In response to Ben's post.
Ben -
I appreciate that your opinion of my thoughts is that they aren't very deep :) but I beg to differ. I don't claim to have all the answers but I do think my thoughts on the topic are fairly mature.
I'm sorry about your personal experiences where you feel like your family has been wronged by the healthcare industry. I'm sure like anyone that's affected your views on the subject so I'll try to be as objective as possible.
To my argument about healthcare not being a provision of government per the Constitution, you argue that it is because life is mentioned as an inalienable right. But that's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Not that referring to the DoI isn't useful to understand the context of the Constitution somewhere, but healthcare isn't mention in the Constitution, even remotely.
Additionally, you take it out of context a bit. The argument that the DoI makes is that the Creator has given people these rights and since the government derives its authority from the people, not the Creator, that these inalienable rights are not things that government can ever restrict. And at least in this instance, that's true - the government has made no law restricting people's access to healthcare. There's zero support anywhere in the founding of our nation that lays the groundwork for government supported healthcare (neither in the Constitution, the DoI, the Federalist Papers, nor anywhere else that I read). You don't address this.
On your first point, you refine your argument a little bit. Initially the discussion was around "healthcare" now it's health services needed to live. Every state that I'm aware of is legally bound to provide health services to people regardless of their ability to pay (EMTALA). Now this is only for life threatening issues, not preventative care, etc. I think the official term used is "stablizing, life-saving treatment." I think this is probably appropriate and it exists today. No new legislation is required.
Both of your last two points really focus on "disaster scenarios." Again, not preventative care or regular checkups or anything like but but major stuff. I don't think your insurer should be allowed to "conjur up" reasons to cancel your coverage. If you read one of the last points from my initial post, I said I think one of the things government can and should do is "provide increased responsiblity on the providers for inappropriately denying coverage." This directly addresses your "broken promises" concern.
On your third point, you again talk about the disaster case. I agree most people - myself included - would be wrecked by a $100k medical bill but it comes down to being responsible and ensuring that insurance can't wiggle out of their responsiblity. If I had purchased the $80/month insurance rather than going to Starbucks every day then that's minimized. Even if I don't purchase insurance, but make providing for my own healthcare my personal responsiblity, I can afford to have regular physicals done and things like that where it's much more likely to detect things earlier when they're easier, cheaper, and more successful to treat.
Toward the end of your response, you note that everything isn't black and white - some things are grey. And I wholeheartedly agree. The problem with a government run program is that it has to be all black and white with reams and reams of legislation to cover every possible scenario. There's no room for grey. They can't make judgement calls about who genuinely needs help and who's gaming the system.
I'd rather have the opportunity to keep more of my own resources and make an individual decision about how to use those resources to help people that are devestated by medical catastrophes. That's what I've done in the past and what I'll continue to do in the future. Further invovling the government in healthcare only makes that more difficult.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
My Healthcare Solution
I know I don't update this as often as I'd like so thanks to Ben for his question and prompting me to do so!
I'm not of the opinion that it's the role of government to provide a "solution for those who cannot afford healthcare" - any more than I believe the government should provide a solution for those that can't afford a home, dog, BMW, cellphone, 2.3 kids, or many, many other things.
I don't think people have a right to healthcare or health insurance. I don't think it's the government's role to provide or administer either. I don't find that authority given them in the Constitution.
Healthcare is definitely broken and there are many reasons why. It probably starts with the things we priorize in life. I realize there are exceptions but I'd challenge the notion in a heartbeat that most of the uninsured "can't afford" healthcare. For every 3 people you show me that "can't afford" healthcare I'll show you at least 2 people that have a cell phone, cable or satellite TV, and went to Starbuck's at least once in the last month.
I think the only real solution to healthcare or most of these other issues is in increased individual responsibility. I realize that's a tough pill for some to swallow because it's not something we see practiced today. It's virtually nonexistent. You can't find it in government, business leaders, sports stars, Hollywood, or the public schools. I know there are exceptions but as a rule, we as a society don't treat individual responsibility as something to be esteemed.
