Universal Health Care Would Ruin U.S.

Before you get your panties in a bunch, I realize that the Obamassiah’s health care plan is not “universal health care,” but it is one step closer toward socialized care. When talking about letting our government run our national health care system, there are a few questions you need to ask yourself:

1) Do you really want the federal government in charge of YOUR health care?

Not one department in the U.S. government runs 100% efficiently (or anywhere near it). And you can’t expect them to with all the bureaucratic forces running against them. Politics is a dirty business and I would like to keep all of the baggage that comes with government-run agencies outside of hospitals. The best analogy I’ve heard is this: Would you rather your health care plan be like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles (single-payer, government-run) or a department store (you decide where to go)? Furthermore, do you really want the federal government in charge of something as vital to you as your health care? Malpractice lawsuits would erupt into an even bigger issue f people could sue their government for every botched procedure.

2) What is the actual cost of nationalized health care?

Competition is essential in keeping our free market stable. “Free” universal health care is like everything else: NOT FREE. The only way to pay for everyone’s health care plans is to have taxpaying citizens pay even higher taxes. You know how much the Dems love their taxes. Not only will individual taxes go sky-high, but corporate income taxes and Social Security taxes would also hit the ceiling. If health care is all-inclusive, doctors’ offices will fill up every time someone catches a sniffle and organs will not be the only things on waiting lists. In this kind of system, healthy people will be paying for those who lead unhealthy lifestyles (i.e. smokers, obese). Not only would private practices take a huge hit, but so would the medical industry. Patients wouldn’t be able to choose their doctors and doctors wouldn’t be able to choose their patients. Additionally, who would want practice medicine with government officials breathing down their neck? In short, lots of tax dollars will be spent for less-than-adequate care. Sounds like a raw deal to me.

3) Will universal health care solve the real problem?

The Dems often cite the millions of uninsured Americans as being the flaw of today’s current health care system. Just because they are uninsured, does not mean they cannot receive treatment from nonprofits and government-run hospitals. It is also illegal to refuse emergency medical service to someone without insurance. But If the government starts handing out free medical care to every person (including those living on welfare), the system will inevitably collapse and it will take our capitalistic economy with it. “Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a ‘right’ by the public, meaning that it’s politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control” (from BalancedPolitics.org).

Aside from all the socioeconomic reasons, nationalized health care is not a response to the real things people are suffering from. The leading causes of death in the U.S. are heart disease, cancer, and stroke. These diseases and biological attacks cannot be treated by one quick trip to the hospital (government-run or otherwise). Peter Huber writes in his editorial, “The cholera of our times is a stew of molecules, concocted by genes, gluts of cigarettes, beer, ice cream and other delicious consumables, and by whatever attitude problems we might have about eating our peas or taking our pills.” We are in the era of chronic disease and what we need to invest in is new medicine, not a new health care system. I admit that our health care system does need some reform, but socialized medicine is not the cure we need.

Article(s):

Universal Healthcare’s Dirty Little Secrets

How The New Medicine Renders Universal Health Care Impossible

Resource(s):

Balanced Politics: Universal Health Care

The 24/7 Blogging Experiment: Conclusion

Every experiment should have a conclusion. That’s what I learned in my 7th grade science class. Or something like that. Participating in The 24/7 Blogging Experiment was challenging, entertaining, strenuous, intense, and oh-so-wordy. It sure was a lot of blogging in a short amount of time. I’m glad that I did it, although I don’t think that I’ll be able to do it again for a little while. I have a bit of writer’s block. (Okay, that’s a lie. I always have something to say. I’m just overworked.)

I hope you enjoyed some of the things I had to say. I don’t expect you to agree with everything I say; in fact, I hope you disagree with some things because debate is a healthy form of dialogue. All I ask is that you take the time to read what I have to say (and maybe comment, too). Adding my blog to your RSS Reader would also be awesome! I want to thank you for reading my blog. I look forward to continue my writings with you (the reader) in mind. I consider The 24/7 Experiment to be a success. Whether for good or ill, I can now officially call myself a blogger (ah!).



