Special Guest Rant Part II: Flawed Arguments and Stubborn Facts

Ok, I actually did have a rant written. But because of some of the thought provoking comments generated last week, Lori published a more detailed response. I felt it only fair to republish her blog again since several of the comments mentioned were from the small number of readers of this rant. Her blog can be seen here http://uncommoncommonsense88.blogspot.com/2009/09/flawed-arguments-and-stubborn-facts.html

So next week look forward to an original rant, Cyber Balls. =)

Cya in 7


'My last post addressed some of the things we can do to improve health care without government involvement. I got a few comments, but wanted to address a couple in particular. These comments brought up issues that are worthy of response.

One of the comments is as follows: "I would like to direct your attention to the writers first stated premise - there is no trust in the government with one sixth of our economy. My question is, how did it become one sixth of the economy? With every step of a 'free' enterprise system being everything but free, freedom is placed upon the back of those who are a dwindling base of contributors to support the greediness of astronomical proportions and the government is the recipient of easy target fingerpointing. If we insist on blaming government for a sick system, we are trying to fix the wrong problems."

My initial reply was the following: "There are many causes of the problems in medical care which I have also written about on my blog. Doctors are lousy business-men, insurance companies and employers cause problems of their own. Pharmaceutical companies and medical suppliers are making huge profits. But the single largest problem is the government sticking their big nose in everything. Ignoring that fact and involving them further will compound the problem exponentially. The government cannot fix our problems. We can. We need to stop shifting the blame and asking the government to fix the things we can fix on our own.

As to how it became one sixth of the economy--it's because we provide health care for the world. Nearly every advance in medical technology, new drugs, new treatments comes out of the US. People from all over the world come here for medical training and treatment. And we as a people are accustomed to being able to go to the doctor any time we want to. It's one sixth because we're a prosperous nation and medical care is accessible."

I didn't have enough space to adequately respond to the gentleman's comment above, but tried to briefly. First of all, based on his comment, I'm led to believe he did not read the post. The whole purpose of the post was about what we can do as individuals. And to discount everything I said simply because he felt I was "finger-pointing" at the government, is counter-productive.

John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." One example of such a fact is the requirement that all hospitals must treat everyone, with or without insurance. You may argue the usefulness, the need or the success of this law as one part of the issue. But the separate fact of the issue is that it has increased the cost of health care for everyone in the US. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The fact of increased cost cannot be ignored.

The fact that states require insurance companies to cover an increasing number of mandates has raised the cost of health care for every employer and participant in a health plan. Again, you can debate whether it is right or wrong, but the facts are indisputable. In order to have a productive and honest discussion about health care reform, we must address the facts. There will also be a need to discuss the emotion and morality of the issues involved in health care. But we will come up with a wholly faulty solution if we fail to address the facts too. Some of the facts we must address are: What will it cost? Who will pay for it? What will be the consequences of the legislation, intended and unintended? Is the government capable of managing health care in light of its track record with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the VA, etc.? How will the public option affect private insurance? Will rationing result? These are stubborn facts that must not be ignored.

A second issue that was raised came about at the end of my response above, "It's one sixth (of our economy) because we're a prosperous nation and medical care is accessible." One reader, responded: "Accessible yes. Affordable no." This argument, is quite simply, frustrating to me. First of all, I disagree. Secondly, "affordability" is a relative issue. Health care is a business and like any business in this country it is responsive to supply and demand. Because we have a greater supply of quality health care, the demand increases, therefore the supply is increased to meet the demand. The problem is, that health care is expensive, especially the kind we're accustomed to. We're not talking about apples here, we're talking about expensive procedures like MRI's, CT scans, x-rays, and ultrasounds. The equipment for these procedures is incredibly expensive and as those in the health care world try to meet the demand they have to add expensive pieces of equipment. Do you think they get it for free? Our demands are one of the reasons that health care is so expensive.