My solution is that we as individuals take that up personal responsibility as our mantle and champion it in everything we do. I as an individual want to help people around me that want to help themselves. I have in the past and will continue to do so in the future. I believe that people are far more effective and efficient at helping others than government is and when government steps in it makes people less effective (because they have fewer resources to help with due to increased taxes) at helping and dilutes the perceived need to help.
How many of us help with things we believe are other people's jobs? Certainly we all have to sometimes but when you go to eat, you don't go get the food out of the kitchen for yourself - that's someone else's job. When you're at work, you don't typically empty the trash in your office or vacuum. Others are paid to do that for you.
When government comes in and says we're going to fix healthcare, we all just assume - even if only subsciously - that it's now someone else's job. This is exactly the reason that under Obama's proposed plan you'll see a lot of employeer's drop coverage, btw and it's exactly why this is the wrong approach.
The right approach is to tell people that it's their responsibility and not to look to the government for help. Provide an education on healthcare, provide increased responsiblity on the providers for inappropriately denying coverage, provide reasonable limits on malpractice, and reduce the insurance lobby. Looking to the government to meet all our needs is not the right answer and history shows it's not a very good solution, either. The last time people looked to the government instead of helping themselves they ended up stuck at the Superdome waiting for buses that never arrived.
I'm not of the opinion that it's the role of government to provide a "solution for those who cannot afford healthcare" - any more than I believe the government should provide a solution for those that can't afford a home, dog, BMW, cellphone, 2.3 kids, or many, many other things.
I don't think people have a right to healthcare or health insurance. I don't think it's the government's role to provide or administer either. I don't find that authority given them in the Constitution.
Healthcare is definitely broken and there are many reasons why. It probably starts with the things we priorize in life. I realize there are exceptions but I'd challenge the notion in a heartbeat that most of the uninsured "can't afford" healthcare. For every 3 people you show me that "can't afford" healthcare I'll show you at least 2 people that have a cell phone, cable or satellite TV, and went to Starbuck's at least once in the last month.
I think the only real solution to healthcare or most of these other issues is in increased individual responsibility. I realize that's a tough pill for some to swallow because it's not something we see practiced today. It's virtually nonexistent. You can't find it in government, business leaders, sports stars, Hollywood, or the public schools. I know there are exceptions but as a rule, we as a society don't treat individual responsibility as something to be esteemed.
My solution is that we as individuals take that up personal responsibility as our mantle and champion it in everything we do. I as an individual want to help people around me that want to help themselves. I have in the past and will continue to do so in the future. I believe that people are far more effective and efficient at helping others than government is and when government steps in it makes people less effective (because they have fewer resources to help with due to increased taxes) at helping and dilutes the perceived need to help.
How many of us help with things we believe are other people's jobs? Certainly we all have to sometimes but when you go to eat, you don't go get the food out of the kitchen for yourself - that's someone else's job. When you're at work, you don't typically empty the trash in your office or vacuum. Others are paid to do that for you.
When government comes in and says we're going to fix healthcare, we all just assume - even if only subsciously - that it's now someone else's job. This is exactly the reason that under Obama's proposed plan you'll see a lot of employeer's drop coverage, btw and it's exactly why this is the wrong approach.
The right approach is to tell people that it's their responsibility and not to look to the government for help. Provide an education on healthcare, provide increased responsiblity on the providers for inappropriately denying coverage, provide reasonable limits on malpractice, and reduce the insurance lobby. Looking to the government to meet all our needs is not the right answer and history shows it's not a very good solution, either. The last time people looked to the government instead of helping themselves they ended up stuck at the Superdome waiting for buses that never arrived.
Monday, April 13, 2009
I Agree with President Obama
I was very pleased to see the way President Obama handled this hostage situation. Approving the use of force after negotiations failed was the right thing to do and I was happy to see him act appropriately. According to the article, not once but twice he authorized the use of deadly force if necessary to save Capt. Phillips including expending his initial approval of force to allow for a larger display of force (more people and assets, etc.).
This is precisely the way our nation should act when threatened so much so that when lawless pirates on the high seas take over a ship and learn that there's an American on board that the American is immediately freed for fear of what is to come. This isn't egomanical nationalism, it's care and concern for our country's own. Other people and other nations should not fear us unnecessarily but if other actors - be they other nations or terrorists or pirates or whomever - threaten to do us harm, God help them.
