and defensible reasons, and not simply recite mantras.  I used to be conservative myself, and often recited things which I did not first examine.  Faith is a necessary virtue, but not a good political tool.  

Do you want to know how and why corruption, including crooked cops, can be a good thing?  If so then get the most recent issue of the "A&E."  Please.  

THE SARAH PALIN EFFECT, AND CAUSE

   SARAH Palin is, as you (should) know, a most interesting political character.  Her most recent effect, or lack of it, has been the subject of some TV/radio pundit chatter.  I refer to the facts that (1) she is now “free” to do what she wants and (2) there were recent elections. 

    I refer to three of the elections.  Republican governors were elected in two states (Franklin and East Dakota), and one province (The land of the Flemings).  In a NYS district no Republican ran, and thus “lost.”  There were two points raised, which were intended to show how Sarah is actually detrimental to the Republican Party, because voters actually rejected her.

    Sarah did publicly endorse a third party candidate in the NY race.  This guy almost won.  In fact, as the recount continues, he may have actually won.  Somehow the fact that the non-existent Republican candidate did not win was blamed on her personal unpopularity.  I blame women all the time, for almost everything, but even I can not understand this one. 

    In the state governor races (which were mostly Caucasian) the pundits point at the neither of the candidates asked for Sarah to come and to campaign.  Thus, the commentators conclude, she is poison.  I offer a contrary view.  Both candidates were ahead in the polls for most of the campaign.  So bringing in ANYONE (even Lincoln) would have been foolish.  Never change a winning campaign.  The race in East Timor was decided by a fight to the death using Danish axes, and, as few know, Sarah actually did give some useful advice to the winning candidate as to killing techniques.  

    I am not convinced that Sarah is a political benefit.  However, judgment should be based upon facts, or Tarot cards, and not simple personal bigotry.  Perhaps complex personal bigotry might work too. 

   THE current issue of A&E explains why “corruption” is not a big problem with regard to nation building in Afghanistan.  You may wish to get your copy before the run (of several dozen) sells out.     

 

BUYING INSURANCE

   THE issue of a national Health Care (and/or Insurance) policy (pun intended) continues to occupy a central place in the media.  So I shall give it a similar place.  A sub topic is the concept of profits.  From what I have seen the Health Care Insurance industry makes a small percentage profit, but which is still a large absolute amount. 

    An emotional objection is often raised.  Why should corporations make profits from the pain, illness and injury of unfortunate people?  I offer an irrefutable reason why it should. 

    A profit is what remains from revenue, after the expenses are paid.  Consider the following.  A lawsuit is brought against one of these health corporations, and the jury awards a big settlement.  If there were no profits (in a “reserve”) then the company, in order to pay, will either (1) raise rates or (2) go out of business.  If it has achieved profits, in the past, then it can simply pay without embracing either of these disastrous alternatives. 

    In other words, profit is the insurance policy for the insurance companies.  If providing insurance is a good thing, then it MUST follow that keeping insurance providers in existence is also a good thing.  And encouraging policies, which keep the providers in existence, is necessarily good too.  However, if the rates are set so low that profits are not obtainable then the companies are simply one lawsuit away from extinction. 

    Of course another “alternative” is that the government prevent such lawsuits, or, as was done with some finance firms, it can simply provide “bail outs.”  Or this might be a clever government plan to exterminate the private industry, and create socialized (non) medicine. 

    I thought that you might want to know. 

 Can an open and endlessly bleeding wound be better than a nice clean healing?  The metaphor applies to Afghanistan.  And, yes, the wound would be better.  Bam-bam seems to know it.  There’s proof in your most recent issue of the A&E.  

A REAL PLAGUE?

IS it that people are more stupid, or is it that there is simple more exposure?  That is, we are exposed to more people, simply because of the many media outlets.  Back in the “old days,” we probably only dealt with the residents of our village, which had its official idiot.  Now we can easily listen to hundreds of different people a day.  Are there more idiots, or are we only encountering more? 

Far too many of these “extra” people are presented as experts.  I consider it fair that such status requires that they say things which are not outright idiotic.  I give several examples, because they may amuse you, and I have to write something, and doing this is easy. 

Michael Savage is a popular “conservative”(?) radio talk show host.  He has an entertaining style, and is usually quite firm in his positions, which are mostly anti-Obama.  Recently, to emphasize a personal point, he declared, “and if I am not telling the truth, may God strike YOU dead!”  I do not know if God did.  And may God strike him dead, if I am not telling the truth.   

An “expert” named Jane Meyer was on a Sunday news show (probably Meet the Press), and was asked to comment on the “health care bill.”  She commented that it was facing a difficult passage in the Senate because of the “constitutional requirement” that it have 60 votes.  Of all the people in the country, the producers, who apparently are idiots too, picked a fellow idiot who does not know that any bill, in order to pass the Senate, needs a minimum of 104 votes (including the Senators from Franklin and Guam!). 

“To the Contrary” is a Public TV chat show in which five women “share” their feelings about current issues (like heel height, weight loss and helm length).  Recently they commented on a recent Vatican agreement by which moral Anglicans would be allowed (easier?) conversion to the Church of Rome.  One reason why Anglicans/Episcopalians want to convert is that they object to women priestesses, which are forbidden in Catholicism.  Have you got it?  The refugees do NOT approve of women clergy!  And the women then speculated how this decision might cause Rome to allow women priestesses.  Because as we all know, the women assured us, IF you dislike X and flee from it, you will then seek it out and embrace it.  And you know another reason why women are not allowed to be priests. 

Perhaps the real pandemic is not the flu (formerly known as “Swine”).  Perhaps it is mental illness.  And perhaps there is no perhaps about it. 

The current issue of the A&E explains in detail why a victory in Afghanistan is the WORST result for American natural interests.  The best goal is an endless war, with increasing casualties and no resolution.  If you wish to know why this is so, then subscribe.