- extraordinarIAN

Global Scamming

I have been quite convinced for some time now that this whole “global warming” phenomenon is part of a scam from the Left wing of American politics. The whole thing really took off around the time Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth came out. (The fact that he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the IPCC is immensely disturbing.) The American Left, along with their friends in the MSM, have been able to convince us that we are somehow responsible for a shift in global climate change.

Every year, people around the globe invest in billions of dollars into “green” products. How did the Greens (the term for these environmentalist whackos from Paul Johnson’s article) accomplish this? They used a different kind of green: money. The Greens, predominately made up of the liberal elite, have convinced the rest of America (and the world at large) to invest in the “environmentally-friendly” programs that they run. They have bullied us into buying “green”: green appliances, green cars, and green shopping bags. It is a myth that “going green” will have a significant effect on Earth’s climate. In fact, many of these so-called green items do more to harm the environment than help it. (Check out Ellen Gamerman of WSJ’s “An Inconvenient Bag”.)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-environment, but I am anti-global warming propaganda. I do not deny that climate change exists, but I refute the notion that it is man-made and thus we are mandated (note the pun) to somehow put a stop to it. The actual science behind global warming is shaky at best. You can’t tell me there is proof when there is scientific evidence showing the exact opposite. The scary thing is that global warming has become both a science and a religion for these environmentalist nutjobs. Eminent British historian and author Paul Johnson articulates it well in his column “The Nonsense of Global Warming”:

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels–the essence of the Greens’ theory of global warming–has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules. Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory’s conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully. The global warming activists’ target is the U.S. If America is driven to accept crippling restraints on its economy it will rapidly become unable to shoulder its burdens as the world’s sole superpower and ultimate defender of human freedoms. We shall all suffer, however, as progress falters and then ceases and living standards decline.

With many more real problems worldwide, it is such a tragedy that we have been suckered into this global warming scam. Environmental waste is a problem, but buying off your “carbon footprint” is not the solution. I should give credit to the liberals for coming up with such an ingenious idea: Make every day Earth Day and make everyone else pay for it. In all likeliness, we will use up our oil supplies and run out of food, as a result of these eco-friendly projects, before the Earth ignites into a giant fireball. Now that’s the inconvenient truth.

Article(s):

Top Ten ‘Global-Warming’ Myths

The Nonsense of Global Warming

Global warming — myth, threat or opportunity?

The Pro-Choice Paradox

The American pro-choice movement has been mired in contradictory values and beliefs since its inception. Although the American pro-life movement certainly has its own internal conflicts, they have formulated a compelling moral narrative that drives in its favor. The pro-life statement that “life begins at the moment of conception” has conveyed a strong, moral message that has kept their movement stable since the 1960s. The pro-choice movement, on the other hand, has yet to find a single statement of purpose, which some people cite as a detriment to the achievement of the goals advocated by leaders in the movement. Instead of identifying a distinct message, pro-choice advocates have sent a wave of contradictory ones that continue to this day. What their movement has done is form arguments that derive from “self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises,” also known as paradoxes.

Just some of the contradictory views the pro-choice movement has triggered:

1) ‘Therapeutic’ abortions. Abortion advocacy started in the early 1950s when a coalition of doctors, lawyers, activists, and public health officials,  alarmed by the high death rate caused by illegal abortions, began advocating for ‘therapeutic’ abortions. That is abortions performed only in situations where the woman’s physical and mental health were at risk, including cases of rape, incest, and the likelihood of fetal deformity. The contradictory part of this is that abortion had not always been a “woman’s issue.” It was about the safety of both lives, the mother and her child.

2) NOW it’s a woman’s issue. Abortion as a matter of health and civil rights became an issue of women’s equality when the National Organization for Women (NOW) got involved in 1966. NOW began advocating “reproductive control as tantamount to abortion.” Not only did the notion of “reproductive rights” open up a can of worms, it also exposed a schism between feminists of the day.

