A Healthcare Solution

I put this modest proposal before our mad government who appears ready to spend us into oblivion with Obamacare. Save the $1 trillion plus (remember, Social Security and Medicare weren't suppose to cost too much either!) and instead implement this plan which probably won't cost the US government even $1 billion dollars. If you read my post "Healthcare for All?" you should understand that the government cannot lower the cost of anything, only the price. You also should understand that prices are brought about not by greedy CEOs, for competition among healthcare providers and the elasticity in demand mean that the price is only that amount where the minimum amount the healthcare provider is willing to charge for their services and the maximum amount the consumer is willing to pay for that service meet. Prices are determined by the market. They are controlled by supply and demand. When the demand for medical services increases, the price for that service increases. This is basic economics. Any economist, regardless of his or her political persuasion will tell you this. Thus rising healthcare prices are the result not of greed and price-gauging but high demand. I put forward that the reason American healthcare costs so much is that it costs a lot to keep Americans healthy! We are McDonaldnation. When the majority of American adults are obese and unhealthy they are going to require more medical attention for for things like lung cancer, skin cancer, and heart disease. Therefore, what I propose is that the government starts to offer incentives for American citizens to remain healthy. Every year Americans can go to their physcian and have a physical. There will be rankings from excellent health to average health to poor health. For every health level average and above, tax-payers can claim a deductable that correlates to their level of health for each member of the family. Thus, the government will give you incentive to keep healthy during the year. By eating healthier, eating less, excercising more, and refraining for smoking due to proper incentive, Americans will need to go doctors less (an apple a day keeps the doctors away!) and the demand for health with decrease and with it healthcare prices.

Time to Jump Ship?

I am sitting on my couch watching the Pirates game. The score is 7-3 Pirates. "Finally!" I say to myself. After an abysmal road trip that followed an mass exodus of Pirates talent for prospects, which left the offense impotent, the Pirates were in line for a tough win against the World Champion Phillies. It is the bottom of the 9th and as I sip my lemonade Matt Capps takes the mound. Anyone who has be around me while watching Pirates games knows my extreme dislike of Matt Capps. For a closer, he pitches far too many long balls as his favorite pitch, as far as I can tell, is a fast ball across the center of the plate. Yet over the past month Capps has been solid, not blowing a single save opportunity, although he has come dangerous close. Yet he has a four run lead, typically enough even for this pitcher with an ERA in the 6's. But Capps always has a way of surprising me by achieving all new levels of awefulnesses.

I proceeded to watch Capps give up a towering home run. OK, its just a solo, now we'll get out of it. Then Capps, with one out and a runner of first proving a double play opportunity, Capps decides to be his usual self and totally ignore every base runner. It is a stolen base without contention. No double play. Ryan Howard is at the plate. All he needs is a homerun now to tie the game 7-7. Surely such a feat is extremely improbable! Yet with one swing of the bat the improbably becomes a reality has Howard hits a fly ball that is gone. Ok 7-7. No base runners, 1 out. Let's finish this and get to extra innings. Oh but Matt Capps is truly ready to outdo himself. Now common sense would tell you to pull Capps out of the game. Yet John Russell decides to place continued trust in his closer and let him continue. Next thing I know the bases are loaded, still 1 out. Then comes a walk off hit to win the game. I sit stunned. A five run inning in the bottom of the ninth. I send a text to my friend "Why do I still watch these games...." And its true. Being a Pirates fan means being a glutton for pain. Yet as St. Paul says, suffering produces peserverence. Perhaps by keeping the virtue of faith and suffering I home to further my sanctification.

Now this is another blog about why the Pirates suck. No, no. I have vented my anger enough. Before us today is a very, very important question: Is it time to abandon the Pirate ship? Or should I go down with the ship? The decision to forsake your fandom is a very serious one. It's even harder when the team is your hometown team that you have cheered for since youth. For awhile now it is no secret that I have cheered for the Red Sox come October. I love the city of Boston (yes, I loathe the Patriots BUT they are technically from Foxborough) and I despise the Yankees. Below are a series of pros and cons for jumping ship. Please read them carefully and everyone who reads this blog, comment and tell me your opinion.

