Smacked In The Face (A dialogue on healthcare)

Welcome back to Portland State. As Alum, I feel a particular joy saying that. It was only in 2004 that I transferred to Portland State from a small, rural Community College up in Washington State. Within months, I experienced “hippies” chaining themselves to gas pumps downtown, pouring fake blood on themselves screaming “There is blood on our hands for this oil!” As well, I saw my future wife’s booth get attacked by some peace loving person’s during the Yes on 36 campaign. This was all in my first four months at PSU. This year will be no different. Whether left, right, center or any place on the political spectrum, you will not be able to get away from the political machine till after November. So when you are yelling at your pot-smoking anarchist roommate or your polo-wearing conservative roommate, you might as well read this bit of non-biased info on healthcare, so your yells are more educated.
Ah healthcare, you deny its existence until you need it. We as “younger” people do not realize the importance of a doctor till we are so sick we think we are going to die, or one of our legs is missing. Many of us have romantic views that a doctor is only a call away, and they totally still do house calls. They even taking payment in the form of chicken eggs, or at least some nasty old pizza. The truth is, many do not understand our healthcare system. So they listen to “their” people and regurgitate what they say. You hear the lefty yell, “Our healthcare is broken!” and the righty say, “let the free market fix it!” That’s like saying a blind man could find Al Gores pulse, its not going to happen.
Here are some really naked facts. I’m talking like an awkward man found hiding in rose bushes (www.redding.com, search “naked man”). The fact is this; the monkey wrench in this fun fiasco is lovingly called “cost shifting.” Here’s the story with facts provided by the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems.
There are four types of customers: those on Medicare, those on Medicaid, the insured, and the uninsured. The Medicare (for the elderly) and Medicaid (for the income challenged) are government programs that are full of bureaucracy and awesome red tape. Commercial insurance (the insured) is regulated by the insurance commissioner and is regulated both federally and in each state. The uninsured are easy, its those college students, non-employed, and other people not on commercial insurance, or unable to get the government help.
The great news is that these lefty’s who yell about government ran healthcare do not realize but their babies Medicaid and Medicare only pay 65 cents on every “care dollar.” So, if you are on Medicaid and you have $100 worth of procedures done, Medicaid will only pay for $65 dollars worth. That puts the hospital or clinic in the red. So where can they get it? From you of course – those that have commercial insurance. The “free market” seems to favor commercial enterprises that actually pay, and commercial insurance is no exception. So, when you go to the doctor they charge you more, to make up the $35 they lost on the Medicaid patient. The same is true for the uninsured. That is the skinny on “cost shifting” and it is one of the main problems within our healthcare industry. On a side note, it is state law that you must be seen if you visit the ER. So many people go to the ER for heartburn, regular check-ups and de-toxing.

Quality and Universal

The myth behind quality universal healthcare and why all is not lost



J. A. Hoffman



The presidential election in 2008 will probably include much discussion about healthcare until the election, pundits will continue to sound off on the issue. However as an active member of the Republican Party, I must come to a conclusion on the issue as well as come up with an intellectually, philosophically and fiscally responsible answer.
I believe that our system is flawed and is at a point where the public opinion must be answered. In developing my answer to this question, I interviewed a medical doctor, Chris Nelson, who practices medicine in the specialty of pediatrics. I presented him with the proposed Californian plan (see the editorial in the Spectator's February issue). His response was one of apprehension to the required pay-in to the system by employers, hospitals doctors was and doubt of it having a positive overall effect on the industry and the macro-economy. The plan has employers paying all the cost of healthcare for their employees or paying 4 percent into the system. Dr. Nelson commented that this would have an adverse effect on the macro economy forcing cooperation's to lower compensation to employees and in fact limit the incentive for cooperation's to keep high employment in the American sector, rather cost-benefit ratio would force company's to move jobs overseas. It limits the incentive for employers to continue creating jobs with the expressed knowledge that they would be required by governmental mandate to provide healthcare for their employers. This mandate in effect would force businesses to find other venues for employees in less a restrictive political environment.
The plan also includes forced payment by doctors of 2 percent gross compensation which Dr. Nelson opined that that could be as high as 10 percent net of medical doctors pay. As well, the plan includes a 4 percent tax on hospitals. Which is the most damaging tax, says Dr. Nelson. Most hospitals only break even by the end of fiscal year. Consequently, this tax would have to be balanced by something else, the continued increase in medical costs and a decrease in incentive for highly educated medical professionals.
Dr. Nelson also commented on how the average family pays for medical expenses. The most common method is co-pay with private insurance provided by an employer or bought privately. As well, many people who seek medical care for their children are on some form of governmental plan. As well, some people choose to pay for care out of pocket simply by the good old method of cash. The system is very forgiving as well. Dr. Nelson informed me that if a patient cannot pay, hospitals under the Providence Healthcare System right it off. It is against the spirit of healthcare to send collections after people who cannot pay for a hospital visit.
Technology is another area our system is known for. While it is expensive, our medical technology is first class. Part of the problem with universal systems is there are no profit incentives for firms who innovate and manufacture medical technology like 3-D Ultrasound. In Canada and the Scandinavian country's there is no profit incentive for technology. For example if you are suffering from headaches and other systems of a brain tumor, you will have to wait up to a year to get a simple CAT scan. Well, you could be dead before then. Nelson commented this is why so many Canadians come to America for cancer treatment.
To stop the raising cost of healthcare, we need to pass Tort reform. When someone sues a hospital for 50 million dollars, that hospitals insurance costs skyrocket. This is why healthcare is so cheap in Cuba, India and other similar country's. You cannot sue the doctor. If they leave a sponge in you after a surgery, that's to bad. Our costs are not due to greedy doctors. Nor are they due to greedy insurance companies. While they are difficult to work with sometimes (Dr. Nelson can vouch for this), they serve their purpose. Rather, it is the "jackpot" settlements (those settlements for millions of dollars) that increase costs for everyone. There is an incompatibility of our economic system with socialized healthcare as well. While our system is imperfect, I would rather have a system that is a world innovator and leader. Yes, it takes a few minutes to fill out paperwork and deal with insurance issues, but if I take ill with something serious I know that I live in a nation with a first class healthcare system.