Furthermore, any American could go to South America or the heart of Africa and get the best health care money could buy...there--it would be very affordable. I don't suppose they get a lot of MRI's there, but it would be affordable. I would like to drive a Cadillac Escalade, but I can't justify the expense and therefore it's not affordable. Does that mean someone's trampling on my right to drive an Escalade? We as Americans kindof lose our minds when it comes to health care. We get caught up in the emotion (understandably) and forget the stubborn facts. Fact #1: Health care is expensive. Fact #2: It's your responsibility. Fact #3: Life is hard. We think we should be able to get Cadillac health care on a Volkswagen budget. It doesn't work that way. And if we start paying "Volkswagen rates" for our health care, then we will get "affordable" prices and care that would rival anything you can get in any given third world country. Those of us who are responsible adults, budget for a home, car, food, utilities, etc. Why don't we budget for health care? Life is full of surprises both pleasant and unpleasant. Stuff happens and then we have to pay to fix it. When my fridge breaks, I have to pay to get another one, whether it's in the budget or not, or go without. If I had no health insurance and a sick child, I would do whatever I had to do to get the Cadillac health care and I would figure out how to pay for it. If I had to spend the rest of my life paying $20 a month to pay off the bill, I would. But I would pay for it. That's called personal responsibility.

The final comment was thought-provoking but I felt flawed in many ways. "A few questions: First, questions on personal responsibility: How can those with mental illness or extreme pressures of physical illness be expected to have personal responsibility (ie. the majority of those receiving treatments)? What % of the people that are "lifers" really would be able to succeed in a "personal responsibility" system? How many would fall through the cracks? Who is responsible for the well-being of the citizens of the USA? MANY nations take themselves out of the well being of their citizens and leave it up to them, is this a good model to follow? Is the question really about whether or not health care is a "right" or is it a basic need? Should the needs of society be made free to all American citizens? If health care shouldn't be a government issue then why is education? Why is there public education? Would our country benefit from following the models of other countries that have healthy citizens? Is there such a model out there?"

The premise of her questions are that the only two choices are either personal responsibility or the government (forgive me if I have misunderstood you). Certainly they are not. Personal responsibility is the ideal and is where we should all be destined. Obviously there are those among our citizenry who are incapable of that level of responsibility. We already make provision for them through Medicare/Medicaid. But there are also charitable organizations all over the country that do great works, we as individuals help each other out, Churchs help their members, neighbors help neighbors, communities rally around the needy and hospitals and doctors donate millions of dollars each year in care to the indigent and needy. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. But we don't blow up our house and start over just because we have a leaky faucet. Tearing this health care system down, starting over and putting the government in charge, is the equivalent. That assumes the government can then re-create a new, improved and flawless house in its place. That's a big leap of faith--not based on any stubborn facts, like their history.

"How can those with mental illness or extreme pressures of physical illness be expected to have personal responsibility (ie. the majority of those receiving treatments)?" The majority of people have insurance and jobs and they pay for it like they pay for the rest of their bills. That's how I expect them to have personal responsibility. We don't have to blow up the system to take car of the exception. We finds ways to treat the exception and keep the rule.

"What % of the people that are 'lifers' really would be able to succeed in a 'personal responsibility' system?" How will we know if we never give them the chance? You don't teach a child responsibility by sheltering them from the consequences of life. You also remove all incentive to improve your life situation by giving endless handouts. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for life." America is still the land of opportunity--if you don't like your life, then you can go to work and change it.

"Who is responsible for the well being of the citizens of the USA? MANY nations take themselves out of the well being of their citizens and leave it up to them, is this a good model to follow?" I am responsible for my own well-being. We are responsible for the well-being of our family. The government is responsible to get the heck out of the way. Is it a good model? Yes, we created it. It's called freedom. You are free to succeed or fail and the attending consequences. It's the only way to learn and progress.

"Is the question really about whether or not health care is a 'right' or is it a basic need? Should the needs of society be made free to all American citizens? If health care shouldn't be a government issue then why is education? Why is there public education?" First of all, if you're asking these questions then your public education has failed you miserably. Using public education is a very poor example. Many would argue that the government should not be in the business of education because they are botching it all over the country. We spend more per capita, with less to show for it than just about any country on earth. If that is an example of the government taking care of a right, it does nothing to generate my confidence in the their abilities. But I digress. No-one has a right to an education. We as a society have decided that it is of sufficient importance that we will provide it for all our citizenry (heck, we even provide it for non-citizens), that does not make it a right. Check the Bill of Rights: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html. The last right reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, yes, you have the right to go and get your own health care. The Constitution was established to "promote the general welfare" (not provide it) and "and secure the blessings of liberty". Those are your rights, along with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Declaration of Independence). You have the right to live, to be free and to chase happiness. There is no guarantee you will catch it, but you have the right to pursue it. Those are the rights, including those listed in the Bill of Rights that you are guaranteed in the founding documents of our nation.