3) Roe, row, rock the boat. By the time the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973, feminists were already split into separate camps. You had the aboriton reform advocates who agreed with NOW and campaigned for reform of abortion laws to make them less restrictive, and you had the so-called “radical feminists” for whom it was an all-or-nothing game because partial repeal meant partial equality. For these feminists Roe “represented one step forward and one back.” In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s decision to have an abortion was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was different from Griswold where contraception became protected under the Ninth Amendment’s reservations of rights to the people. By also not being grounded under the Equal Protection Clause, the Roe decision opened the door to states imposing restrictions on abortion practices. (Which is exactly what has happened in the decades since.)

4) We want our privacy… kinda. The granting of abortion as a privacy right, not a public right, invites even more socio-political contradictions. Privacy is a policy that can both promote individual freedom and undermine it. This is especially true when the government gets involved in regulating it. Abortion supporters often fight to have free, or at least affordable, abortions. Many advocate for abortion to be categorized as a medical procedure so it can be covered under Medicaid for those who cannot afford it, which is a contradictory notion. Pro-choicers argue for less government intervention into women’s bodies, and yet they want the government (via tax dollars) to pay for abortions when women cannot afford them; this has brought the components of economics and race into the debate because minorities, specifically African American women, have the highest rate of unintended pregnancy. Perhaps our Founding Fathers knew that privacy is a double-edged sword and that is why they did not explicitly enumerate the right to privacy in the Constitution.

5) Right to choose? It wasn’t until after Roe v. Wade, that abortion reform activists renamed themselves as “pro-choice.” The change in semantics represented the move to protect privacy and personal freedom over the right to have an abortion. For the radical feminists thought this was exactly the problem: the debate was no longer just about abortion. The issues grappled with were now in the (even stickier) territory of gender equality and human rights. Despite becoming pro-choice, NOW continued to advocate for abortion law reform and rarely campaigned for access to maternal healthcare or childcare for woman who chose their procreative freedom. These groups continue to value women who have abortions over those who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. This begs the question: Does the “right to choose” really include the right to choose to not have an abortion?

6) Safe, legal, and rare. A common mantra among pro-choice advocates, stated by President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s and again by Senator Hillary Clinton last year during the 2008 election cycle, was to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” This slogan may reflect a key paradox in the pro-choice movement. Safe abortion practices, if only under extreme circumstances, are regarded as crucial by both pro-choice and pro-life advocates. Both parties believe in the sanctity of preserving life (if only the woman’s and not the fetus’s), because safety falls into moral ground. Legality and rarity, however, are a different story. Pro-choicers say they want fewer abortions, but they aim to remove all barriers (legal, financial, and geographical) in order to make abortions easier to obtain. Abortion advocates decry when an abortion clinic closes, but does that not mean that there will be fewer abortions? Fewer abortions is seen as a two-headed coin; it means couples are making better use of contraceptives, but it is also argued that some women, especially low-income minorities, have less access to abortions. If abortion services were freely available, would they not be utilized more? And if abortion is really just a simple medical procedure than why does it need to be rare?

Like same-sex marriage advocates, the pro-choice movement has made the choice to fight most their battles in the courts. Although some state restrictions on abortion have been struck down for being unconstitutional, many were upheld, including limiting public funding and use of public hospitals, informed consent, 24-hour waiting periods, and fetal rights. It is hard to see the progress supporters of abortion have made because the restrictions vary immensely from state to state. Over the years, the U.S. legal system may have ultimately undermined the pro-choice movement. We’ll have to wait and see what happens.

Article(s):

Nossiff, Rosemary. “Gendered Citizenship: Women, Equality, and Abortion Policy.” New Political Science 29.1 (Mar. 2007): 61-76.

Perez, Obama, & The Gays

Some prominent gay rights groups (and the ACLU, of course) are fed up with the way President Obama is tackling the gay marriage issue (or rather, how he is not). The Obama administration released a brief today saying that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is legit and stands (for now).

DOMA was signed by former President Clinton and passed by Congress in 1996. There are two parts to the legislation: 1) Defines marriage for purpose of federal law as the “legal union between one man and one woman” 2) Reiterates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section I), which provides that states must recognize “legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions” of other states. So basically DOMA allowed states to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

Opponents of DOMA say it’s unconstitutional because Congress over-reached its authority (way-back-when) in amending the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the law discriminates against the Equal Protection Clause, and/or the law violates the right to marriage under the Due Process Clause.

