The title of this very short article says it all. Almost to a man, the pundits are decrying Trump's withdrawal from the Middle East, claiming "no one will trust us anymore", and that he is "abandoning our national security interests in the Middle East".
Here's the problem with their myopic assessments - Trump is far, far smarter than they are. He thinks and strategizes several moves ahead, while they are wasting time pondering only the next move.
China was counting on us wasting our resources in the Middle East, as Russia did in the '80's, giving China a huge economic and military edge. Now China is scared, and must attempt to recalibrate if they can. Iran now must try and keep Turkey out of Iraq. And Russia, with a dwindling economy, must now waste THEIR resources in the Middle East, caught between two enemies that have been at war since the sons of Abraham parted ways.
Meanwhile, America saves trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. America takes care of America, as Trump promised.
As for "abandoning our security interests in the Middle East" - exactly what are those interests? No matter how much we spend or how many lives are lost we are not going to change Iran or Syria. As for ISIS, Trump has already made it clear that if they reconstitute, we will go back and smash them again in a matter of days. No, we have no security interests in the Middle East.
Checker players vs a world-class chess master.
'Nuff said!
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Monday, September 23, 2019
Greta Thunberg - In Need of a Realty Check
16 year old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg tore into world leaders at the U.N. making ignorant, untrue atatements like, "People are suffering. People
are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of
a mass extinction..."
None of the above are actual facts.
It is a true shame that the liberal media and teachers and professors have so completely brainwashed our youth into believing climate change is that kind of "existential threat". And worse that political leaders are pressured into buying into the hype in order to hold onto power.
It is even more concerning that Thunberg and her fellow activists never even bother to find out the true facts about climate - they just swallow the "climate change" line hook, line and sinker, without questioning it.
If they were to do some actual research they would find these facts, as based on empirical evidence and absolute proof:
Over the 4 billion year life of this planet, over 85% of that time it has been appreciably hotter than now. Science has proven that beyond any doubt. In fact, we are currently in a cool period where the planet is getting back to normal after the "Little Ice Age" (1250-1850 A.D.). Whereas the Earth is normally warmer, and it is the natural state, there is nothing mere mortals can do to change it.
Greenland got its name because, until the Little Ice Age (LIA) it was green, and the inhabitants were agrarian - peaceful farmers. When LIA came, the inhabitants had to leave and become seafaring raiders of places like Scotland and England. They became known as the Vikings.
In EVERY instance that the Earth experienced a warm period (always following an ice age) Mankind prospered, thrived and multiplied. And in every period of cooling, Mankind suffered, often to the point of near extinction.
Being in a period of increasing warmth is a good thing - there will be more arable land for food production. Glacial ice provides more fresh water. Warmth requires less fuel for heating homes. And we know that statistically, people in the nothern climes tend to be less friendly, less happy and more war-like. Compare the lifestyle of an Eskimo to that of a Pacific Islander!
Certainly, it is possible that sea levels will rise, but in the 30 years activists have been screaming that "the sky is falling", we have yet to see much of that at all. But even if it does rise, that will only displace the rich elitists living in oceanside estates. The benefits of warming, which the professors and liberal media are not bothering to mention, far outweigh the negatives.
Which raises this question: if Gore, Obama and others crying that the oceans will rise and drown us, why have all of them recently purchased multi-million dollar homes on the ocean? Because they do not BELIEVE the hype. They, unlike the activists, are better informed. And they are using the fear-mongering to hold onto power and wealth.
One more important point - there is nothing in nature that remains static. Everything changes, usually in cycles. So if we are not getting warmer, we will certainly get colder. And no sane person wants that!
None of the above are actual facts.
It is a true shame that the liberal media and teachers and professors have so completely brainwashed our youth into believing climate change is that kind of "existential threat". And worse that political leaders are pressured into buying into the hype in order to hold onto power.
It is even more concerning that Thunberg and her fellow activists never even bother to find out the true facts about climate - they just swallow the "climate change" line hook, line and sinker, without questioning it.
If they were to do some actual research they would find these facts, as based on empirical evidence and absolute proof:
Over the 4 billion year life of this planet, over 85% of that time it has been appreciably hotter than now. Science has proven that beyond any doubt. In fact, we are currently in a cool period where the planet is getting back to normal after the "Little Ice Age" (1250-1850 A.D.). Whereas the Earth is normally warmer, and it is the natural state, there is nothing mere mortals can do to change it.
Greenland got its name because, until the Little Ice Age (LIA) it was green, and the inhabitants were agrarian - peaceful farmers. When LIA came, the inhabitants had to leave and become seafaring raiders of places like Scotland and England. They became known as the Vikings.
In EVERY instance that the Earth experienced a warm period (always following an ice age) Mankind prospered, thrived and multiplied. And in every period of cooling, Mankind suffered, often to the point of near extinction.
Being in a period of increasing warmth is a good thing - there will be more arable land for food production. Glacial ice provides more fresh water. Warmth requires less fuel for heating homes. And we know that statistically, people in the nothern climes tend to be less friendly, less happy and more war-like. Compare the lifestyle of an Eskimo to that of a Pacific Islander!