Pros for ceasing to be a Pirates Fans
1. Its not bad luck that makes the Pirates an aweful team. It's sheer incompetence. We aren't talking about the Cubs or pre-2003 Boston. We're talking about a team that has successfully managed to destroy itself from within over the past 17 years. Does that team deserve support?
2. When you love something, sometimes you have to let it go. As long as the Pirates continue to sell tickets to PNC Park and make lots of $$$ management simply doesn't give a damn about the team's record. By continuing to give unquestionably blind and loyal support I only further the apathy that the front office has. Only when they have to win will the Pirates actually win.
3. I love baseball. When you love a sport its fulfilling to actually enjoy the thrill of the playoffs. Yet as a Pirates fan my season always ends with September. Its like loving cake, but never getting the icing.

Cons Against jumping ship.
1. Faithless is he who says farewell when the road darkens. OK the Pirates don't deserve my support but maye I should still stick it out. I am a Pittsburgh native and a Pittsburgh sports fan I ought to remain. Don't be one of those "bandwagon" fans (Cowboys, Yankees).
2. If I jump ship now, the taste of victory (if it ever comes) will not be as sweet. If they win when I am 70 years old I won't be able to tell my grandchildren through tears how I kept faith in the Pirates through all these years and have finally been vindicated.
3. I love baseball. Since baseball does not have the good sense to be as nationally televized as football I can maybe watch 2 games a week on ESPN if I'm lucky. And out of that two a week every week maybe a dozen will be Red Sox games (providing they remain successful). The best place to find baseball fulfillment is at PNC Park. If I cheer for any other team I can say goodbye to watching my team play in their ballpark. I may be watching the Pirates suck but at least I'm watching them!

With Healthcare for All? Part II

4. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch. It is also very misleading to call government-funded healthcare "free." As already noted, government can reduce the price of a good or service with price controls but never their cost. Whenever the government plans on doing anything that involves the public treasury, it is good to remember that the treasury is supplied by the public. The government does not generate its own wealth but must levy taxes in order to pay for its expenses. This includes healthcare. In reality, free healthcare is not free but is paid for by citizens who are supposedly receiving hand-out! Initial estimates are that the healthcare bill will cost 1.6 trillion over 10 years, or $5,333 a person! This means (if the price was spread evenly)that if you pay less than $5,333 a year in medical expenses, the cost of your healthcare will actually go up. Of course the price is not spread evenly. Some will get this healthcare for nothing while others will pay very little. Yet still the healthcare is not free, those people who save money with government healthcare are only forcing their fellow citizens to pay for it. Government-funded healthcare is a misnomer. It should be called fellow citizen-funded healthcare. Of course, most will reply that it is the rich with "disposable income" who will be funding the majority of the healthcare. Yet, why is it fair that the wealthy should pay a greater percentage of their income than the poor? What evil have those wealthy who have earned their money by honest means done to society? Often the evil rich are the doctors who keep us healthy, the surgeons who save lives on the operating table, the entrepreneur who makes our lives easier by finding a more efficient way to bring us goods and services, the inventor who improves the quality of life, the scientist who cures a disease, the businessman who employs us, etc. One of America's most basic principles is the equality of all people. We violate this equality when we force on one group a greater proportion of income tax. Going back to incentives, when we tax the doctors, inventors, and businessmen too heavily, we reduce the incentive of doing their jobs. The high incomes paid to doctors compensates them for all the medical school they went through and in the same manner the businessman is compensated for climbing his way up the corporate ladder, spending less time with family and friends, and working late hours. If we tax these people and their businesses too heavily, it shouldn't suprise us if we wake up the next day to find less of them. Therefore, free healthcare is not free but comes at the expense of fellow citizens and other sectors of the economy. With a population of 300 million and price tag of $1.6 trillion, a government funded healthcare system is more weight than our economy can bear.