To try and define health care as a right is simply...wrong. When we, as a nation, get in the business of becoming the nanny to all of our citizens we are destined for abject failure. All incentive to work hard, succeed and achieve will be destroyed and then who will pay for all the programs? There is not one single historical example of success where the government provides everything. Whether you label it socialism, communism, Naziism or the public option, it is all the same and history has shown it to fail in every case. The very wise Thomas Jefferson, author of the Constitution, said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." It matters not which party reigns, the more power we cede to the government, the less freedom we have. That is one of those stubborn facts that people choose to ignore all too often. You have the right to go and seek health care; you do not have the right to have the government pay for it. In fact, lets nix this talk of the the government ever paying for anything, because they don't generate a dime of income, they can only take it from one citizen and give it to another. You do not have the right to have your fellow-citizens and taxpayers (i.e. government) pay for your health care. Nor is it your right to have your fellow-citizens buy your food, house, car or anything else you think you have a right to. Go to work and get it. That's the American way. That's the responsible way.

"Would our country benefit from following the models of other countries that have healthy citizens? Is there such a model out there?" This implies that we have unhealthy citizens. I don't think that's accurate in the first place. Healthy compared to what and using what statistics? And when we aren't healthy, in many cases it's our own dumb fault. We overeat, we aren't active enough, we eat the wrong things. Are we to legislate that? In a movie called "The Island", Ewan McGregor's character got to have his urine tested every morning by a computer which determined what he was allowed to eat for breakfast. We must think beyond the "now" and look at the "next". You can't legislate "healthy" unless you're prepared to lose all your freedom. No thanks. Furthermore, I defy you to find one historical example of a continually increasing government leading to anything but the decreasing prosperity and freedom of any nation.

Let me conclude by saying this: The fabric of our nation is made stronger each time we serve and help each other. Americans are generous people, that is a big part of who we are. But by turning that charitable nature over to the anonymous government, we will be poorer for it. We will care less for our neighbors or for those in our community because of the assumption the government will take care it. You cannot legislate charity. On the flip-side, when you have a citizenry that is entitled, they become ungrateful and lazy. I have never appreciated anything as much, nor savored an achievement as deeply as when I have had to work hard to get it. Without the opportunity to work, to achieve, to serve and to be served when we need it, we as a nation will become completely selfish, isolated, unproductive and weak. To quote Ronald Reagan, "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." '

Special Guest Rant: So What Can We Do?

Welcome back to another edition of KG's to lazy to write his own rant. Actually today's rant is a republished blog from my cousin Lori, her original work can be found here http://uncommoncommonsense88.blogspot.com/2009/09/so-what-can-we-do.html

I don't necessarily agree with everything said, but at the same time I don't disagree. None the less, it is a very interesting perspective and I think should generate some entertaining comments. =)

Remember, play nice.

Cya in 7


"I have spent a lot of time picking apart the liberal plan for reforming health care in the U.S. I do not have any confidence in a government that cannot run anything cheaply or efficiently. They are the last people I would trust to manage one sixth of our economy--I wouldn't trust them to do my lawn care. So, it's high time to talk about what can and should be done instead. Here are some ideas that would go a long way to lowering the cost of health care for everyone without a government takeover of health care.

1) Individual responsibility:

As with anything in life, when we are directly responsible for the outcomes of our decisions, we are better for it, individually and as a society. That responsibility includes being accountable for our life choices, the amount of risks we take and paying our bills. It seems like a no-brainer doesn't it? Unfortunately, we have gotten away from that thinking in reference to our health care. If I choose to have multiple sexual partners, why is it anybody else's responsibility to pay for the resulting medical problems? If I choose to drive drunk, or recklessly, why should others pay for my choices? If I choose not to pay my financial obligations, it affects my fellow customers and increases costs for everyone. Is that okay? Others are not responsible to carry our weight for us--that is selfish and immature. That is one aspect of personal responsibility that needs to be considered.