Certainly, it is possible that sea levels will rise, but in the 30 years activists have been screaming that "the sky is falling", we have yet to see much of that at all. But even if it does rise, that will only displace the rich elitists living in oceanside estates. The benefits of warming, which the professors and liberal media are not bothering to mention, far outweigh the negatives.
Which raises this question: if Gore, Obama and others crying that the oceans will rise and drown us, why have all of them recently purchased multi-million dollar homes on the ocean? Because they do not BELIEVE the hype. They, unlike the activists, are better informed. And they are using the fear-mongering to hold onto power and wealth.
One more important point - there is nothing in nature that remains static. Everything changes, usually in cycles. So if we are not getting warmer, we will certainly get colder. And no sane person wants that!
Saturday, September 14, 2019
What To Do With Non-Violent Criminals
A little over half of all criminal offenders prosecuted and imprisoned are for non-violent crimes. But the purpose of prisons is not for punishment, nor for reform - it is to keep the general public safe from those who would do us physical harm. We can punish non-violent criminals without using prisons.
The cost to imprison a person is $50,000-$60,000 per year, and while it may be a worthwhile cost to keep a violent person out of circulation, it is not justified for keeping a non-violent person out of circulation, particularly since there are other, more viable and more fair solutions.
Here is one suggestion that would quickly and easily solve the problem of imprisoning non-violent offenders. This plan solves (4) issues:
- Eliminates prison over-crowding
- Makes victims "whole"
- Saves taxpayers $35,000,000,000 annually
- Treats non-violent offenders fairly and humanely
First, of course, is to require offenders to make their victim(s) "whole", through restitution or repairing any damage their criminal action(s) may have caused. See below in the event they are financially incapable of doing so.
Whereas the greatest expense of prison is the salaries of all the necessary guards and other employees, I would suggest that each county set up a non-secure (no bars or fences) facility run by "house mothers" that monitor the residents - only one such person per shift, and perhaps a counselor/case manager. Residents may only leave the facility to work and earn the money necessary to make their victim(s) "whole" and to pay their own share of the costs of housing them. Once they have done so, they would be released.
In the unlikely event that any resident leaves the residence without permission, they would immediately be relegated to doing their time in prison - "alternative time" determined by the court.
Residents of these facilities would have free run-of-house, like a half-way house, but the residences would have very limited amenities - it should not be so nice that residents don't mind living there. There needs to be incentive to fulfill their obligation and then transfer back into society.
Since the convicted residents, themselves, are paying their own housing costs, this would eliminate the $50,000-$60,00 annual cost of imprisoning each. With 700,000 non-violent inmates each year, that would save taxpayers $35,000,000,000 a year and eliminate overcrowding in prisons.
/
Monday, August 5, 2019
How A Culture Creates A Mass Murderer
Although gun ownership is way up, but shooting deaths are down in
comparison, there is a lot of angst and the wringing of hands when some
unstable person goes on a shooting spree. And in the midst of this,
people seem to be at a loss as to what we can do to put a cork in it.
And that is what perplexes me - people seem unable to grasp that it is a
waste of time trying to to fix the problem by RE-acting instead of by
acting.
Before we can figure out what to do, we must first figure out what we have already done that contributes to the instability of some people to the extent that they can commit such insane crimes. Why, after hundreds of years are young people now bouncing off walls - even the suicide rate is escalating?
The first thing we need to understand is that most shootings are not a product of mental illness, though it appears that way. It is actually a result of mental conditioning. More and more young people are being conditioned by our current culture to act with anti-social behaviors. After all, mental illness has always been with us, but has not resulted in so many mass murders in so short a time. No - but what is new is our rapidly changing - and deteriorating - culture.
If I were tasked with creating a culture where people feel so disassociated with others that it would result in a mass shooting, here is what I would do - ask yourself if this hits a chord.
The very first thing I would do is disable the persons' conscience. To do this, I would take God out of his or her life. It makes no difference whether or not there is a God - whether God created us or we created Him does not make a difference in how we do or do not have a moral conscience. In other words, if we do not fear God because we do not believe in a Heaven and Hell, we have much less reason to lead a life of morality.
Then I would take away the old-fashioned idea of taking personal responsibility for our actions; that life choices should be like those in video games, where there is a do-over for any choice - simply end the game and start over. No consequences for making poor choices.
Along that same line, the next thing I would do to insure a good crop of mass murderers would be to get rid of any semblance that there is any sanctity of life; that life, itself, is not all that important. To this end I would promote abortion, ensuring that children grow up with the realization that it is just hunky dory to end a human life as long as it is deemed to be inconvenient. If you make poor choices, it's just time for a do-over. No consequences. This takes the lack of personal responsibility to it's highest level - life and death.
To further the development of a mind that is capable of mass murder, I would invent addictive video games that teach developing minds not only how to kill everything in sight, but to feel excitement, and even joy at doing so - an adrenaline rush. And that is the addictive part of such games. And like any other adrenaline rush, it drives adrenaline junkies to move up to a bigger, better rush. Seeking the ultimate high.