Limiting Freedom

How Oregon may continue the Socialist agenda

J. A. Hoffman


I hail from Washington. I moved to Portland to attend university. Well, I became depressed when my home state passed a law in '04 putting restrictions on land use and property rights in the form of some high and mighty "assist you in quiting" smoking ban. I thought that there must be some outcry from the large minority. Allow the free market to solve our problems, not government. If you do not want to breath smoke, go to another establishment. Here in Portland, many bars survive on customers who light up in their bar. While researching this article I viewed a clip from channel 8 on the purposed ban. One person interviewed said, "I would like to see it pass, I only smoke here, not in my home. It would help me quit." Sell off your land, forget your dreams of a start up business and get ready to socialize, the Pinko's are at the gate. I am not a heartless capitalist. I believe government is a necessary evil to provide defense, mediation and help those who do not receive help from private charity. If I sell my labor (whether for $8.50 an hour or $150 an hour), save and start a business, I should own that business. If I want to smoke in my business, I should be able to. The effects of alcohol are damaging. Why not outlaw that? I realize smoking bans are for second hand smoke. But your sucking on a burning piece of organic matter. Its your choice. The beauty is, most of the bills nation wide are purposed by democrats. Those same ones who say, "keep your laws off my body." I believe in protecting the minority. The fact is, extreme capitalism and extreme socialism do not work. We need a mix of both. I fall into the camp that says we need to champion personal choice (inside rational law). Our democratic Republicanism works very well. Let us make laws on what is acceptable and not acceptable. However, when the tyrannical majority tells the minority, who in the case hold the liberty high ground, what to do, someone has to step up and cry foul. Abortion is legal, our schools are socialized, our health care is headed that way and business is under attack. Give this liberty lover one victory and join those against this abashment of freedom. I do not even smoke, yet I know when to step up and swing for an unrepresented minority. Let us stay a country based upon protection of liberty. Let us remember it was a minority that wanted Revolution against the monarchical Britons. Write your Representative, tell them to vote no on the smoking ban.