The other aspect is the erroneous idea that health care is a right. Health care is a business, not a right. That sounds cold and sterile, but it is the truth. Like any business, it most be operated to turn a profit and meet its obligations or it will cease to exist. No one owes you health care. In fact, health insurance came about as a perk, offered by employers that needed more leverage than just wages to entice employees into their fold. Employer-based health insurance is relatively new to our economy (within the last few decades), but it evolved very quickly from a perk, to an expectation, to a right. You have the right to seek health care anywhere you want, but with that right, as with any other, comes responsibility--the responsibility to pay for it. That principle holds true to housing, food, cars and gas. I don't have the right to food or a house--I do have the right to work for it and the responsibility to pay for it. We must recognize the difference.

Having said the above, that does not preclude the need for help. Sometimes we find ourselves in trouble financially due to unexpected medical expenses and in need of help. That can come in many forms and should come in the following order: 1) Self: exhaust your savings if you must, but meet your obligations. 2) Family: draw on your immediate and/or extended family for support as they are able. 3) Church: look to those organizations that are already set up and organized to help people. 4) Community and charitable organizations: fund raisers in your local area to help you meet your needs, or the assistance of those organizations already established for that purpose. 5) Government: the last resort. Every dollar you get from the government was taken forcibly from the wallet of a fellow-citizen. Americans are among the most generous people in the world and also the most willing to render aid. In our collective looking to the government to solve problems, we eliminate the opportunity to serve and help one another, to be involved in each other's lives. Government programs do not engender a sense of community, they sterilize and mask the challenges we face as individuals and families. The fabric of our society is weaker for it. I would much rather keep and additional $100 from my paycheck, that rather than going to taxes, I could spend any way I see fit. And when someone needed the help, I would have the extra cash around to do so. And if you are among those who feel that government programs are the way to go, then you go ahead and pay all the taxes you want to pay. I'm sure the IRS won't turn away your dollars. But forcibly taxing money away from one group of citizens to help another group of citizens, is not charity, it's socialism. Trust us to be wise in the spending of our money, including how and when we want to help our fellow-man.

Medical reform will also require a change in our thinking, in taking responsibility for our medical care. I am as guilty of this as anybody else. When we go to the doctor and we are told we need additional treatment, my first question is always, "Will my insurance cover that?" That is not the right question. What we should be asking is: What will that accomplish? Is it necessary? How much will it cost? Would it be cheaper for me to pay for it out of pocket? Will it be successful? What are the possible outcomes? How can we cut costs? What would you do, independent of the insurance company's influence? These are the kinds of questions that will return the responsibility for medical choices to us and to our doctors. We should be just as careful with the costs for our treatment as we would be if we were to pay every penny out of pocket. I guarantee that will change things. To that end, see number 2 below.

2) Health Savings Accounts and higher deductibles:

One of the most underused tools in our medical savings arsenal, is the HSA. Very few of us know the benefits and how easy they are to use. Part of the problem is that it's our responsibility to set it up and make it happen; no one will do it for you. We finally got around to it, determined what we would deposit in our account each month and the bank we worked with sent us a debit card that will directly access our account. It is our money and it will roll over from year to year, earning interest, if we don't use it all. Once we reach retirement, we can then use the money for whatever we need, not just medical expenses. And it is all pre-tax dollars. It is a great way to prepare for unexpected medical expenses and to benefit from your planning if you don't ever need it for that purpose.

The deductible on our health insurance is quite high, higher than I'm used to. We therefore funded our HSA to match our $5,000 deductible, which amounts to a little over $400/month. I realize that not everyone will be able to do that, but for those of us who can, it's a great benefit. And for those who can afford it, but choose not to carry health insurance, it's an excellent way to pay for their medial care with tax-free dollars.

Having that higher deductible has greatly changed my perspective on going to the doctor. It's not like we were running to the doctor every month, but since so much of that money comes out of our pocket, we are very careful how we spend it. We include cost factors when making our medical decisions, which makes us wiser consumers. It's funny how we weigh cost with every other decision we make when we make purchases, but got away from that when it came to our health care. We now do a better job of cutting costs where we can and seeking better prices when available.