And to make sure unstable minds have no reason to NOT commit murder, I would invent social media, where such individuals can live in a world where there is no need to actually meet face-to-face with other people, or make real, human, personal connections that would otherwise provide the individual with relationships that can ground them to reality. In a recent poll, 22% of millennials say they have NO FRIENDS! So, who in their life is anchoring them? Who is instilling personal connections with others, to provide them with a sense that other people have value?
Finally, I would fill the teaching staff at colleges and universities with professors intent on indoctrinating students with radical ideas, and put the mainstream media into the hands of those who would further promote radicalism, and brainwash people by not offering an unbiased view of their story lines.
Of course, it is even more complicated than this, but these are the things I would do that would insure that susceptible people would be prone to mass violence. And I am absolutely certain that these things do contribute heavily. And that is why we, as a people, need to reconsider the long-range results of changes in our culture and begin working on making changes to those changes.
I do not oppose change - change is necessary. But here is the difference: conservatives,by nature, take it slowly, trying to make sure there are no undesirable long-term consequences, while liberals tend to "want it now", and future consequences be damned.
So, just how do we fix this? In the home! Families - particularly parents - need to take an active role in reducing the impact of such things. Provide your children with a moral compass through religion. Teach them the importance of taking responsibility for their choices so they will be more likely to use greater care in making those choices. Then work to teach sanctity of life by ending abortions of convenience, and limit them to those that involve a life-threatening issue or incest. And limit your child's dependence on addictive video games, even if non-violent, and severely limit their use of social media. In fact, ban social media for any child under the age of 16 - give them a chance to make real, face-to-face relationships with others. And require your representatives to set up a program that monitors universities and forces them to teach our kids HOW to think, and not WHAT to think. And stop watching/listening/reading media that show a clear bias in their reporting.
Do these things in every family, and mass murders will become the rarity they should be. And if a child's family is unable to do do, for whatever reasons, we need after school programs that help to fill that void.
/
Before we can figure out what to do, we must first figure out what we have already done that contributes to the instability of some people to the extent that they can commit such insane crimes. Why, after hundreds of years are young people now bouncing off walls - even the suicide rate is escalating?
The first thing we need to understand is that most shootings are not a product of mental illness, though it appears that way. It is actually a result of mental conditioning. More and more young people are being conditioned by our current culture to act with anti-social behaviors. After all, mental illness has always been with us, but has not resulted in so many mass murders in so short a time. No - but what is new is our rapidly changing - and deteriorating - culture.
If I were tasked with creating a culture where people feel so disassociated with others that it would result in a mass shooting, here is what I would do - ask yourself if this hits a chord.
The very first thing I would do is disable the persons' conscience. To do this, I would take God out of his or her life. It makes no difference whether or not there is a God - whether God created us or we created Him does not make a difference in how we do or do not have a moral conscience. In other words, if we do not fear God because we do not believe in a Heaven and Hell, we have much less reason to lead a life of morality.
Then I would take away the old-fashioned idea of taking personal responsibility for our actions; that life choices should be like those in video games, where there is a do-over for any choice - simply end the game and start over. No consequences for making poor choices.
Along that same line, the next thing I would do to insure a good crop of mass murderers would be to get rid of any semblance that there is any sanctity of life; that life, itself, is not all that important. To this end I would promote abortion, ensuring that children grow up with the realization that it is just hunky dory to end a human life as long as it is deemed to be inconvenient. If you make poor choices, it's just time for a do-over. No consequences. This takes the lack of personal responsibility to it's highest level - life and death.
To further the development of a mind that is capable of mass murder, I would invent addictive video games that teach developing minds not only how to kill everything in sight, but to feel excitement, and even joy at doing so - an adrenaline rush. And that is the addictive part of such games. And like any other adrenaline rush, it drives adrenaline junkies to move up to a bigger, better rush. Seeking the ultimate high.
And to make sure unstable minds have no reason to NOT commit murder, I would invent social media, where such individuals can live in a world where there is no need to actually meet face-to-face with other people, or make real, human, personal connections that would otherwise provide the individual with relationships that can ground them to reality. In a recent poll, 22% of millennials say they have NO FRIENDS! So, who in their life is anchoring them? Who is instilling personal connections with others, to provide them with a sense that other people have value?
Finally, I would fill the teaching staff at colleges and universities with professors intent on indoctrinating students with radical ideas, and put the mainstream media into the hands of those who would further promote radicalism, and brainwash people by not offering an unbiased view of their story lines.
Of course, it is even more complicated than this, but these are the things I would do that would insure that susceptible people would be prone to mass violence. And I am absolutely certain that these things do contribute heavily. And that is why we, as a people, need to reconsider the long-range results of changes in our culture and begin working on making changes to those changes.
I do not oppose change - change is necessary. But here is the difference: conservatives,by nature, take it slowly, trying to make sure there are no undesirable long-term consequences, while liberals tend to "want it now", and future consequences be damned.