The President has made it very clear that he opposes gay marriage, and yet gay rights advocates are putting immense pressure on his administration to abolish all legislation that deters same-sex marriage. Obama said during the campaign that he opposed DOMA and would call for Congress to repeal it. Maybe he’s waiting for them. (Or maybe he hasn’t made up his mind yet.) Apparently he also scrubbed it from the White House website.

This is what the ACLU released about the brief:

When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.

I think perhaps the gays are putting to much faith in Obama doing what he promised in the campaign. He doesn’t really need their support now that he’s sitting in the Oval Office. I also think that the same-sex marriage legislation is moving too fast in one direction and the majority of the public is not ready to deal with it right now (since we have quite a lot of other things going on). The gays would make more progress in pushing their agenda if they stopped ramming lawsuits and legislation through the courts.

Gay activists, like gossip blogger Perez Hilton, have been quick to defend Obama’s position on gay marriage because they believe he will ultimately side with them. But with this news of the Obama administration holding firm on DOMA and not making any steps towards changing current policies, all bets are off. I wonder what Perez thinks of Obama now…

Article(s):

ACLU & gay groups furious: No repeal of DOMA

Gays decry Obama’s stand on gay marriage case

Resource(s):

The Library of Congress: H.R.3396

Full Faith and Credit Clause

DOMA watch

I’m Not PC, I’m a Mac

Nine times out of ten, the term “politically correct” is used in a satire form. But the scary thing is that the use of political correctness (PC) as a tool of restricting free speech (and free thought) is a reality. It is a reality based upon cultural Marxism: that everything is related to the power struggle between the classes. PC has been adopted by the American Left and is used to intimidate people they don’t agree with. Look at what happened to Don Imus.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t be careful of what you say based upon the circumstances because there can be repercussions. My point is that you shouldn’t be AFRAID to say certain things. Someone will always take offense to something said. Does that mean you should verbally walk on eggshells your entire life? Constantly worrying about offending someone’s race, gender, religion, culture, sexual orientation, (fill in the blank), is the real crime. Jacques Barzun once said, “Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.” Political correctness is not about teaching tolerance of “otherness,” it’s about teaching ignorance about the “oneness” of human nature.

I see people as individuals, not as members of groups. That is not to say I do not make generalized comments about groups of people, because I do. But what I say is not targeted to an individual member of said group, it’s about the party or culture as a (socially-constructed) whole. Just a few questions, I’ve been pondering…

Why is it wrong for me to use the term “fag”? Answer: because I’m not a member of that “group.” Why is it wrong for people to use the term “colored people” and “Negro” today when organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and United Negro College Fund (UNCF) still exist? Is the term Asian offensive? Some say yes because it groups all Asian nations into a unified term; some say no because it groups all Asian nations into a unified term.

This is just a glimpse into the way I look at the world (in a totally non-PC kind of way). So as you continue reading my blog, be aware that I will probably offend you in some way. It’s not that I don’t care, it’s that I do. I care about free speech and I care about humanity (spambots aside).

- extraordinarIAN



Writer’s note: My name is Ian Mac (from MacPhail, which is Scottish.) That’s why the title is ironic (if you’ve seen Apple’s “PC vs. Mac” commercials). I shouldn’t need to explain these things, but just in case you didn’t know.

Sophomore Year

Sophomore year was a blur. It went by so fast that I don’t remember most of it. This was the year of stronger relationships. Not only did we, the students, grow closer together, but we also started forming bonds with our teachers. This was true for all the AVPA teachers, except for the history teacher(s) because we went through six different ones that year.

One event, or rather series of events, that I remember most from sophomore year was a humanities assignment on the presidential election of 2004. My class was divided into two groups (Bush and Kerry) and we prepared for months for a final debate on the election issues. I was (happily) put on Team Bush. This was one of the posters I designed for our campaign:

I don’t remember which team won the debate, but I know which candidate won the election. This campaign solidified my political ideology as being a conservative Republican.