3) Everyone should pay something:

Free stuff is great. Everyone loves free stuff. But as a consistent modus operandi in society, free stuff can be detrimental. We all know spoiled children who get everything they want, are never required to work and have no responsibilities. They are intolerable to be around. Our society has its share of "spoiled children" who have gotten so much "free stuff" that they are equally intolerable. I'm not talking about people who have fallen on hard times for a period; that could happen to any of us. I'm talking about the lifers, who expect society to provide for their needs; those who feel the world owes them a living. That way of thinking breeds a lack of responsibility, productivity and self-respect. It is very damaging to our society as a whole. It would benefit both the individuals concerned and the country if everyone was required to pay something for their health care. Even if it were only $5, that would accomplish several purposes. It would make people think twice before they run off the ER as their primary care physician--the most expensive medical care in the US. They would reconsider unnecessary office visits. It would give them the dignity of having paid for a part of their care. Anything they're told by the doctor will be taken more seriously when it hits their pocketbook. And for those who don't even have $5, we can figure something out. That's where the generous American spirit steps in and we help each other out.

4) Return medical decisions to the doctor and patient:

It is time for us to regain control of the relationship with our doctors. We have allowed our insurance coverage to dictate our care for too long. I have learned that my annual pap smear is generally a waste of money. The only man I've ever been with is my husband. At most, I would probably only need a pap smear every 3-5 years because I don't participate in risky sexual behaviors necessitating an annual pap smear. Because the insurance pays for it, it costs the system unnecessary money. On the other hand, my husband is at great risk for prostate cancer due to his family's medical history. We need to be pro-active and make sure he gets the proper screening, at an earlier age than normal, whether the insurance will pay for it or not. We must have a conversation with our doctor, like the one I listed above, and return the decision-making to where it belongs. The responsibility lies with the doctor to do his/her best and we make a decision together and live with the consequences. That kind of decision-making would also eliminate a lot of malpractice lawsuits. In fact, I heard once that the difference between doctors who get sued and those who don't, is three minutes. Those who don't get sued, spend an average of three more minutes with their patients than those who do. Nothing complicated about that.

5) Increase Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements:

One of the biggest contributing factors to the increasing cost of medical care lies directly on the doorstep of the federal government. The reimbursement rates of doctors who treat Medicare/Medicaid patients are ridiculously low. As in any business, if a customer doesn't pay or under-pays the owner, he must make up those costs elsewhere to keep his business afloat. Doctors have overhead just like any other business: employees pay, employee benefits, office space, office supplies, medical supplies, medical equipment and their whopping malpractice insurance premiums. The fact that they are running a business is not a measure of their compassion. Doctors perform more pro bono work than in any other business and they get little or no credit for it. In fact, most people don't even know they do it--and they do it because they are compassionate, not so they can go around talking about it. Every hospital in this country writes off millions of dollars every year in unpaid bills. How many of us think of that when we're complaining about the cost of the great care we get from our medical system? The government's refusal to pay doctors and hospitals a fair reimbursement costs all of us a lot of money. The next time you see your doctor, ask about it. You will be shocked. And in the end, it causes many doctors to drop patients with Medicare/Medicaid because they simply cannot afford to treat them anymore. The government compounds the problem of "the uninsured" through their short-sighted policies based on emotion, not sound economic principles. This is a glaring example of a well-meaning but inept government, whose good intentions don't always match the results.

6) Tort reform:

Any discussion of health care reform that doesn't include tort reform is just plain silly. Every doctor, because of the lawsuit happy society we live in, is required to carry malpractice insurance. Before your doctor ever starts making any money in any given fiscal year, he/she must pay the malpractice premium which runs anywhere from $60,000 to $150,000 per year. How many small business owners could handle that? The premiums vary from specialty to specialty and from state to state, but the costs of those premiums are, of necessity, passed on to the patient. Every time someone brings a frivolous malpractice lawsuit to court and every time the jury makes a ridiculous pain and suffering award, the premiums go up and so does the cost of your health care.

I am not suggesting that people should not be able to bring malpractice lawsuits, that's not what tort reform is. Tort reform, would not prohibit lawsuits. It would not limit the money required to right the wrong. It would cap the pain and suffering awards at say $2 million, for example, instead of $22 million. It would also require the loser to pay the court costs for both parties. So, if you have an ambulance-chasing lawyer, looking to get rich, who brings a frivolous case to court, they are going to make sure their client can pay them first. And if you have a gold-digger, thinking they are going to put the screws to the rich doctors, they either better have a solid, legitimate case, or be prepared to pay the legal fees.

