Losing Our Ability to Help Third World Countries

At church today, we listened to a heartwarming story. One that may not be heard in the future. It went something like this. People in Uganda, at a certain refugee hospital, were dying like flies. Despite the efforts of the doctors, there was no high-tech equipment that would allow the doctors to do what we can do in the States.

Meanwhile, our church was apprised of the situation and an offering was taken. The local Rotary Club matched our funds, and then doubled their match. With the amount we raised, a medical equipment company matched the donation and several state of the art pieces of medical equipment were donated to Uganda. A doctor there had tears streaming down his face when the gifts were delivered. Prior to the gift, he was ready to quit, as the best he could do was watch his patients die. Now, with the new equipment, he is able to save scores of lives.

From the news, we don’t hear about these gifts. From our President, we hear apologies for our country instead of praise for the ongoing efforts of Americans to reach out and help other countries. From Congress, we hear glimmers of what the National Health Care Bill will be.

As nearly as we are allowed to know, it mimics the plans of Canada and England. Canada has about 1/10th the number of high tech medical equipment per capita as the US. What that means is shortage. Shortage equates to long waits. For those who can afford to do so, they come to the US, seeking diagnosis that may save their life. Shortages also mean less opportunity for philanthropic giving. If an entity is in the situation of not having enough supply, that entity will not be apt to donate. Hence, despite the giving of a church body and philanthropic organizations such as the Rotary Clubs, there will be no availability among the producers or manufacturers. Third World recipients will see their donations dry up. And the doctors will have to be satisfied with watching their patients die.

Profit for private businesses has somehow become a dirty concept among the elite liberals. Although they can’t point to a socialist or fascist government that has a history of giving and providing for other less fortunate countries, they are sure that it is conceptually possible. Having a capitalist company donate money, supplies, equipment, etc, is somehow dirty and tainted. Ironically, the country which has historically provided the most aid to other countries in need, now finds itself being blamed for that which allows its generosity - capitalism.

It’s sad to think that all the knowledge is right before our eyes. We do not have to ruin our country to later discover that capitalism did, in fact, work. For those in doubt, here’s your challenge: find one socialist country that rose to world power status which also had a track record of reaching out regularly and providing substantial financial aid, and secondly, at the same time, produced products that were improved from one level to the next without having a competitor serving as the impetus for striving for the next level of excellence.

Save yourself some time, there is no such country. Socialism leads to complacency, lack of competition, and a failing economy. That’s the direction Obama is taking us. This is not about Republican vs. Democrat. It’s just what is. Obama campaigned on re-building this nation, and he meant it. Most of his voters thought he was talking about improving it. He wasn’t. Obama plans on dismantling this country’s economic power and reducing it to a socialist or fascist economy, so that we are no more powerful than any other country.

Perhaps you’re thinking, “Fine, I don’t think US should have anymore power than others.” It’s not just about power. It’s about wealth. It’s about the ability to help those who are less fortunate. It’s about helping Third World countries do more than watch their people die.

Who's the Real Racist: Obama or the Cop?

Gee, I wonder how those I deeply offended would respond if I said I could have “calibrated those words differently.” Let’s say I told my wife, “I think you are a slut.” In realizing the deep hurt and anger I caused, I said, “Honey, I might have calibrated those words differently.” Oh, I’m sure that would address the entire problem.

Obama referred to Sgt. Crowley as a racist after he arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.. Crowley was called to the scene of an apparent break-in to a home by NEIGHBORS - alarmed that 2 men appeared to be forcing their way into their neighbor’s home during his absence. It turns out that Gates was the owner of the home in question.

Rather than clear the matter up instantly by producing identification, Gates went off on the two officers, angrily venting that they were profiling him because this is the way blacks are treated in America. The professor became belligerent and refused to cooperate. As things heated up, Gates was taken into custody. By the way, the second officer, Sgt. Leon Lashley, assisting  Crowley, was black.