6. Worst, worse, better, and best. The greatest problem we have is when we make comparisons we make them as black and white. In reality, we are oftne comparing apples to oranges. While other countries are not sent into abominable poverty and poor coverage by their haelthcare systems, we must remember that this does not imply the success of the system. Healthcare and the economy may have improved, but if there was no government healthcare system, it may be improved even more. Also take into mind the very poor health of Americans. Obesity is higher in this country than in Europe. Some speculate that the growing obesity in this country is the reason why the price of healthcare is soaring. Therefore, if American's health is failing, don't always blame the healthcare companies. The best way to improve American healthcare is not with government intervention but with a more healthy lifestyle by Americans.

With Healthcare for All? Part I

President Obama hopes to succeed where President Clinton failed: securing universal healthcare benefits for all Americans. For most Americans without a basic understanding of basic economics, the lure of universal healthcare is overwhelming. The public is flooded with heartbreaking stories where Americans cannot afford health treatment or medical bills put so-called "working Americans" in massive debt (the Obama administration is especially empathetic about the latter). Now, don't get me wrong; my heart goes out to all hard-working Americans who find it hard to make ends meet when healthcare becomes expensive. But we must understand that the world is not perfect. Unfortunately no government has the power to create a utopia and thus we must always settle for the best possible outcome, which is never the perfect one. We must always ask ourselves what are the hidden consequences of our actions and will it lead to a positive gain or a loss? Few Americans are capable of weighing the various consequences because basic economic knowledge precludes them. Below is a list of reasons why socialized healthcare does not lead to a positive gain.

1. Government can reduce the price of something but never its cost. Part of Obama's pledge is to make healthcare affordable for the average American. Unfortunately, government cannot wave a magic wand and reduce the cost of anything. True government can force healthcare providers to sell their services for a limited amount but this does not mean that the costs required to provide those services will decrease in the slightest. This means that health care companies will start to lose money when a price ceiling is placed on a good or service.

2. Price Gouging is Impossible "But!" the average American will cry, "who cares if the health care companies revenues are less? Aren't they all a bunch of greedy price gougers anyway?" Yet the health care providers are not capable of price gouging. Why? Because health care companies do not set prices. What!? Yes that is right, producers do not set prices. Prices result in the interactions between buyers and sellers. Publilius Syrus once said: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." The price of something is maximum price a seller will sell his goods or services considering the minimum amount the buyer is willing to pay for them. A seller may put the price tag for his goods or services extremely high, but all this will do is cause customers to stop buying those goods and services. Patients will choose other health care providers who do set their prices so high and thus the price-gouging health care provider will lose customers and money. Companies have an incentive to sell for the least amount possible rather than the maximum amount.

3. It's about capital. Hight profits are not a bad thing either. People often think its scandalous when companies make huge profits, especially the health care industry which is in the business of people's health. Yet what few people realize is that the profits that businesses make are not horded in a vault somewhere, where the CEO can mimic Scrooge McDuck and go swimming in a sea of money. Few healthcare companies are privately owned, which means that essentially the company is owned by the public and the high profits stay within the company and not in an owner's wallet. Most of the high-ups in large corporation are salaried so high profits do not mean that their personal incomes will increase. Most of the time the CEO is hired and paid by a board of executives so price-gouging by no means will make him any richer. Instead all those profits, which is called capital, are re-invested back into the company to produce a better business, whether by improving the quality of the good or service or hiring better workers. Thus when you restrict the amount of revenue a health care company receives, you are reducing its ability to improve. That meants less money is spent on cancer research, workers won't receive raises, coverage isn't expanded, etc. Socialized healthcare, by restricting the amount of profits, will stagnate the quality of healthcare.