Furthermore, I must go back to the personal responsibility idea. Doctors are not gods--they are imperfect people doing the very best they can with the limited information they have. They know much, but there are still vast amounts of information yet to be discovered. Nonetheless, we expect them to have all the answers and never make a mistake. Do we hold ourselves to that same standard? Stuff happens. Doctors cannot control the human body, they cannot foresee every complication or problem that may arise in treating a unique and very individual patient. Complications and mistakes are not malpractice. It's part of life. We need to recognize that fact and accept the idea that something could go wrong. That doesn't mean it's the doctor's fault or that there has to be someone to blame. Malpractice is when someone is incompetent, willfully negligent or grossly under-trained. If lawsuits were brought, rightfully so, in just those cases, they would be few and far between.

This is actually an area where the government could be useful. Tort reform would severely reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and thereby reduce malpractice premiums out of the stratosphere. As the premiums go down, so goes the overhead and the costs passed on the to the patient. Furthermore, if doctors weren't in constant fear of being sued, they wouldn't practice defensive medicine. When doctors are practicing defensive medicine, they order twelve tests instead of the necessary one, out of fear they might get sued. So, to cover their behinds and because the insurance will pay for it, we spend millions of dollars per year on unnecessary tests, etc. Once again, that increases the costs for all of us.

7) Tax deductions for pro bono care:

There are a few bad apples here and there in the medical world, but most physicians are very caring, concerned and conscientious practitioners. Unheralded, doctors do a lot of free work for those that simply can't afford it. At present, they are not allowed to use that as a tax write-off. Why not? It's charitable work. That doesn't stop doctors from doing it, but why not encourage it? Doctors are slammed with high income taxes, which includes the "income" they use to pay malpractice premiums. I think it would encourage even more pro bono work, if they could also get the tax benefits. We have plenty of economic history to prove this principle--as taxes go up, charitable donations go down and vice versa. It doesn't take a genius to understand that.

8) Cash discounts:

Try negotiating with your doctor about the costs of your care. Most doctors are willing to offer you a discount for full payment on the day of service. It is cheaper for them to take a discount off the top than it is to go through the hassle of filing a claim and waiting, waiting, waiting for reimbursement. It will save you money and will save him money.

9) Open insurance up to actual competition:

The current health insurance system is really weird. "They" keep talking about the fact that we need "choice and competition". I agree. But creating a government form of insurance (i.e. Medicaid) has done and will do nothing for the cost of insurance. That's not real competition. Let's look at auto insurance. It's required for all drivers to carry minimum coverage and the insurance industry has adjusted to compete for those policies. You can go almost anywhere in the country to find an auto insurance policy that will meet your needs in terms of cost and coverage. You can't do that with health insurance. Health insurers won't insure individuals, which makes it almost impossible for small employers or the self-employed to get affordable health insurance. You are also not allowed to shop outside of your state for health insurance. That restriction limits the competition and therefore the price. If an employer is shopping for employee coverage, he is usually limited to just two or three insurers within his state. That's not real competition. And it usually leads to the biggest insurer driving out the smaller ones. If the competition were opened up nationwide, the best companies, who provided the best coverage for the best price, would rise to the top. The other companies would either improve their coverage and costs or they would go out of business. Good old American capitalism would do more for the insurance marketplace than any government program ever could. Surely those same capitalists can find a way to make insurance available to the self-employed and small businesses.

Government meddling has caused other problems here as well. Over-regulation in individual states has raised the costs of health insurance for everyone. That has come about as state governments have legislated more and more coverage mandates (for example, some states have mandated coverage for elective procedures such as sex changes or prescription coverage of Viagra). What that means is that the minimum policy is required to have more mandated coverage. Insurance companies base their premiums on their perceived risks of a payout. Each mandated coverage item therefore increases the premium for everybody. Again, that limits competition and makes it hard for insurance companies to provide the kinds of policies that would sell like crazy in the marketplace. If we, as the consumer, could actually buy some minimum coverage, like catastrophic coverage at a minimum price and have the flexibility to actually purchase the coverage we need, that would change the whole health insurance landscape. But because of government regulations, that cannot be done right now. Another example of governmental good intentions with short-sighted policies.