So, just how do we fix this? In the home! Families - particularly parents - need to take an active role in reducing the impact of such things. Provide your children with a moral compass through religion. Teach them the importance of taking responsibility for their choices so they will be more likely to use greater care in making those choices. Then work to teach sanctity of life by ending abortions of convenience, and limit them to those that involve a life-threatening issue or incest. And limit your child's dependence on addictive video games, even if non-violent, and severely limit their use of social media. In fact, ban social media for any child under the age of 16 - give them a chance to make real, face-to-face relationships with others. And require your representatives to set up a program that monitors universities and forces them to teach our kids HOW to think, and not WHAT to think. And stop watching/listening/reading media that show a clear bias in their reporting.
Do these things in every family, and mass murders will become the rarity they should be. And if a child's family is unable to do do, for whatever reasons, we need after school programs that help to fill that void.
/
Sunday, July 14, 2019
"Cultural Appropriation" is BS
The radical political correctness police keep harping and railing against anyone who eats or wears anything from another culture, claiming it is somehow "wrong". Today they are slamming Rihanna. To those idiots I would only say that America is, and always has been a "melting pot", and most sane, reasonable people are proud of that. Only haters, bigots and morons would take issue with it.
According to them, only Mexicans can make or eat tacos; only Italians can eat pasta, only Japanese may wear a kimono. And only black people can have dreadlocks. That's all just so much BS.
Everyone in America "appropriates" the cultures of others - how many of the black "Do-Wop" groups of the 50's wore their hair in an American DA (short for ducks a**)? And how many Mexicans have eaten a hamburger or hot dog? And how many foreign nationals play, or even watch a the Great American Pasttime - a baseball game?
I have always believed political correctness is evil, and capable of dooming not only democracy, but civilization itself, and that is no exaggeration. It divides people. It forces people to control (or be controlled), and even squelch their thoughts and beliefs. It is, at its very core, the central focus of fascism.
When PC first started, radicals would say it's wrong to call someone "fat", and we should use terms like "weight challenged" in order to not offend the obese. But who in their right mind actually believes that the fat guy doesn't realize you are still calling him fat, only in different words? No, PC does not prevent anyone from being offended - it simply makes radicals feel less guilty about the verbiage they use, and more importantly it is designed to control our speech.
Like "undocumented" instead of "illegal". And the "homeless" are now "outdoor urban dwellers", "Merry Christmas" is "Seasons Greetings" (and Christmas is the "Winter Festival"), the poor are "economically marginalised" and an "insult" is now "emotional rape". Radical fascists in America realize that to change minds and beliefs, and control the masses, one must first control the speech. Our Founders specifically made "freedom of speech" the FIRST amendment in the Bill Of Rights for good reason. PC is the antithesis of the first amendment, and since it controls speech, it is blatantly fascist.
Note that "politically correct" was initially coined by Leon Trotsky to refer favorably to those whose views remained in sync with the ever-shifting Bolshevik Party line. This was important, as "not PC" people risked prison or death.
Back to "cultural appropriation" - today I will wear a sombrero while eating a pizza, then drive my Japanese car to Native American event, then watch a fireworks display (which were invented by the Chinese). And I may even call some dude "Bro".
/
According to them, only Mexicans can make or eat tacos; only Italians can eat pasta, only Japanese may wear a kimono. And only black people can have dreadlocks. That's all just so much BS.
Everyone in America "appropriates" the cultures of others - how many of the black "Do-Wop" groups of the 50's wore their hair in an American DA (short for ducks a**)? And how many Mexicans have eaten a hamburger or hot dog? And how many foreign nationals play, or even watch a the Great American Pasttime - a baseball game?
I have always believed political correctness is evil, and capable of dooming not only democracy, but civilization itself, and that is no exaggeration. It divides people. It forces people to control (or be controlled), and even squelch their thoughts and beliefs. It is, at its very core, the central focus of fascism.
When PC first started, radicals would say it's wrong to call someone "fat", and we should use terms like "weight challenged" in order to not offend the obese. But who in their right mind actually believes that the fat guy doesn't realize you are still calling him fat, only in different words? No, PC does not prevent anyone from being offended - it simply makes radicals feel less guilty about the verbiage they use, and more importantly it is designed to control our speech.
Like "undocumented" instead of "illegal". And the "homeless" are now "outdoor urban dwellers", "Merry Christmas" is "Seasons Greetings" (and Christmas is the "Winter Festival"), the poor are "economically marginalised" and an "insult" is now "emotional rape". Radical fascists in America realize that to change minds and beliefs, and control the masses, one must first control the speech. Our Founders specifically made "freedom of speech" the FIRST amendment in the Bill Of Rights for good reason. PC is the antithesis of the first amendment, and since it controls speech, it is blatantly fascist.
Note that "politically correct" was initially coined by Leon Trotsky to refer favorably to those whose views remained in sync with the ever-shifting Bolshevik Party line. This was important, as "not PC" people risked prison or death.