No on Measure 50

Measure 50 = a tax in our constitution
A new step toward socialism

By J. A. Hoffman

Vote against children. You probably read that and thought “what a jerk.” Yet, that is exactly what I will be doing this November. It turns out that Americans are getting sick and tired of their healthcare system. There are new poles everyday that show that Americans want some type of change in this system. The funny thing is that that DOES NOT mean universal healthcare, as far left spinsters want you to believe. Americans are just annoyed right now. The war in Iraq, the mortgage crisis, the economy going south, US labor disappearing, and rise of China and India.
The fact is, universal healthcare is good for some things, and it is bad for many things. It is good for streamlining the process (kinda), for general care (not really), and for understanding by the general public (let them believe they have healthcare). Where these types of healthcare go short is in innovation, ease of modern procedures, and red tape. Ever heard of cross border medicine? Mexicans and Canadians coming to good ole US of A to get healthcare, or have you heard of US citizens going to Thailand for some procedures? There is obviously a problem here. But throwing billions of dollars at the situation is not the solution.
Here’s the thing, the best medicine is in America and the best perceived medicine is in the socialized medicine countries. Most people will not necessarily need major medical care, so an easy one payer system would work for you. However, those that are dealing with major issues are pretty much screwed in those countries, where you will have to cope with a brace and drugs for a blown out knee for 6 months, waiting for your turn in the MRI and surgery lines. The fact is, our system is broken, and their system is broken. I am not going to argue for some plan by some candidate. We are just interested in should we vote for measure 50.
The fact is Measure 50 writes a tax on a product into our Oregon constitution. Remember, this is what caused the revolution. You can screw with people’s social freedom (gay rights, gun control, education), but if you take peoples money away and make life miserable for them, they will throw snow balls at you (The Boston Massacre), or storm the Bastille. I, a conservative Republican, would love to see all children in Oregon having healthcare. However, I must live in reality and realize that medicine costs money. People have to spend TIME going to medical school, nursing school, alternative medicine online certification, and so on. America has lead in many areas, there is no reason why we should not come up with some hybrid healthcare system that is the envy of the world.
Vote “No” on Measure 50, knowing that this issue will be solved very soon, public attitude requires it. Once we start writing taxes into our constitution, we will propel Oregon into being a pseudo- people’s socialist republic island on the West Coast (maybe that is what you want, but I ask you, why do communist/socialist countries always move toward capitalism in tough economic times? Answer: it’s the only system that works. Good economic times mean more money to pay for expensive social programs i.e. socialized medicine). This issue is not easy, but don’t just vote something into law because it makes you feel good. Finding a $20 bill on the ground makes me feel good, but I’m not going to create a new division in the government with the duty of throwing $20 bills on the ground.

No on Measure 49

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Why Measure 49 is an insult to voters

By J.A. Hoffman

During the 2004 general election, Measure 37 was passed in Oregon by 369,510 votes, with a total number of votes being 1,739,668. If you are a rookie or a veteran of politics, you can see that a gap that is over 300,000 votes is one that is telling of the will of the voters. The passing of Measure 37 showed that the people of Oregon did not want land taken from them for the “social good” or for any other reason, without some compensation. Here is the main section of Measure 37 :
(1) If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation.
(2) Just compensation shall be equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land use regulation as of the date the owner makes written demand for compensation under this act.
The people spoke, and the message was clear. However, the opponents of the rights of Oregonians did not accept the will of the voters. Inner city elites or those that think of themselves as elites, socialists, Greenpeace advocates, and many others do not support land rights. By definition, these few people see a capitalist system that allows people to use the land they own as they see fit; these people see this as evil and would love to arrange society in line with a “better good” or “social good.”
Measure 49, which will be on the ballot this November of 2007, seeks to overthrow the will of the voters, 61 percent of Oregonians who voted on Measure 37 in 2004 . The nasty thing about Measure 49 is that is sounds like a good thing, if you believed the TV adds and the voters pamphlet, you would think that Measure 49 is saving babies, planting trees, solving global warming, stopping those evil corporations, and helping the little guy out. I ask you a question. How many of you need money? How many of you have a job or are supported by someone with a job? Measure 49 is supposed to eliminate the “evil” business section of Measure 37. If Measure 49 passes, the little guy gets screwed. Why? Because we all have jobs, we all know someone who has a business or works in the Timber industry, or has a job NOT in the public sector. Measure 49 will handicap business in Oregon. We all know that business has enough restrictions on it here in Oregon, and we should not add to the stifling of our economy by passing Measure 49.
It is confusing. Measure 49 was researched by the Democrats in the House of Representatives to see what language to use in the Measure to make it most likely to pass. This is also known as, how can we write this Measure so it confuses people so much that they will have no idea how to vote on it other then we “intellectuals” telling them that they are saving a farm in eastern Oregon.
This issue goes beyond political party. It does not necessarily matter the political party backing this Measure, because the measure is still wrong and damaging to land use rights. The fact is we are being deceived by these few elected officials. There is a reason why the majority rules. There are always a few people who go against the majority. This author has a few issues that he falls in the minority. However, this author learned in Elementary school how to play nice and how to respect people’s rights.
Vote “No” on Measure 49, especially if you voted for Measure 37 in 2004. Refuse to be deceived. Tell the elites that you can think for yourself and are willing to vote against Measure 49 in this great democratic republic.