This is precisely the way our nation should act when threatened so much so that when lawless pirates on the high seas take over a ship and learn that there's an American on board that the American is immediately freed for fear of what is to come. This isn't egomanical nationalism, it's care and concern for our country's own. Other people and other nations should not fear us unnecessarily but if other actors - be they other nations or terrorists or pirates or whomever - threaten to do us harm, God help them.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Don't Support the Bailout
Today I wrote an email to my Senators. I'm incline to include the bulk of it here:
"I want to make sure you're clear on where I stand on a couple of very important issues. I say this not because I feel like my view is of any particular importance or significance but because I feel like my point of view is very much in line with that of most Georgians.
I support FairTax and want to see more done to move us in that direction. Perhaps this economic slump is just what we need to put a sense of urgency to this. FairTax would certainly spur economic growth. It’s great to hear this talked about on a state level in a state that both Congressman Linder and Neal Boortz call home but I want to hear this talked about more on a national level. Georgia can’t get this passed. It’s going to be something that requires involvement of the elected officials from across the nation.
FairTax is a passion of mine because it appeals to my concept of fairness. By no stretch of the imagination am I rich, but I earn a respectable income that allows my wife to stay at home and raise our four young children. My single biggest expenditure every single month is not my car payment or my mortgage payment or anything like that. It’s my federal tax burden! I have withholdings of over 20% for federal taxes including Social Security and Medicare from every check I get. This is simply too much. By the time I figure in my mortgage and my giving to my local church, over half of my monthly income is accounted for. Over half!
I’d like to see a little bit more equality in the realm of taxation. Rather than spreading the wealth around as some have advocated recently, I’d like to see the responsibility spread around. I want to see everyone paying the same percentage of federal taxes and get rid of the progressive tax system. I’m well aware that several tax brackets exist above my income bracket and they only have higher tax rates. I’m also aware that many people that would fall into those brackets don’t derive most of their income the same way I do. Rather than coming directly from an employer on a W2 and being taxed at the published tax rates, their incomes come via dividends from stock holdings or corporations that are set up for the explicit purpose of distributing those earnings at a substantial tax savings. I’d love to do something like that for myself but having been a small business owner, I recognize the times, costs, and risks associated with that. It’s simply not something that’s feasible for someone in my position to do.
The inequities in the current system result in the lower income earners paying no taxes, the rich looking for tax shelters to avoid paying too high a percentage, and the middle class being squeezed. Middle class earners like me are being pinched between those that aren’t paying the same percentage in taxes that we are. I don’t think that meets anyone’s definition of fair. When coupled with falling home prices and increased costs of living – although the drop in gas prices recently has been a welcome sight – it’s a tough time to be middle class. While FairTax isn’t going to magically fix the situation, it would certainly help both from a financial standpoint as well as from an equality standpoint. If you felt like everyone else was pitching in and doing their part as well it wouldn’t seem like such an injustice.
Another big advantage that I see to FairTax that I hear seldom mentioned is the emphasis on savings. Like most Americans, I’ve spent more than I should at times. FairTax would be a nice, friendly, ever-present reminder to think about those unnecessary purchases. It would be a call to us all to do a better job of having a little bit of cash on hand to make it easier to weather declining home values or a layoff or whatever curveball life may throw at our pocketbook. If Americans were doing a better job at saving I’m not going to say the current financial situation could have been averted but having savings available would certainly serve as a safety net against it and hopefully make the current situation shallow and short-lived.
There’s one other thing I want to mention and that’s the proposed bailout of the automotive industry. As you may have guessed from my stated opposition to the mortgage bailout, I’m very much against another bailout. The federal government is today writing checks that I’ll be continuing to have to cash years from now along with my children and possibly my grandchildren. The answer isn’t throwing more money at a problem. It never is. The real question confronting the auto industry isn’t how to fix the current problem but how the situation existed for this long before needing to be addressed? As a corporation, how can you expect to remain viable if you’re costs are higher and your products in many instances inferior to that of your competitors? That’s the question facing the American auto industry today.