Back to "cultural appropriation" - today I will wear a sombrero while eating a pizza, then drive my Japanese car to Native American event, then watch a fireworks display (which were invented by the Chinese). And I may even call some dude "Bro".
/
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Is Trump Responsible For Those Deaths at the Border?
To hear Beto O'Rourke and others on the left tell it, President Trump is responsible for the deaths of a father and daughter who drowned trying to get into our country. And I understand why they make that claim. But let's take an HONEST look at what occured.
For nearly 50 years Congress has refused to do anything to fix the loopholes in our immigration policies and laws. Worse yet, for 50 years administrations - both Democrat and Republican - have refused to adequately enforce the laws we do have.
During the previous administration, immigrants were encouraged to come here, in hopes of being covered under the "Dreamer's" policy known as DACA. And as progressives on the left institute Sanctuary policies to protect illegal immigrants - even if they are gang members or criminals - and call for more open borders, elimination of ICE and now decriminalization of entering the U.S. illegally, well, you may as well send out personalized invitations to anyone who would rather be here than in their own country.
And that is precisely why that father and daughter died. Had they not been "invited" by progressive, leftist policies, they might never have come at all, or better yet, might have tried a legal method of entry.
President Trump did not send out those invitations. Instead, he is the first president in decades to take illegal immigration seriously, and try to end it by actually enforcing our immigration laws. And when one side sends out an invitation, and the other side snaps it away, people will get hurt.
There are two possible solutions to preventing such deaths. On the one hand we could do what those on the left want, and open our borders to all who come. On the other hand, we could stop sending out invitations like sanctuary cities and states, and providing them with the means and the legal representation to assist them in flouting our laws, close loopholes, and create more legal methods for entry that concentrates on merit. The former would result in our schools, hospitals and cities being over-run, resulting in a cost of trillions to try and rectify, not to mention allowing some pretty bad people to prey on our citizens. The latter would result in the rule of law being upheld, and an immigration system that is sane, sensible, logical and good for our country.
Yes, I feel for people in other countries who long for a better life. And perhaps we can look into ways we might help them create a better life within the boundaries of their own country. But I think progressives should make a stab at understanding something - our own founders were no different from these people, insofar as being downtrodden and ruled harshly. But there is a huge difference - our founders did not run! They FOUGHT to make this country what it is. And we have fought to keep it ever since. In doing so, there is a strong sense of pride in our country - at least or those of us who have not been brainwashed into believing America is a bad place. But how can it be bad when so many risk life and limb to get here?
The point: these people trying to run from their own country should stop, turn around and FIGHT for something better in their own lands. Unless they do that, they will never be worth anything in ANY country they live in, because they simply are not willing to do the work necessary to fix their own.
Now, back to the claims on the left that Trump is responsible, and why they make that claim - they have no choice. They must either try and blame someone else, or accept responsibility for paving the way for such things to happen. It is either blame Trump, or blame sanctuary cities, and all those rewards that progressives want to issue to illegal immigrants.
And we all know that progressives never accept responsibility for their mistakes. Ted Kennedy anyone? Hillary and her illegal server? And even abortion right up to the moment of birth - the ultimate ditching of personal responsibility that ends in terminating an innocent life. The last time I heard a liberal accept responsibility for anything was when President John F Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
No, do not expect "Beto" or his ilk to accept any responsibility for the mistakes made by the policies they hold dear.
/
For nearly 50 years Congress has refused to do anything to fix the loopholes in our immigration policies and laws. Worse yet, for 50 years administrations - both Democrat and Republican - have refused to adequately enforce the laws we do have.
During the previous administration, immigrants were encouraged to come here, in hopes of being covered under the "Dreamer's" policy known as DACA. And as progressives on the left institute Sanctuary policies to protect illegal immigrants - even if they are gang members or criminals - and call for more open borders, elimination of ICE and now decriminalization of entering the U.S. illegally, well, you may as well send out personalized invitations to anyone who would rather be here than in their own country.
And that is precisely why that father and daughter died. Had they not been "invited" by progressive, leftist policies, they might never have come at all, or better yet, might have tried a legal method of entry.
President Trump did not send out those invitations. Instead, he is the first president in decades to take illegal immigration seriously, and try to end it by actually enforcing our immigration laws. And when one side sends out an invitation, and the other side snaps it away, people will get hurt.
There are two possible solutions to preventing such deaths. On the one hand we could do what those on the left want, and open our borders to all who come. On the other hand, we could stop sending out invitations like sanctuary cities and states, and providing them with the means and the legal representation to assist them in flouting our laws, close loopholes, and create more legal methods for entry that concentrates on merit. The former would result in our schools, hospitals and cities being over-run, resulting in a cost of trillions to try and rectify, not to mention allowing some pretty bad people to prey on our citizens. The latter would result in the rule of law being upheld, and an immigration system that is sane, sensible, logical and good for our country.