-------------------
www.measure37.org
http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/g04abstract.html

Fallible

We can agree that humans are fallible-we make mistakes. We can then ask, are all of our faculties fallible? Are our emotions, our feelings wrong? What of our faculties-that is those abilities that interpret and give emotion i.e. reason and logic. Well, the answer to this is not easy, but I believe we can come up with a moral view. Emotions themselves cannot be in themselves (intrinsically) wrong or right. For ask yourself, the friend who just lost their friend feels anger, is this wrong? No, and more it is normal. Normal emotions are not fallible. However, the human mind is. If we are not given a moral theory, and let to grow without thoughts of the rightness or wrongness of an action, humans tend to return to their lower, sinful state in nature.

Yet that is neither here nor there, because some would argue the natural state of man is one of higher morality. And yet this theory is not accepted by most because we form a political state to escape the unclean natural state of man.

If an opinion comes from a fallible being, can that opinion be trusted? Well, it depends on those persons morals. If a moral intuition comes from a fallible person, can it be trusted? Accordingly, individual people must make this decision. If you answer that a persons intuitions come from imperfect faculties and therefore cannot be trusted, it is reasoned that you may come to the conclusion that the divinity gave mankind moral law and therefore what God says must be followed. If you answer that humans are rational beings and can use logic as a slave to our wants, needs and desires (In this case, a rational moral viewpoint) you probably follow the moral theory set forth by Immanuel Kant and David Hume.

Next up…arguments against constant moral deliberations and superiority of divine command for simple moral questions and facts.

Moral theory

This is from an email I wrote to a liberal acquaintance.

First, let us start out with right and wrong. If you had to absolutely stereotype me, I would fall into the reformed divine command conventionalism moral theory camp with some influence by Kantian moral theory. This is how some of the theory goes.
Most sides recognize that any given intuition or theory on any thing that is a moral statement (a statement with at least one moral word in it, like just, unjust, right, wrong, permissible, impermissible and so on) can be in fact fallible and incorrect. So, even if we come up with a moral intuition on something, it could prove to be incorrect, if the argument behind it is weak.
Well, what of moral facts? An example would be saying “it is a fact that killing children is wrong.” Well the moral Subjectivist would say that that is not a moral fact, that the agent (the person saying the statement) is only stating its belief or feeling, feeling being the key word. Well, most people have an intuition, a feeling that in fact, killing children is wrong. Besides, morals outmatch feelings. Reason comes in and aligns our feelings into correct moral assumptions. So, by saying there are moral facts, I am pushed away from Subjectivism into Conventionalism and Realism. Realism says there are moral facts independent of us. While Conventionalism says moral facts depend on the speaker or agent (existentialism, relativism and divine command fit into this view).
Next up, the failure of our fallible intuitions.

Cost of War

The issue of patriotism has come up much since Bush was elected. Liberals proclaim with great exuberance that it is their right to disagree with the Administration and that they are supporting the troops. The simple fact is that radicals have seized control of the Democratic Party—this is why they lost the 2004 elections and will continue loosing political influence. There is a great number of leaders in the liberal parties not only here in the U.S. but in foreign nations that think everyone that voted for Bush is a complete idiot. This shows the utter lack of character by these hijackers of liberalism. Yes, there are those on the right that name call and proclaim that liberals are “fill in the blank”, yet they are kept on the fringes. They are not mainstream conservative. I do not appreciate being called an idiot, and I do not think people that voted for Kerry are idiots. I disagree with them very strongly, yes, but I will not name call or demean them.

People say you can be against the war and for the troops. That is like saying you are for the milk but against the cow. Soldiers have one job, some say they are evil and killers, but I say they are there for our protection and a deterrent against the worlds evils. Patriotism means that you love your country but that nation can still be wrong. When humans get involved, things become fallible. Many people loved Hitler and thought that Nazi Germany was perfect, we know it was not. Nationalism can lead to bad things. Bush has made mistakes—he is a freely elected leader. People make mistakes, so we should be cautious of a people who say their leader is perfect. Bush is a bulldog; he fights for the America people. If a commander was to run out onto the battle field and begin trying to sue for talks, then he would be cut down by the opposing side. Bush does it the right way. If we are attacked, then talks are not needed. They have already taken place. You should go into action and deploy the troops. Yet, if it is a standoff and talks are needed, he has shown he can do this. Iraq is not perfect, but it is a front on the war on terrorism. Many liberals are blinded by their bias. They will see no good, and this is a very unfortunate thing. For if we continue to win (and we are), then terror will have to continue to loose 85 terrorists per good guy in an unbelievable kill ratio. In war, soldiers die. But it is the morally correct soldiers that never die. Defending freedom of others is something that is bigger then ourselves. Hating so much that we kill ourselves will only lead to defeat.