I imagine myself in Gates’ shoes. I arrive home at night with a second male, cannot open the door, and proceed in attempting to force the door open. My neighbor seeing the commotion, but not recognizing me, calls the cops in hopes of protecting my home. The police arrive and try to size up the situation. What would I do? How about show them my identification, invite them in, show them pictures and display obvious items that clarify I’m the rightful owner of the premises. But no, I start screaming at them that I have been profiled because I’m white, balding, and sick of the way cops treat my kind. I refuse to cooperate, and even threaten them with lawsuits. I’ll tell you what, my neighbors would think I’m a jerk and ungrateful for their attempt to protect my home, and deserve to be arrested for not realizing that the police are there to stop a break-in, and protect my premises.

Obama’s response? He jumped right on the race bandwagon and called the actions of the officers “stupid” and indicative of the problems we have in America of racism.

Let me digress: Crowley’s black partner, Lashley, said that nothing Crowley did was inappropriate nor in the least racist. Further, Crowley has served as a trainer in the department for training cops on how not to be racist. The man has a sterling reputation and 11 years of commendable performance. 

Perhaps, both Obama and Gates should admit that they behaved in a racist attitude toward Crowley. Maybe Obama, rather than wading in on a matter he doesn’t understand, should say “I’m sorry, I jumped to conclusions.” Maybe even refer to his statement as “my words” instead of “those words” thereby distancing himself from his racist attitude. Instead, his words unveil Obama’s motive - get Whitey. 

The best the President can offer is to say he might have calibrated his words differently. What does that mean? It means he wished he had called Crowley a racist using milder terms. Obama shows his true colors here, and we can probably expect more of the same from his Supreme Court nominee, Sotomayor, who claims that she will be a better adjudicator than a white man. Her words: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Gee, I thought Supreme Court justices were supposed to interpret the Constitution - without bias to their own personal experiences.

Order in the Court, the Monkey wants to Speak...

Cass Sunstein is President Obama's intended Regulatory Czar. Mind you, a "czar" needs no Congressional approval, nor is he/she subject to checks and balances as intended by the Constitutional protection known as impeachment - wherein the House of Representatives may bring charges against a renegade official and have them removed if found guilty of the charges in the Senate. President Obama is big on czars as he knows they can't be touched, through them he can effect policy, and if they get their fingers burned, he can claim ignorance, saying they were acting on their own.

There was a time when we all would have had a good laugh imagining a scenario wherein your dog took you to court for harassment, corporal punishment, neglect, or confinement. This would be the hilarity of Gary Larsen's Far Side cartoons. Well, if the likes of Sunstein makes it into the White House, and therefore, makes public policy, you might well wipe that silly smirk off your face.

Cass Sunstein is an animal rights activist - right out of the PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) playbook. PETA's day will arrive and there will a cacophony of animal celebration in the streets should Sunstein join the White House.

Now before you sideline me with accusations of being a wacko, I suggest you check out the man's opinions and the policy decisions PETA advocates. Not only would eating meat be tasteless and illegal, intelligent species would be entitled to litigation, with experts in animal communication interpreting their meows, oinks, howls, and even body language.

Blow this off if you like, but without active participation in saying no to the appointment of the people of this persuasion, it won't be long before hunting and fishing are banned, shock collars and electric perimeter fences are outlawed along with choke chains and leashes, livestock and poultry becomes a thing of the past, and we're soon examining whether insects enjoy the same rights as their more "evolved" cousins.

Absurd? It should be. Let's keep it that way.

Obama Calls me "Dear Friend"

Today, I received my second personal email from President Barack Obama. I know it was personal for two very obvious reasons: 1) It was addressed to "Dear Friend," and 2) I didn't get any warning from my email provider advising that this could possibly be spam. Therefore, I know this was personal letter from the President to me. And this, despite the fact that I didn't vote for him. President Obama truly is reaching across the aisle.