Yes, I feel for people in other countries who long for a better life. And perhaps we can look into ways we might help them create a better life within the boundaries of their own country. But I think progressives should make a stab at understanding something - our own founders were no different from these people, insofar as being downtrodden and ruled harshly. But there is a huge difference - our founders did not run! They FOUGHT to make this country what it is. And we have fought to keep it ever since. In doing so, there is a strong sense of pride in our country - at least or those of us who have not been brainwashed into believing America is a bad place. But how can it be bad when so many risk life and limb to get here?
The point: these people trying to run from their own country should stop, turn around and FIGHT for something better in their own lands. Unless they do that, they will never be worth anything in ANY country they live in, because they simply are not willing to do the work necessary to fix their own.
Now, back to the claims on the left that Trump is responsible, and why they make that claim - they have no choice. They must either try and blame someone else, or accept responsibility for paving the way for such things to happen. It is either blame Trump, or blame sanctuary cities, and all those rewards that progressives want to issue to illegal immigrants.
And we all know that progressives never accept responsibility for their mistakes. Ted Kennedy anyone? Hillary and her illegal server? And even abortion right up to the moment of birth - the ultimate ditching of personal responsibility that ends in terminating an innocent life. The last time I heard a liberal accept responsibility for anything was when President John F Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
No, do not expect "Beto" or his ilk to accept any responsibility for the mistakes made by the policies they hold dear.
/
Monday, April 1, 2019
They're Looking At Health Care All Wrong
Politicians and pundits on all sides are looking at health care costs all wrong. They are all focused on INSURANCE, and not the cost of the health care, itself. And whenever you insert someone else between you and a product or service, that person needs to be paid which only serves to make the product/service more expensive. And insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies because they have deeper pockets than individuals, and there are few restraints on increasing costs since insurers just pass those costs on to the individuals paying the premiums.
If we want to decrease the expense of health care, we must first address the actual needs and the costs of those needs, and THEN we can address insurance to cover them. In this post I am not going to include the lifetime damage to bodies because of vaccines which are literally designed to weaken the immune system (or it would destroy the vaccine) which, in turn, makes the patient much more susceptible to more serious autoimmune diseases. I'm not including that here, as it is far too late to change what already is. But people should seriously consider swearing off ANY vaccines henceforth.
First and foremost we need to address the poor lifestyle choices that contribute to 70% of all health issues. One hundred years ago the average person was in good health, barring an injury or contagious disease. In nature, the normal state of health is good health, and poor health is abnormal. We have managed to turn that on its head with our proclivity towards making poor choices like smoking, too many sweets, fake foods (if it wasn't food a hundred years ago it is not food now), an over abundance of chemicals and preservatives and an aversion to actual exercise and physical labor. You don't have to be a doctor to understand that our choices are largely responsible for our health. It is estimated that over 70%, and perhaps as much as 80% of all health care needs are attributed to poor lifestyle choices. If we were to all live by the Biblical statement, "All things, in moderation", and get sufficient exercise, we could cut health care costs in half.
And we could cut them even more by using our tax system to discourage poor and harmful lifestyle choices and apply those taxes to directly reduce the cost of healthier options. For example, increase tax on sodas and cigarettes and use those taxes EXPRESSLY to reduce the cost of healthy, whole food and/or fitness equipment or gym memberships.
Costs can be reduced further by capping malpractice awards. Medicine is an imperfect science; honest mistakes can be made. The ONLY lawsuits that should be permitted are for instances of gross neglect or incompetence, and then the awards should be capped at reasonable levels. This would reduce costs in two ways: first, by reducing the exorbitant costs that doctors and medical establishments must pay for malpractice insurance, and second, because doctors will not feel obligated to "over-test" in an effort to cover their butts. Currently, doctors must test a patient for many things unrelated to the health issue, just to play it safe and not risk a lawsuit.
To reduce health care costs further, it is as simple as stopping the "revolving door of referrals." If you know you need a gastroenterologist, why should you be required to first see a personal care physician for a "referral"? The cost of seeing the PCP adds significantly to the cost. We should be able to schedule our own appointments with specialists as long as we already know the diagnosis.
Case in point - I suspected my medication for ulcerative colitis may have caused PML, a serious viral infection, so I wanted to see a professional to get an MRI to see if I was infected. I had to first see my PCP ($225) to get a referral to see the neurologist ($640) who referred me to an unnecessary HEART specialist (my heart is perfect and had nothing to do with my issue) at a cost of $1200, who then, finally, got me an appointment for an MRI ($1550). A total of $3615.00, when all I needed was the MRI at less than half that cost. And as it turned out, I did not have PML. But $2,000.00 was wasted in getting that eventual determination.
Now that we have lowered the actual costs of health care into the realm of sanity, we can NOW address the cost of insurance. Having reduced health care costs by at least 50-75%, it is safe to assume one of two things - either the cost of insurance can be reduced by 50-75% OR most people can afford their health care costs without the need of insurance, as they would only be paying as much for their health care as they would have had to pay in insurance deductibles, anyway.
