From the Porch…

What is Government’s Role?

Recently I engaged in an email discussion with a close friend regarding the health care debate. The more interesting aspect was the redirect from her attacking a position I had taken regarding privacy rights, unrelated to health care, to an attack stating that I did not think seniors deserved end of life counseling.

I have to be honest with you, before August I had never considered phrases like “death panels” or “end of life counseling”. But, as we all know, these terms hit the airwaves and became dinner talk for many of us. I personally felt Sarah Palin did a great service to everyone by bringing attention to just one of the many possible issues open for debate within healthcare reform legislation. At the same time though, Ms. Palin’s methodology of exaggeration damages her credibility and makes it tougher to engage in genuine conversation regarding a sensitive issue.

After several readings of my email reply to my friend I could not find anywhere I said seniors did not deserve end of life counseling. Carefully I crafted a reply to my friend, one that I want to share with you:

“First, I never said seniors should not have end of life counseling, how could you infer that from my note? But, let’s presume they should. The first question to answer would be who should provide it? I certainly would not want a government staff employee to provide this service. What would we base their performance appraisal on, the number of seniors that refuse future health care benefits or the number of seniors they counsel that argue they want to live longer? Furthermore, if the government is going to provide end of life counseling, shouldn’t there be benefits for marriage counseling, divorce counseling, parenting counseling and middle-age counseling to ensure you are on the right track? It is obvious any hazardous activity would have to be counseled.”

I do not think the founding fathers intended for the State to provide this level of counseling or care to its citizens. In 1776 I believe the focus of the founding fathers was on the concepts of liberty and freedom due to the recent tyranny and oppression which they had just escaped and shed blood to have independence. The founding fathers stood firm and fought for our freedoms. Unfortunately, I believe time has caused descendants of these men to forget why we are the best country on earth and why other countries want to be like us.

We must look at history to get perspective and context. The founding fathers wanted a limited government because they knew what happened when a dependency (junkie/dealer) relationship is created. Over time other statesmen have endeavored to remind us how to avoid becoming a victim of our own success and desires. Gerald Ford said it succinctly, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

I do not believe government health care reform should involve end of life counseling. My belief is not due to lack of sympathy or compassion, but because I believe it is not the role of the State to provide, fund, or facilitate that counseling. The role of government my friend is what we should debate.

Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

Mainstream Media

When I was a kid there were three commercial televisions networks, PBS, and an independent station or two. News came from a 30-minute local broadcast at 6:00pm and was followed immediately by a 30-minute network newscast. The daily paper was on our driveway every morning and was supplemented by “The Today Show”. Throughout the day AM radio would air news on the hour. That is the media with which I grew up, and not until Ted Turner’s Cable News Network did the idea of 24-hour news flowing into our living room become a possibility. This was quickly followed by the abbreviated version with “Headline News”. Ultimately, other entrepreneurs followed with “The Weather Channel”, “C-Span”, and areas of specific interest like financial news.

All of the above media suffer from their own problems, usually attributed to their delivery method. The 24-hour channels find themselves without enough information to fill the day so they turn to commentary. The daily newspaper is typically 24-48 hours behind events due to publishing and delivery methods. Lastly, the major networks conceive their stories in the morning and build a broadcast around a concept that is not reactive to change or daytime events.

Personally, I feel “news” means the presentation of information or events. Unfortunately, what many view as news is colored commentary or persuasive opinion. For example, “A man robbed a bank” would be objective news reporting. On the other hand, “A burly man from the low-income neighborhood robbed a bank” could paint an entirely different picture in your mind. The simple use of adjectives and commentary has flowed into the news and tainted the objectivity of reporting and the average person is historically ignorant to this manipulation by accepting formerly credible news outlets at face value.

I would assert all media is “mainstream.” With television, newspaper, radio, and the internet we can access any news source at anytime. Every day I read multiple international and domestic newspapers, wire services, watch network news broadcasts, and scour several newsfeeds. I see trends in news and who is, or is not, reporting events. At the same time I also filter the adjectives and objectively form my own opinions. The insinuation of a domestic conspiracy in reporting is obvious when reviewing live, objective newsfeeds from around the world. I am intrigued by the three major networks presenting the same stories, in the same order day after day. I also wonder how major papers like the “New York Times” and “Washington Post” can have nearly identical front pages and editorial comments.

I believe the “Legacy” media is failing to provide objective reporting to its audience. Worse, it is not necessarily what, or how, it is reported, but the failure to report. For example, the “New York Times” made a conscious decision to withhold a story during the presidential election of 2008 that most likely would have changed the outcome of candidate choices. Most recently, the legacy broadcasting networks, the “New York Times”, and the “Washington Post” failed to provide timely reporting of events leading up to the resignation of a government official. Once upon a time I believe these legacy information outlets prided themselves on getting “the scoop” but it appears that is no longer the case.

The term “Mainstream Media” implies an accusation or conspiracy to promote an agenda. Some object to this, but the pattern has emerged over decades. The new method of story absence, however, is a covert method to undermine the “mainstream” argument. Objectivity would allow me to form opinions and omission of news is more manipulative than colored commentary.