4. It's also about incentives. Socialized healthcare also reduces incentives, both by healthcare providers and American citizens. First, when health care is "free" an artificially high demand is generated. If McDonalds started to hand out free cheeseburgers, imagine how many people would come to McDonalnds to buy cheeseburgers! Most likely the line for burgers would be out the door and around the corner. On the other hand, when cheeseburgers are sold for the regular amount there is no line out the door and around the corner. The reason is that the price of a burger means that only those who really want a cheeseburger will come into McDonalds to get one. When they are free anyone who passes buy will come in and get one and eventually demand will be so high that McDonalds will run out of burgers! The long lines at the registers also means that those who really wanted the cheesburgers, say a kid and his dad who just finished up a soccer game, will have to wait in the same long lines with all those people who may not really want a cheeseburger all that much. The same is true with universal, "free" healthcare. Once healthcare is cheap for anyone, people will start to visit the doctor more than they did when they had to pay at the very least a co-pay. When healthcare actually cost a person for using it, they are more likely to consider whether or not they really need medical attention. It will also means that doctor's offices and hospitals will have large lines as more people use healthcare now that it is free or very cheap than when it cost money. People who truly need medical attention will have to wait in very long lines along with those who show up with the common cold. As demand for healthcare increases it will also mean that the cost of health care (though not the price) will increase and the quality of healthcare will decrease as a company's profits decrease. Workers wage's won't increase and so talented workers will go where they will be paid better. This could create a shortage of doctors and nurses if their wages do not rise with the rest of the workforce. This means less doctors will go to medical school and less nurses will go to nursing school. In this way just as the demand for these jobs increases, their supply decreases because the health care companies can't pay them enough. The would-be doctor will become a lawyer or an engineer instead. When this happens, our health care system's quality will decrease dramatically.

Part II will be up tomorrow.

Navigating Through the Media

We live in a busy world where there barely seems to time to relax for some people. Whether it’s because of work, school, children, or keeping the house in order, we seem to have a chronic lack of time and thus we prefer things fast; fast food, fast internet, fast transportation, and fast news. Often times getting things faster is a good thing because it helps us be more productive and gives us more time to relax. However, Americans need to realize that some things simply cannot be rushed. One such thing is a cultivated and informed intellect. Due to Deweyan educational philosophy which has dominated American education since 1900, the traditional Republican ideal of the educated individual has gone by the wayside in favor of educational specialization. People are no longer educated but trained. This is extremely dangerous for our American Republic since an informed and educated electorate is fundamental to the democratic system.


It is our civic duty to elect representatives who will keep to the constitution and protect and better our country. Therefore it is important that every American, regardless of their status in society, be informed about current issues and their context and be able to discern between good and bad policies. To be a discerning voter one must also be a careful learner. Fast media is another thing we cannot afford in our society. As tempting as it is to get all of our information from media outlets we must remember that the primary concern of all media is ratings. This does not necessarily mean that media is untruthful but there is a tendency by the media to sensationalize and distort stories in order to get more viewers. The specific media outlet may also be motivated by the biases of many of the reporters and anchors, whether conservative or liberal. Finally most people working for new agencies are not experts in politics, history, or economics so their coverage of politics, world events, and policies may not always be trustworthy. Therefore, below I have written some advice as to how to be well-informed in the age of mass media.


1. Do not use mass media as your primary source of information on politics, policies, or the external world. As stated above, mass media can be sensationalized, over-simplified, biased, or simply uninformed. Take a break from reading fiction and read several good books on history and economics by scholarly, peer reviewed authors. Popular authors will have the same faults of mass media but a peer-reviewed book has been swept over for biases, inaccuracies, and distortion. These books will give you a good foundation for when you watch the news or read a newspaper so you can know about the historical context of an event and pick up distortions of the facts, sensationalizing, and oversimplification in the mass media.

2. Do not rely on the talking heads or talk radio for your information either. They can be interesting and entertaining or may even be political whistle blowers. Yet like mass media, despite claims otherwise, their chief concern is ratings. They also have the same concerns as traditional media outlets. In addition talk radio and talking heads do not even pretend to be unbiased so there is precious little critical thinking in the news they present.