I don’t want to see a “car czar.” I don’t want to see new regulations on this industry. I want to see Detroit figure its way out of this current predicament. They certainly can. To think that they can’t do that without the help of federal money is just complete nonsense. Not only that but it’s an insult to the many hardworking and forward thinking Americans that these companies employ. The auto industry needs to be told that they’re not going to get a short cut out of the problem. They’re going to have to deal with the problems they’ve created for themselves the same way anyone else would have to deal with it. If I make poor financial decisions, the government isn’t rushing to my aid with a bailout. It’s my problem to deal with and figure out. Rewarding bad behavior (or in this case poor financial decisions) only reinforces that behavior and removes the only thing capitalism has to dissuade it and that’s the fear of failure and the financial penalties that accompany it.
I know a lot of people will be affected if the auto industry fails. I know a lot of people could lose their jobs and on and on and on. I understand that it’s a trickle down affect that impacts suppliers, parts makers, tire dealers, and so very many people. But look for a moment at how many people are affected by not addressing the problem? Everyone is affected by higher taxes. Higher taxes for many means they can’t buy the new car they had in mind. Selling fewer cars given the current state of auto sales could mean the very same things for the auto industry. At best all this bailout does is delay fixing the core problems within the industry until the next economic bump in the road. Then we’re faced with making yet another bailout or finally letting the industry struggle to deal with their own problems at a time when the impact will be far deeper and more widespread than it is now.
Please show some responsibility, show some restraint, show some fiscal conservatism and let these industry problems remain industry problems rather than making them all of our problems by getting the government more involved in the situation. Ronald Reagan once said that “Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.” That I fear is the situation that we’re currently faced with. Please don’t be blinded by the power we’ve entrusted you with.
Thank you and God bless."
"I want to make sure you're clear on where I stand on a couple of very important issues. I say this not because I feel like my view is of any particular importance or significance but because I feel like my point of view is very much in line with that of most Georgians.
I support FairTax and want to see more done to move us in that direction. Perhaps this economic slump is just what we need to put a sense of urgency to this. FairTax would certainly spur economic growth. It’s great to hear this talked about on a state level in a state that both Congressman Linder and Neal Boortz call home but I want to hear this talked about more on a national level. Georgia can’t get this passed. It’s going to be something that requires involvement of the elected officials from across the nation.
FairTax is a passion of mine because it appeals to my concept of fairness. By no stretch of the imagination am I rich, but I earn a respectable income that allows my wife to stay at home and raise our four young children. My single biggest expenditure every single month is not my car payment or my mortgage payment or anything like that. It’s my federal tax burden! I have withholdings of over 20% for federal taxes including Social Security and Medicare from every check I get. This is simply too much. By the time I figure in my mortgage and my giving to my local church, over half of my monthly income is accounted for. Over half!
I’d like to see a little bit more equality in the realm of taxation. Rather than spreading the wealth around as some have advocated recently, I’d like to see the responsibility spread around. I want to see everyone paying the same percentage of federal taxes and get rid of the progressive tax system. I’m well aware that several tax brackets exist above my income bracket and they only have higher tax rates. I’m also aware that many people that would fall into those brackets don’t derive most of their income the same way I do. Rather than coming directly from an employer on a W2 and being taxed at the published tax rates, their incomes come via dividends from stock holdings or corporations that are set up for the explicit purpose of distributing those earnings at a substantial tax savings. I’d love to do something like that for myself but having been a small business owner, I recognize the times, costs, and risks associated with that. It’s simply not something that’s feasible for someone in my position to do.
The inequities in the current system result in the lower income earners paying no taxes, the rich looking for tax shelters to avoid paying too high a percentage, and the middle class being squeezed. Middle class earners like me are being pinched between those that aren’t paying the same percentage in taxes that we are. I don’t think that meets anyone’s definition of fair. When coupled with falling home prices and increased costs of living – although the drop in gas prices recently has been a welcome sight – it’s a tough time to be middle class. While FairTax isn’t going to magically fix the situation, it would certainly help both from a financial standpoint as well as from an equality standpoint. If you felt like everyone else was pitching in and doing their part as well it wouldn’t seem like such an injustice.