The Wrong Debate

Health Insurance is not a right. It is not an entitlement, not a guarantee. I have searched the Constitution for insight into the current debate and noted that the founding fathers did not identify health insurance as an inalienable right. Stop and note, I did not say that health care is not a right. What is taking place in America today is the wrong debate and it is packaged under words like “health care reform”. But, no one is debating whether health care in America is adequate; in fact it is easily described as the best in the world with people seeking medical treatment in this country from around the world. The issue is cost, and who should pay for health care.

Unfortunately, when the wrong debate takes place too many people get trapped by the play on emotions. I always suggest taking a step back and asking “why”?

Why do we have health insurance? The health insurance debate began 100 years ago as medical technology improved and Progressives made calls for compulsory insurance. In 1920, these attempts failed as they were associated with the socialist policies of the Germans in WWI. By WWII though, more expensive hospital stays, successes by the “Blues”, and tax incentives made employee benefit programs such as insurance appealing. Ordinary citizens put a priority on access to health care, regardless of cost. Prior to that time, we paid our doctor when we needed treatment. Of course, sometimes a person did not have the resources to pay their doctor, but that did not mean they would not receive treatment. Unlike today, it was treatment first and pay later.

Why does health care in America cost so much? First, medical malpractice has increased the cost of basic overhead requiring doctors and hospitals to charge fees to offset this cost. Second, the government will only pay certain amounts on Medicare claims thus requiring all other payers to subsidize the costs of benefits to these recipients.

Why do doctors get paid so much? One of my concerns is this new debate in America over wages, basically class envy. In short, if being a brain surgeon were easy then we all would be doing it. I watched the anesthesiologist insert an epidural in my wife’s spine prior to the delivery of our son. I am a smart guy, an engineer that handled hazardous chemicals with explosive potential, but you could not pay me enough money to do what he did. These educated, skillful individuals deserve every amount of the wages they earn as they hold our lives in their hands. I want absolutely the best person doing that job. I do not see a doctor’s job as a “staff” position equivalent to a mid-level manager nor do I feel my plumber should earn more. Heck, Congressmen earn $176,000/year and doctors are more educated, more trained, and care about me.

I have not offered a solution, because now we can debate the issue. Let’s agree that everyone is entitled to health care, but not to health insurance. Let’s agree that we have a great medical system with the best doctors in the world. And, let’s agree that health insurance is a nice convenience to offset catastrophe, but as individuals we are accountable for the health services we use and need to pay our bills. A large, government run health care insurance program is not the solution to the problems at hand.

Copyright © 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

Duck! It’s a Flying Car!

I was born in 1967, at the height of the hippie counter culture during the summer of love. The war in Vietnam was escalating, but was not quite an evening presence in our living rooms. As a nation we were focused on getting to the moon and beating back the Soviets. A computer filled a room, but had less computing power than today’s digital watches. A color TV was an expensive marvel and “Made in Japan” was synonymous with “cheap”.

As a child in the early 1970’s, Evil Knevil was idolized, I saw television shows such as Star Trek and repeats of “Lost in Space”. I remember seeing the Bell Telephone book with pictures of people talking in the future on videophones and could not wait to go to Disney World to fill my head with more images of “Tomorrow land”. The year 2000 was so far away, but yet full of promises that we would be driving flying cars, watching TV on walls, and living on the moon. Doors would open and close with sounds as we approached them, lights would activate automatically, and we would talk to computers; living like George Jetston.

Some parts of that vision have come true as I do have flat panel televisions that hang like pictures, carry a communicator (cell-phone) in my pocket, not unlike “James T. Kirk”, and motion detectors open store doors and turn lights on and off. But the other technologic visions have escaped us. I traded my SUV two years ago, a vehicle which weighed as much as my Dad’s 1969 Ford Galaxy, and averaged the same gas mileage. In 35years we have accomplished little more in our ability to achieve a presence on the moon than where we were in 1973; having had no man step foot on our orbiting satellite since the last, Gene Cernan, left his mark.

On one hand, we have done so many things well: advances in medicine such as artificial hearts, efficiencies in agricultural, computers for the masses, and less costly access to education and travel. At the same time, our near God-like abilities have blinded us to changes taking place around us and created a near mass delusional acceptance of our abilities. The average American is more concerned with Britney Spears than the presidential election, last nights sports scores more than yesterday’s stock market, and planning a summer vacation than events in hostile world regions.

Natural disasters have struck several times in this country in the last decade demonstrating the average citizen cannot care for himself. Hurricane Katrina and its images of personal lollygagging without the wherewithal to save one’s self is an excellent example. I would asset the average person believes food comes from a can and has no understanding of how to care for himself. Other disasters such as flood, mass power failures, and California earthquakes have further driven home this problem that we are no longer the conquerors of technology and environment but have been conquered by our own success.

I want my flying car. I want the promises that were made to me as a kid by the generation that I am now paying social security to out of my paycheck. I want those advances to move forward and allow us to live on the moon and leave this planet. Instead, checks are being written that will further indebt out nation to others and ultimately force is back to a pre-industrialized agrarian society. Via increased energy costs, government bailouts, and trade deficits we are transferring our wealth to other nations and ultimately onto the backs of our children. In my opinion, it is more likely that we will be riding horses than driving flying cars in the future.