3. Prefer newspapers and media outlets’ online articles to their visual counterparts. Having the text in front of you allows you carefully digest the information presented and reread parts of the article. Sometimes when something is said on TV it can sound better than it would if it were carefully read. Also, many anchors and reporters are chosen more so because of their attractive looks and good presentation than their expertise in the world around them, while newspapers and online articles do not have this problem

4. Whenever you watch the news or read the article look for the chief facts about the news story, thing such as what is the story about, where does it take place, and who is involved. Stay away from mass media interpretations of the stories and its significance. Use your own critical thinking, background studies, and later research to determine these. Also, do not feel obligated to read the entire article, but scan for the important facts.

5. Subscribe to a good monthly journal where significance and interpretation from the previous month can be discussed by experts.

6. Always think critically when reading or watching the news.

7. Do not watch the news media religiously but only keep the news on for extended periods of time when real news stories are under way, e.g. wars, elections, national crises, etc. All other times news tends to be hyped and sensationalized for ratings.

8. Remember, although blindly trusting the media is tempting because it is fast and easy accessible, it tends to always be of the highest quality because it depends on hyped headlines and non-experts. Therefore, do research on your own and make sure that you are an intellectually cultivated individual. The security and prosperity of our nation depends on it.

Some Thoughts on the Church

This morning I was grabbing some dollies from the parking at Lowe’s where I work when I came across a truck that was covered in bumper stickers that were conveying messages of what one might call the persuasion of the religious right. Essentially, they were comparing President Obama to the Antichrist and democrats as demons. Some of the bumper stickers used Bible verses while one was laced with profanity. Another thing to keep in mind that this couples of the “Religious Right” was at Lowe’s at 10:30 am on a Sunday morning (due to a scheduling mistake I was forced to work Sunday morning even though I had informed Lowe’s that I had church every Sunday). Now I am a both a committed Christian and a committed conservative. I am fearful that many of the programs that Obama is instituting are coming not from good economics but rather from the president’s commitment to egalitarianism and democratic socialism and will do a great deal of damage to this country’s economy and its finances. However, I believe that it is absolutely inappropriate to disrespect the President of the United States, especially by using sections of the Bible. St. Paul taught, regarding those in positions of civic authority, that we must give “respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:7). It is helpful to keep in mind that Paul was speaking of those very pagans were persecuted Christ’s Church.


What I saw this morning reinforced my fear that the Religious Right is doing more harm to Christianity than help. Some in the Religious Right are also extremely un-Biblical in their ministry, if it can be called that. They make many secular people fear giving Christianity any force in society because of the Religious Right’s angry rhetoric, such as: God Hates Gays, God allowed 9/11 to happen because of gays, and God sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans because of its immorality. First this is unbiblical because God forbids us to assume that we, apart from His Word, can assume to know His will (see Isaiah 55:9). They belie the fact that the chief message of Christianity is not hatred towards non-Christians but rather grace. Often Christians believe that must choose between a full-out crusade against secularists in society or acceptance. I would propose that neither of these choices are biblical. As Christians we are called to live godly lives, fulfill the Cultural Mandate, and fulfill the Great Commission. The Bible nowhere tells Christians to launch a Crusade against the non-Christians of the world. Rather non-Christians are to be dealt with evangelism, where as Christians we can convey to those who do not know Christ his wonderful love that, at the price of the cross, bought us grace so that we might be restored as the children of God.


Sometimes pastors, especially some of the ones I see on TV, give full sermons condemning the godlessness of the world. To be sure, the Bible affirms that the very definition of the “world” is that which is godless. It is the City of Man. Yet St. Paul says “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’” (I Corinthians 12-13). Christians must never accept the godlessness of City of Man, which is the world, but are to leave the judgment of the world to God. Rather Christians are to focus on improving the piety of the church. Christians need to say less harsh things about non-Christians and say more about the failure of those within the Church to fully live up to the model that Christ set for us. Over and over again the Apostles taught that the best way to transform the world for Christ was not through angry rhetoric but by living godly and joyful lives so that the world might see the power that is in Christ. Christians are also should be imitators of God’s mercy by loving the unsaved just as God loves us who were at one time also unsaved. It is important to remember St. Paul’s constant admonition not to boast. Thus Christians should remember that, apart from the grace of God, we are no different that the homosexuals, the sexually immoral, and the moral relativists who compose much of what Christians refer to as “the world.”