Peace in Israel

I watched a cool show on Israel the other day. It showed the struggle for peace from the mid 90's to present. It also gave a cool look into the Bush white house. I am very glad we have a fighter in there, because Clinton was not. That is not only a partisan remark-Bush has done much for peace. Liberals cling to "talks" so much that soon, terrorists grow courage enough to attack, as we saw on 9/11. We must talk, yes, but if the enemy breaks the peace and goes on an offensive war, then we must protect ourselves and other nations who are unable to. We also need to understand that Iraq is a flash point for extremists to go and TRY and fight our military. It is much better for a radical to die from a bullet in Iraq then from a self-exploded bomb in a city. People say Bush is stupid and that he lacks the needed skills, but I say he is what we need. Yes, he has faults, but show me a perfect president and I will be silent. On other news, what is going on in Germany? Does Schroeder (sp) still have power or do the conservatives?

Mere War

The issue of unwarranted death is an issue that must be discussed. I recently watched a show on TV. The program looked at the history of music and its effects on politics. I found this to be a very interesting show, one that sparked great intrigue on my part—both out of anger and interest. The issue of the war in Iraq came up. I was okay; I was neither red faced nor expecting a desk through a window in my future. The program was regular stuff from activists. One scene showed some self indulgent Britain grilling former Sec. of State Powell on what Americans thought about being viewed as the “Great Satan” by many people. This angered Powell and it angered me also. This is typical extremist liberal stuff. They don’t like what is going on, so they become hateful and unworkable. System of a Down is a very well known anti-war group. They say any bombs are a bad thing. They say that we should not fight. This is the same stuff that many people have said about that we brought 9/11 on ourselves. How did we? Did those people in the Towers have direct connections to atrocities against Moslems? I agree that America has made mistakes. But without her, the world would be—un-free. This is how the Iraq war should be fought—from a person who has never been over there and would has little military experience. I believe it is extraordinarily healthier to give alternatives then complain, chant and do worthless protest marches 5000 miles from the problem.
We should have many more troops then what we have. We ask for surrender of terrorists, and if the killers don’t give up—we shoot on site. These are not fighters from a sovereign nation. They are killers from an extremist wing of a religion that teaches that there can be no middle ground. You are a Moslem or your not. Non-Moslems and Moderate Moslems who refuse the religion die. This pleases Allah in their view.
Some say Western aggression breeds extremists. Well, there are not large scale numbers of Asian Buddhist or Hindu people running around blowing themselves up, blaming the West. This is a poor excuse to commit atrocities.
Terrorist will be killed by American Troops. When you proclaim that the infidels must die, and you go to Jihad—then you have marked yourself for death. Whether it be by your sadistic rules of engagement, or by a bullet from a free market built weapon.
We that are free (most of Europe, Asia and of course America) may be cruel to each other, we may name call, we may get angry and protest, but let us remember why we are protesting. Are we doing this out of pure partisanship or by hatred of terrorists? There was a time when Germany was a strong nation built upon military ways. Yet, she fell because evil was in control. Terror will continually be with us, because hate will always be with us. Yet, those individuals that try to instill terror into innocent people will die. They will die either on the run, or in a fire fight, or by a bunker buster squatting in their cave while they eat their goat meat.

J. A. Hoffman

Angry Dems

I love this, it is by Neil Cavuto of Foxnews:
"Let me ask you something: Do you want to get inside Charles Manson's head and understand why he did the things he did?
I don't.
But a guest on my show does: The Heritage Foundation's James Carafano argues that we owe it ourselves to understand why so many terrorists hate this country.
Jim's a good man. But unfortunately, we're talking about bad guys, evil guys.
I don't know about you, but I have no interest in having a cup of tea with Chuck.
I have even less in devoting so much as a cup of spit to the attacks of Sept. 11.
Sometimes evil is evil and a nut is a nut.
Only in America can someone try to kill us and we turn it around and surmise, "Well, it has to be us."
Newsflash: It's not. It's them.
It’s not all of them. Not the ones who hate Western culture. But it’s the ones who ram planes into buildings, because they hate Western culture.
Look, you don't like our movies, don't watch our movies.
You don't enjoy capitalism, enjoy your tent.
But for those who get your jollies beheading captives, shooting innocents, storming passenger planes and otherwise losing your minds, I say, lose any hope of understanding and dialogue from us.
You don't deserve it. We're not going to give it.
Look, kindness and understanding goes to those who have the power to exercise the same, not for those who exercise evil.
And, the last time I checked, ramming planes into buildings like terrorists, or condoning the butchering of a pregnant actress like Charlie Manson... that's evil. That's nuts. That's crazy. That's it.
I'm all for self-examination. But this kind of self-damning talk makes me wonder whether something else isn't required: a lobotomy.