Another big advantage that I see to FairTax that I hear seldom mentioned is the emphasis on savings. Like most Americans, I’ve spent more than I should at times. FairTax would be a nice, friendly, ever-present reminder to think about those unnecessary purchases. It would be a call to us all to do a better job of having a little bit of cash on hand to make it easier to weather declining home values or a layoff or whatever curveball life may throw at our pocketbook. If Americans were doing a better job at saving I’m not going to say the current financial situation could have been averted but having savings available would certainly serve as a safety net against it and hopefully make the current situation shallow and short-lived.
There’s one other thing I want to mention and that’s the proposed bailout of the automotive industry. As you may have guessed from my stated opposition to the mortgage bailout, I’m very much against another bailout. The federal government is today writing checks that I’ll be continuing to have to cash years from now along with my children and possibly my grandchildren. The answer isn’t throwing more money at a problem. It never is. The real question confronting the auto industry isn’t how to fix the current problem but how the situation existed for this long before needing to be addressed? As a corporation, how can you expect to remain viable if you’re costs are higher and your products in many instances inferior to that of your competitors? That’s the question facing the American auto industry today.
I don’t want to see a “car czar.” I don’t want to see new regulations on this industry. I want to see Detroit figure its way out of this current predicament. They certainly can. To think that they can’t do that without the help of federal money is just complete nonsense. Not only that but it’s an insult to the many hardworking and forward thinking Americans that these companies employ. The auto industry needs to be told that they’re not going to get a short cut out of the problem. They’re going to have to deal with the problems they’ve created for themselves the same way anyone else would have to deal with it. If I make poor financial decisions, the government isn’t rushing to my aid with a bailout. It’s my problem to deal with and figure out. Rewarding bad behavior (or in this case poor financial decisions) only reinforces that behavior and removes the only thing capitalism has to dissuade it and that’s the fear of failure and the financial penalties that accompany it.
I know a lot of people will be affected if the auto industry fails. I know a lot of people could lose their jobs and on and on and on. I understand that it’s a trickle down affect that impacts suppliers, parts makers, tire dealers, and so very many people. But look for a moment at how many people are affected by not addressing the problem? Everyone is affected by higher taxes. Higher taxes for many means they can’t buy the new car they had in mind. Selling fewer cars given the current state of auto sales could mean the very same things for the auto industry. At best all this bailout does is delay fixing the core problems within the industry until the next economic bump in the road. Then we’re faced with making yet another bailout or finally letting the industry struggle to deal with their own problems at a time when the impact will be far deeper and more widespread than it is now.
Please show some responsibility, show some restraint, show some fiscal conservatism and let these industry problems remain industry problems rather than making them all of our problems by getting the government more involved in the situation. Ronald Reagan once said that “Government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.” That I fear is the situation that we’re currently faced with. Please don’t be blinded by the power we’ve entrusted you with.
Thank you and God bless."
Friday, October 24, 2008
Trick or Treat
I'm just not a "spread it around" kinda guy. I'm all for helping other people but people also have to be willing to help themselves. If I leave it up to the government to decide who should be helped then there's major problems with inefficiency, waste, and sometimes downright corruption. Those same things can happen with charities as well but with charities I can reward those that distribute my money more effectively. I can't do that when government is my charity.
When government is the charity and people are legally compelled to give, I also lose any moral benefit from giving and helping others. If you've ever sarificed to help someone else, you know what I'm talking about. It feels good to feel like you're making a change to better someone else's life and situation. When my money is forcibly taken by the government there's no feel good sense from having done the right thing and helped someone else. When there is no choice, there is no benefit to having made the right choice.
There's also the issue of practicing what you preach. If Obama is such a big fan of spreading it around, why doesn't he do it in his personal life? According to Bloomberg the Obama's donated a total - a TOTAL - of $10,772 from 2000 - 2004. Now it did jump in subsequent years but still amounted to only about 5% of their total income. I'm certainly no standard of charitable giving or philantrophist in the making but I give a far larger percentage of my income to charity than does Obama. A FAR larger. Just last year my charitable giving was larger than Obama's total giving from 2000 - 2004. There's just something wrong with someone wanting to spread your money around but not being willing to do the same with his.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