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance. If they can charge less to one person, they can charge less to all. Also, insurers are classic "middle men", who must be paid for the services(?) they provide.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Patients should be offered the option of declining additional tests and signing a waiver of liability. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost if your issue has been controlled or eliminated, but that would not put extra cash in the docs pocket.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy - who may, in turn refer you to some other doctor.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. EXAMPLE: I had a gastro guy in Maine. I have UC. I moved to VA and knew I needed to have a new gastro guy. But to get one, I first had to get a PCP give me a referal. I KNEW what I needed - there was no need to have a PCP tell me what I already knew, and charge me $220 to do so.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into it. But they often profit TOO much. If they can find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, they can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on. That said...while the R&D is done in America, most drugs are actually manufactured overseas, predominantly China. It makes good sense to bring that manufacturing back to the states and by a non-profit government agency, then sold on a non-profit basis. Big pharma can make their R&D profit, but manufacture and packaging should be on cost basis, to reduce the cost overall.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so can the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money. Subsidize R & D, and remove that cost from the product.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or to help offset the cost of any exercise equipment, athletic gear, or gym membership to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected should be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier, natural choices which are currently too expensive for many, which contributes to unhealthy choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
As a final thought, assuming we bring costs down significantly, the ONLY insurance a person should need is catastrophic insurance, to cover things most people cannot afford, such as cancer treatment. If insurance covers only catastrophic issues, the cost is significantly reduced even more.
Together, these things are not difficult to achieve. Certainly, many people will still make lifestyle choices detrimental to their health, but the high taxes on those things would help offset the costs incurred. In other words, people choosing to harm themselves would be the same people carrying the brunt of the costs of their treatment. No longer will you and I be paying too much for insurance because someone else chooses to drink, smoke or junk food themselves into oblivion.
/
If we want to decrease the expense of health care, we must first address the actual needs and the costs of those needs, and THEN we can address insurance to cover them. In this post I am not going to include the lifetime damage to bodies because of vaccines which are literally designed to weaken the immune system (or it would destroy the vaccine) which, in turn, makes the patient much more susceptible to more serious autoimmune diseases. I'm not including that here, as it is far too late to change what already is. But people should seriously consider swearing off ANY vaccines henceforth.
First and foremost we need to address the poor lifestyle choices that contribute to 70% of all health issues. One hundred years ago the average person was in good health, barring an injury or contagious disease. In nature, the normal state of health is good health, and poor health is abnormal. We have managed to turn that on its head with our proclivity towards making poor choices like smoking, too many sweets, fake foods (if it wasn't food a hundred years ago it is not food now), an over abundance of chemicals and preservatives and an aversion to actual exercise and physical labor. You don't have to be a doctor to understand that our choices are largely responsible for our health. It is estimated that over 70%, and perhaps as much as 80% of all health care needs are attributed to poor lifestyle choices. If we were to all live by the Biblical statement, "All things, in moderation", and get sufficient exercise, we could cut health care costs in half.
And we could cut them even more by using our tax system to discourage poor and harmful lifestyle choices and apply those taxes to directly reduce the cost of healthier options. For example, increase tax on sodas and cigarettes and use those taxes EXPRESSLY to reduce the cost of healthy, whole food and/or fitness equipment or gym memberships.
Costs can be reduced further by capping malpractice awards. Medicine is an imperfect science; honest mistakes can be made. The ONLY lawsuits that should be permitted are for instances of gross neglect or incompetence, and then the awards should be capped at reasonable levels. This would reduce costs in two ways: first, by reducing the exorbitant costs that doctors and medical establishments must pay for malpractice insurance, and second, because doctors will not feel obligated to "over-test" in an effort to cover their butts. Currently, doctors must test a patient for many things unrelated to the health issue, just to play it safe and not risk a lawsuit.
To reduce health care costs further, it is as simple as stopping the "revolving door of referrals." If you know you need a gastroenterologist, why should you be required to first see a personal care physician for a "referral"? The cost of seeing the PCP adds significantly to the cost. We should be able to schedule our own appointments with specialists as long as we already know the diagnosis.
Case in point - I suspected my medication for ulcerative colitis may have caused PML, a serious viral infection, so I wanted to see a professional to get an MRI to see if I was infected. I had to first see my PCP ($225) to get a referral to see the neurologist ($640) who referred me to an unnecessary HEART specialist (my heart is perfect and had nothing to do with my issue) at a cost of $1200, who then, finally, got me an appointment for an MRI ($1550). A total of $3615.00, when all I needed was the MRI at less than half that cost. And as it turned out, I did not have PML. But $2,000.00 was wasted in getting that eventual determination.
Now that we have lowered the actual costs of health care into the realm of sanity, we can NOW address the cost of insurance. Having reduced health care costs by at least 50-75%, it is safe to assume one of two things - either the cost of insurance can be reduced by 50-75% OR most people can afford their health care costs without the need of insurance, as they would only be paying as much for their health care as they would have had to pay in insurance deductibles, anyway.