In the end, there's very little that the government can or should do. I'm not a business major, I'm not a economist, but I am a pretty smart consumer. These things are common sense ideas that would encourage the government to pass tort reform, de-regulate the insurance industry and let the marketplace do it's thing. These changes, coupled with an increased infusion of personal responsibility when it comes to health care, could solve most of our problems. We live in the greatest country that has ever existed on the earth. It is filled with brilliant and generous people, full of ideas who love to face a challenge and solve a problem. Let's not look to the government, let's look to ourselves. We, the people, need to fix this and help our representatives understand that the best thing they can do is get out of the way. I certainly haven't covered every possible fix and I would love to hear other ideas. Maybe this is the kind of thing we should be discussing with our government representatives."

Welcome to Wednesday!

Apparently last weeks rant was so unappreciated that the guest rants just came pouring in. ;) So this week we will be graced with some rantings from Sarah.

Cya in 7

"The prophet said to plant a garden, so that's what we'll do...

Anyone else remember that song?

What else has the prophet said recently? Get your house in order. Have a year supply of food. Have a 72 hour kit. Don't pierce your body, other than women who can have one pair of earrings. Don't get tattoos. Follow the word of wisdom. Don't look at pornography. I know I'm leaving stuff out, because I don't have all day. I could go ON AND ON AND ON about what the prophet has told us to do and not to do.

That said, I am a recovering alcoholic and addict. And I have a tattoo. And, I am about to get another one after a brief stint of addiction to Oxycontin. As of writing this, I am 32 days clean and sober, and , God willing, by the time it gets published 6 days from now, I will be at 40.

I won't go into details or defend why I am getting my tattoo. Quite frankly, I'm not married to any of you, nor are you my mother, and the reasons are personal.

But here's what gets me. A "friend" that I've known for a long time asked me why I felt okay about getting one after the prophet specifically came out and said not to. Okay, that really set me off, but because we've been friends for a long time, I had a FAR too lengthy discussion with her about my reasons. She disagrees. I knew she would, and honestly, that's fine. But when she asked me what it cost, the line had been crossed. I was not about to tell her that. None of it was any of her business, and the financial aspect of it was especially none of her business. So I told her I wasn't telling her that. Her response? "Why? Is it completely atrocious? Or are you paying for it with sex?"

WHAT???? So getting a tattoo automatically makes me a whore? SHAME on you. NO WONDER people with multiple tattoos feel so uncomfortable in our church buildings. Our stake president said that the best smell you could have in the chapel is cigarette smoke. YEP, he sure did. You know why? It's a sanctuary for the sinner, not a country club for the righteous. And in this high concentration of Mormon population, I find that there has never been a more judgmental bunch of people, EVER.

I have a friend who is (dare I say it?) an atheist. When her son was in 2nd grade, he had children from our faith and a couple of others tell him on the playground that he is going to hell because he doesn't believe in God. Are you kidding me, people? Is this how you honestly think Jesus would want you to behave, first of all? And, secondly, do you think that you are helping the name of Mormonism, or hurting it? What do you think would do more for the conversion of this little boy's belief in God, kids being his friend, or condemning him to hell because of his non-belief (which, incidentally is SO not their place)? Thankfully, my own children were not involved in this, and we had a family meeting about it and my husband and I told all of our children that we wanted to make sure they knew that was NOT acceptable behavior. I am teaching my children to be kind to EVERYONE no matter the color of their skin, their choice of God, or choice of no God, etc. When I was living in Utah, and President Hinckley had to come out at a regional conference and say that the members needed to teach their kids that they weren't better than the kids of other faiths, etc., and I remember just being horrified that it even needed to be said.

What happened to common sense and the golden rule? What happened to Jesus said love everyone? (anyone remember THAT song?)

Yes, I am getting a tattoo. Yes, the prophet has told us not to. I have two words for all of you: FREE AGENCY
If you have nothing better to do than to be judgmental about what I'm doing, perhaps you should talk to your bishop. Maybe the two of you can unrighteously judge me together. Or maybe you can remember that Jesus said to the crowd of the woman taken in adultery, "Let he who is perfect among you cast the first stone."

You know, manure is great when it's spread around the field, but when it's in a great big pile, it sure does STINK."

Well Done Thou Good And Faithful Servant

Happy hump day! Hope y'all had a good labor day weekend. Today's rant is more of a quandary than a complaint. But I have been thinking about it for some time, and would like to get it out in writing to see what comes up. So if you think it sucks I expect a guest rant from you in my inbox by next Tuesday.