The President wants me to tune into his televised speech tonight concerning the impending national health care legislation. Apparently, he didn't get the time slot he wanted because Susan Boyle is having her coming out party with her new image and the network was pretty sure that Boyle would get a bigger audience than Obama. Anyway, the President wants to clear things up because there has been a lot of "back and forth" in the media; I guess that means that too many people are watching FOX News and it's offsetting his control of the state run media (CNN, ABC, PBS, Oprah, The View, and David Letterman).



In the letter, Obama starts by letting us know that there is critical consensus in Congress. Well, I would say he's correct because both houses are controlled by Democrats, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it abundantly clear that anybody who stands in her way is going to have to deal with her - i.e. forget about having any meaningful influence in Congress. So, despite a few renegade Democrats who threaten to upset the apple cart, there is critical mass (I mean, consensus).



The President's letter says that "...reform will provide you with more security and stability." Within the bill, there is a stipulation that should you lose your present insurance, due to leaving your job, changing your job, etc - you must go with national health care insurance. Remember the promises about "choice"? Obama goes on to say the bill will "...prevent your insurance company from dropping your coverage if you get too sick." Being in the insurance industry, I don't know of a single provider out there who is has the power to go after private individuals based on their health. They can underwrite CLASSES of insureds, but not deny coverage to individuals based on changing health.



"You will finally have guaranteed access to quality, affordable health care, and you can choose the plan that best suits your family's needs," writes Obama. Well, not only will it be guaranteed, it will be required. Right now, I don't have health insurance. Why? Because right now, I can't afford it. When it's mandated, I will have to afford it. How? I'm not sure, but it's going to be required.



The President continues, "And no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition." Do you know how insurance companies keep rates competitive? By underwriting - which means by weaning out the bad risks and assigning the best rate they can to people who aren't bad risks. If, as an insurer, I take on all drivers, irrespective of their driving habits, the good drivers could expect to pay higher rates to cover for the losses caused by the bad drivers. It's called "spread of risk." So, if I insure people's health, and insurers are not allowed to deny certain kinds of people, then people who maintain their health can expect to cover the losses of drug users who have HIV, chain smokers who get cancer or other diseases from smoking, alcoholics who have liver diseases, chronically obese people who suffer from heart attacks, stroke, and other circulatory disorders, and more. In other words, people who strive to live a healthy life will pay much higher premiums to cover for those who make lifestyle choices that guarantee extremely high health care costs.



My personal favorite quote from the letter is this: "...we cannot control our long-term fiscal health as a nation without health insurance reform." In other words, the President is saying that unless this bill passes, we're going to be in worse financial shape than ever. Really? Private insurance companies, for the most part are profitable. Despite health care costs, these companies have figured out a formula for keeping the boat afloat - providing health care while making a profit. The government run programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, are going further and further into debt, and the horror stories of people on these programs are legion. How is another government program going to be different? I don't know about you, but I don't really want our doctor's offices to resemble the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Post Office.



President Obama assures his readers that without this reform, "...we are consigning our children to a future of skyrocketing premiums and crushing deficits." The crushing deficit has already been consigned due to the Stimulus Act - not only to our children, but our grandchildren as well. As to the skyrocketing premiums, here are the places for reform: tort reform that eliminates frivolous lawsuits against doctors and result in the plaintiff and his attorney paying all legal fees and court costs if it is determined they had no cause for action; limits to pain and suffering awards; and no care for a person who cannot prove his/her citizenship and has no means to pay for care.



I'm not against addressing the need for universal health care. Believe, I'd love to have coverage. However, we need to fix the things that create the huge costs (previous paragraph), not build a plan that admits the problem but provides for the skyrocketing costs. The government has not shown a record of running anything profitably - they don't have to because the taxpayers have no choice but to pick up the tab. Traditionally, once the government institution is running, all problems are attempted to be solved with one solution: put more money into it.



Our health care system doesn't really need fixing, any more than our country needed to be rebuilt (as Obama campaigned). What needs addressing is how we can contain costs, reform the legal system, and provide private affordable insurance to those who don't have it. The present bill under consideration does none of these. Rather, it's like treating a man with a broken finger by amputating his hand and replacing it with a hoof.