A PROPOSAL:
1) INSURANCE. Insurance always increases the cost of things, because medical providers can charge more to insurance companies. Since the insured does not have to pay much of the bill, he has no cause to complain. This is precisely why medical providers charge much less to those without insurance. If they can charge less to one person, they can charge less to all. Also, insurers are classic "middle men", who must be paid for the services(?) they provide.
Solution: the caps that Medicare and Medicaid put on medical services should be across the board, regardless of insurance. Doctors would not lose money as long as the following solutions are also included in the health plan.
2) EXCESSIVE TESTING. Doctors order many more tests than are necessary in order to protect themselves from expensive malpractice suits. All those unnecessary tests get expensive. Patients should be offered the option of declining additional tests and signing a waiver of liability. Which brings us to...
3) MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS. Believe it or not there are people who sue just to try and wrangle money out of doctors and hospitals. In many cases the medical providers simply settle out of court - it's cheaper. And when they don't, awards can be in the millions, so malpractice insurance is very expensive - a cost that providers must pass on to their patients.
Solution: Put reasonable caps on awards. And only proven gross negligence should be allowable as "cause". Medicine is not cut-and-dried science. That's why they call it the PRACTICE of medicine. Nothing is guaranteed, and doctors - just like you and me - can make honest mistakes.
4) REFERRALS. The medical community thrives on the "patient revolving door". No matter what you see the doc for, chances are he will try to automatically set you up with a "follow up" visit - costing you more money. In most cases it is not necessary. In some cases any "follow up" could be done by phone without cost if your issue has been controlled or eliminated, but that would not put extra cash in the docs pocket.
And then there is the "referral merry-go-round". You may know that you need to see a "gut" specialist - a gastroenterologist. But you can't just make an appointment with one, because your personal care physician can't tap your wallet that way. Nope. You gotta go see him, first, and pay for that office call just to have HIM set up an appointment for you with the gut guy - who may, in turn refer you to some other doctor.
Solution: Patients should be able to make appointments directly, without a PCP go-between, if they already know who they need to see. EXAMPLE: I had a gastro guy in Maine. I have UC. I moved to VA and knew I needed to have a new gastro guy. But to get one, I first had to get a PCP give me a referal. I KNEW what I needed - there was no need to have a PCP tell me what I already knew, and charge me $220 to do so.
5) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. These are a license to steal, especially when they keep changing the use of the drug. Drug manufacturers have 7 years to profit as much as possible from their drug before the patent lapses and others can make cheaper generic versions. It's called the "exclusivity period". Designed to help them profit after investing so much into it. But they often profit TOO much. If they can find another use for the drug when the 7 years is up, they can keep their monopoly on it for another 7, and so on. That said...while the R&D is done in America, most drugs are actually manufactured overseas, predominantly China. It makes good sense to bring that manufacturing back to the states and by a non-profit government agency, then sold on a non-profit basis. Big pharma can make their R&D profit, but manufacture and packaging should be on cost basis, to reduce the cost overall.
Solution: First, exclusivity periods should not be permitted more than once per new drug. And if generics can be made so much more cheaply, then so can the original product IF the research and development costs were offset. This can be accomplished by having the government subsidize the R&D, reducing the cost to the drug maker. And by subsidizing, those costs are divided among all taxpayers, and not just the sick. If taxpayers can foot the bill for treadmills for shrimp, or tunnels for turtles, I think the health of the people should be getting first dibs on that money. Subsidize R & D, and remove that cost from the product.
6) UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES. This is the BIG one. If people were to choose healthier lifestyles, there would be far less need of health care to repair the damage. From the foods we choose to consume, to the amount of exercise we participate in, and to other choices such as smoking, alcoholism and drug addiction, poor lifestyle choices are responsible for more than 80% of all health issues.
Solution: Poor lifestyle choices should be taxed - those whose poor choices drive up the cost of health care should be responsible for those extra costs. Increased taxes on products such as tobacco and alcohol should be put into a fund specifically designed to subsidize health care, or to help offset the cost of any exercise equipment, athletic gear, or gym membership to encourage exercise. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and the money collected should be used specifically to reduce the cost of healthier, natural choices which are currently too expensive for many, which contributes to unhealthy choices. In this way, those responsible for higher health care costs would be paying for it, keeping costs down.
The actual health CARE, and not health INSURANCE is what the government should be subsidizing.
So why don't those in the Democrat leadership want to make these simple changes to improve health care and reduce its cost? Because that is not what they want - they want government to CONTROL health care. They understand that if they control your health care, they control YOU.
As a final thought, assuming we bring costs down significantly, the ONLY insurance a person should need is catastrophic insurance, to cover things most people cannot afford, such as cancer treatment. If insurance covers only catastrophic issues, the cost is significantly reduced even more.
Together, these things are not difficult to achieve. Certainly, many people will still make lifestyle choices detrimental to their health, but the high taxes on those things would help offset the costs incurred. In other words, people choosing to harm themselves would be the same people carrying the brunt of the costs of their treatment. No longer will you and I be paying too much for insurance because someone else chooses to drink, smoke or junk food themselves into oblivion.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)