In the Bible there is a parable of the talents. I'm sure any of you that have ever gone to a Sunday School or perused the Bible have heard of it. It's found in Matthew 25:15-30, in case you want to dust off your Bible and take a look. Anyway, the point of the parable I wanted to discuss is that we all have supposedly been given talents. Some people have been given many talents, and others just a few. And we are supposed to use these talents so they will develop and increase.

For years I have pondered over what talents do I have. And besides being damn sexy, I couldn't think of anything. Then it occurred to me, maybe not all talents are "good". As I started to think outside of the box I came up with a longer list of things I am really good at that I guess I could call talents. Here are a couple that I am most proud of.

I'm really good at making people cry, and not in the good way. If have a gift for upsetting people so much that it drives them to tears. Man and woman alike, doesn't matter how tough you think you are I can make you cry.

I'm a talented arguer. I can argue about anything, for any reason, with anyone. Even if I whole heartedly disagree with the stance I take, I can argue it for hours. And I don't even need to know anything about that which I'm arguing. Plus I will argue just for fun when there really isn't a need to argue. I'm sure my wife will vouch for that. =)

This last one may be more of a hobby than a talent, but I love to antagonize people and do it with ninja like skills. I can quickly learn a person's buttons. And just like any other adolescent, I love to push buttons.

Now I know you've not heard anything surprising or previously unknown so far. And I'm not making this list to be boastful, even though boasting is on my talent list. I'm just setting the stage for my question.

If talents are God given gifts that we are expected to "use or lose" then why is it considered uncouth for me to use my talents? Or do you suppose that since my talents are based on contention, and contention is of the devil, that my talents may not be from God? Lets hear your opinion.

Cya in 7

Guest Rant: Life's A Beach

Hello all! Happy hump day! We have a special treat today, a guest rant from Emi Neubauer. I think it's pretty darn funny. So without further delay....


Cya in 7



"

For the past ten years (whoa) I've been married to a military officer, but not just any military, the red headed step-child of the "armed forces" the Coast Guard. And by the very nature of its name, my husband's job is to "Guard" the "Coast" which means we have had the (ahem) honor to live in some pretty sweet areas of our great country.

For example: We currently live in Hawaii. We moved here from Washington, D.C. and so on and so forth. Now, this rant isn't about idiots out on the American Waterways, this rant is about tourists.

Being that we currently live in what is (arguably) the top tourist hotspot in America, the island is crawling with folks who, since they are "on vacation", demand being catered to 24/7.

Tourists are great, they're always good for a good heartfelt laugh when walking down the street in their fanny packs, cheap Hawaiian print shirts, black socks pulled up to their knobby knees under sandals, and video cameras hanging off their necks. But, come on people. Some of us have lives we have to live. Yes, People live here.... the rest of us did not get off the cruise ship with you.

When you are dining out in a restaurant, this might be a really big deal to you, so much so that you have to TALK REALLY LOUD SO EVERYONE CAN HEAR YOU SQUAKING INTO YOUR CELL PHONE ABOUT HOW YOU ARE IN HONOLULU! YEAH! I KNOW!! ITS BEAUTIFUL HERE!!"

Seriously? The rest of us? Don't need to hear about "the fantastic price you paid for your ticket, but dear god! It's expensive here!!!" We know.... we live it.

We are just trying to enjoy our meal. You know. US. The people who have to live on this island you come to, go to a luau, ride your duck boat tour down the street staring at all the rest of us just trying to take our kids to school, and go to jobs that we hate, that pay crap so we can spend it on stuff you can buy for 20%-40% cheaper when you go back to North Dakota, or Alabama, or wherever it is you came from.

And something else? We all don't exist to serve you. They didn't make me sign a waiver that I would become a personal tourist concierge before they allowed me to move here.

Living in D.C. was similar, although a little more tolerable, since D.C. tourists come with a sense of reverence to see America's Capital City. Usually the older retired set, or families with children bringing them on a personal history lesson. Not like here, where people come to get "lei'd" and want to do nothing more then sit on a beach drinking mai tais.

Just remember this: Wherever you go, whatever you do, Have fun, enjoy your stay, but keep in mind that the rest of us have to go to Safeway and buy the toilet paper you wipe your Topeka Kansas ass on.

"