It is telling that all of the condemnations in the apostolic letters are aimed, not at condemning the world, but at condemning the immoral and scandalous behavior of those in the church. Christians always be models of God’s grace and love to fallen world as we are called to be imitators of Christ, who is described as the friend of sinners. So did God send 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina to punish immoral Americans? Perhaps, but only God knows for sure, therefore I will not speak with confidence as to why God allowed these things to happen. Personally, I believe it is just as likely that God sent for the church so that in a time of crisis God’s Church might emerge as a leader in these troubled times in a fallen world. Therefore, Christians should be concerned about improving the piety of the church so that the transforming power of Christianity can be truly manifested.

History

History is for most people a boring subject. For most this is because it is about the past, which people don’t feel has much to do with them. The American industrialist Henry Ford once said “history is bunk.”Many people would agree emphatically with his statement and add that they should never have to take the miserable subject in school ever again. However, before you write off history, let me pose this profound statement to you: history is the only thing you can know for certain. The scientist will immediately scoff at this statement. But please pause and think it over for a minute. Say you are researching how chemical A will react with chemical B. The event happens and you prepare to draw a conclusion. But upon what basis are you to make your conclusion? Why, it is history! The history of the event of the reaction of chemicals A and B. Unless as a person, you are capable of reliving the exact moment of the chemical reaction while simultaneously writing the conclusion your information is passed upon the memory of past events. We are all involved in history everyday by recalling past memories and interpreting them or understanding them.

History is fundamentally important to our everyday lives. We avoid touching a hot stove because we remember in the history of our lives touching such a stove once in the past and being burned by it. Most of our actions are based on our remembrance of the past. Imagine what your relationships would be like with your friends, girlfriends or boyfriends, and husbands or wives if you suddenly suffered a bout of amnesia and could not remember anything. You could not remember how to please them or talk to them or, if need be, deal with them. In reality everyone is concerned with history in one form or another. History is not important not only on a personal basis, however. If, as a society we refuse to remember the past we will be like the foolish little boy who cannot remember that the hot stove burns him. Now I do not mean in any way to convey in this analogy that history comes in cycles. I do not believe it does, but the problems and challenges we face today have been experienced by countless generations before us because they are the challenges and problems of humanity. It is foolish to have their examples and not learn from them. History does not repeat itself but the human experience and human characteristics endure throughout history. History does not simply teach us about people who lived long ago but also tells us about ourselves. It teaches what humanity is capable of; both in creative power and in depravity.

History is also important because cultures develop historically. History tells a great deal about where we and other countries in the world are today and how we got there. Understanding the history of the United States should be important to anyone who claims to be a good American citizen. We can understand what policies failed in the past and avoid them in the future. If you listen to any of the talking heads on TV or radio they almost always will try to use history as a verification of the policy they are promoting. If Americans had a better understanding of history they would see that such historical "proofs" are often the result of bad history (See my blog on historical fallacies). History helps develop a critical mind. An understanding of foreign cultures and how they developed is also key for voters who are elected leaders that deal with American foreign policy. I believe one the reasons that Americans are so disliked around the world is because we have a poor understanding of other countries. For instance, I believe that Americans have a poor understanding of the Middle East or even Europe which has not helped the United States positively interact with these areas of the globe.

I would encourage you to take a closer look at history and understand its importance. People are far too influenced by Deweyian "practical" education. The average person and even a great many in acamedia are specialists and do not have a broad education. As a result they tend to be very narrow minded. An education in engineering has a good many applications. It helps us build better buildings, machines, and bridges. But engineering cannot tell us more about the world around us or ourselves. History, which is ultimately the study of people throughout history, is the best at educating us about the world and equipping us with the tools to be good citizens.