The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

The Divided States of America: A Return to 1861?

leave a comment »

US Civil War

Dr. Jack Devere Minzey, born 6 October 1928 – died 8 April 2018, was the Department Head of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.

This was the last of his writings before he passed. My hope is it helps the reader recognize and reject the emotionally charged narratives being perpetuated by our news media day after day and differentiate between the fact challenged accounts of current events and the reasoned and historically supported accounts like this one. – Thanks to Kristine Manning for sharing this.

Civil War: How do civil wars happen?

by Dr. Jack Devere Minzey

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections. That’s a civil war

There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country but then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship.

Your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Democrat’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. He can use the IRS as his own police force and imprison citizens who speak against him. He can provide guns and money ( Fast and Furious, Iran nuclear deal ) to other countries to support his own agenda and watch while one of America’s Ambassador’s is dragged through the streets and murdered while doing nothing to aid our citizens. His power is unlimited. He’s a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has ‘discretion’ to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the ‘discretion’ to reverse him. That’s how the game is played. That’s how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn’t yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission but under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it’s Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in it if you’re not a member. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren’t in the club. And Trump isn’t in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren’t in the club with him.

Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That’s not a free country.

It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy’ against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win did.

Have no doubt, we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.

Written by DCL

December 16, 2019 at 7:05 am

Posted in Politics

Ukraine Official Refutes Key Impeachment Testimony

leave a comment »

BOMBSHELLWe see the word “BOMBSHELL” used in news media a lot these days and most of the time it’s nothing more than click bait.

This story, however, may actually fit the term.

This is from TIME magazine at TIME.com so my Left of center friends shouldn’t use the source as a fallback position to ignore it.

A top Ukraine official who is mentioned dozens of times in the impeachment report released last week and has been called a critical figure “at the center” of the impeachment inquiry, is now disputing testimony by the Democrat witnesses upon which the entire impeachment process rests.

In a recent interview with TIME, Andriy Yermak is questioning the recollections of crucial witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.

“Listen, I want to tell you straight,” Yermak told TIME in the interview on Dec. 4, “Of course, now, when I watch these [hearings] on television, my name often comes up, and I see people there whom I recognize, whom I met and know,” he says, referring to the witness testimony. “That is their personal opinion, especially the positions they expressed while under oath. I have my own truth. I know what I know.”

Where this really gets dicey is with regard to Gordon Sondland’s testimony. As you may recall, Mr. Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, had previously testified that there was no quid pro quo but then later revised that statement and testified the opposite in a written statement and again during the hearings. That is important to remember and consider when listening to Yermak’s recollection of his “meeting” with Sondland.

The key testimony that allowed the Democrats to move forward with impeachment came from Sondland, the ONLY witness to say he believed there was a quid pro quo in place. NO OTHER WITNESS made this direct allegation.

That testimony hinges on a meeting between Vice President Pence and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in Warsaw on September 1.

Sondland testified that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and told him U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

From the TIME.com article –

“Based on the testimony from Sondland and other witnesses, the final report from the House Intelligence Committee concluded last week that Sondland made this offer of a quid pro quo clear to Yermak that day in Warsaw.”

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

KABOOM! Is that bombshell enough?

In his initial testimony to the impeachment inquiry in October, Sondland said he never knew the U.S. aid to Ukraine was conditional on the investigations Trump wanted.

But then the following month, Sondland amended his testimony with a new sworn statement, in which he described the conversation with Yermak in Warsaw and identifying it as a quid pro quo on behalf of the president.

“I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland wrote in the amended testimony.

Yermak, a central figure in this entire process, says that never happened.

Mr. Schiff? Mr. Nadler? Houston?
We have a problem…

Written by DCL

December 12, 2019 at 7:21 am

Dear Adam Schiff, What is Quid Pro Quo?

leave a comment »

Dear Mr. Schiff,

How exactly do you define Quid Pro Quo?

Is it simply “Get dirt on my opponents or else!” as you and the Democrats have decided? If that is indeed where you are planting your flag then President Trump is right, there is no quid pro quo.

If we look at the entire conversation in question it goes pretty much like this:

Mr. Ukrainian President, you’re newly elected and it looks like you’re taking your country in the right direction, but you need to know something up front. Your country lost 7 Billion dollars of our taxpayers money. Your country convicted two officials, one of which was the head of the anti-corruption bureau, for interfering in the 2016 presidential election by colluding with the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

Now two of your Investigator Generals have been blocked by our State Department after they provided evidence to our Department of Justice regarding this collusion along with evidence of corruption surrounding oil and gas contracts that involved out former Vice President. You should look into that. We also have reason to believe the people who did all of that and made this corruption possible are still in your inner circle. So as a matter of national interest, I can’t give you any more money unless you can demonstrate you’re not part of this corruption but rather are dedicated to cleaning it up.

If that’s how you define quid pro quo Mr. Schiff then yes, that’s all on the tape of the phone call. That’s all in the transcript. IF THAT’S the definition then guilty as charged…

But that’s not your definition is it? Because that wouldn’t fly in a kangaroo court. Not even one run by you and Nancy Pelosi. In your tunnel vision world all you heard in that phone call was “get dirt on my opponent.” Fortunately a majority of Americans heard something quite different.

The conversation with the Ukrainian president which he confirmed, when taken in full context of the full conversation, is not “get dirt on my opponent.” Mr. Schiff believes cherry picking, paraphrasing, and redefining what was said equates what was actually said. It doesn’t.

The other problem is how the Democrats have convinced many Americans that quid pro quo is some new law that’s been broken… It isn’t. In fact the Obama administration was chided by the media for the same thing on numerous occasions leading one US newspaper to label Obama the King of Quid Pro Quo.  

The ignorance displayed in this country regarding anything to do with civics is an indictment on our public school system and an advantage to the Democrats.

Written by DCL

November 8, 2019 at 7:19 pm

An Open Letter to the U.S. House of Representatives

leave a comment »

By Jeff Minick

Dear Members of the House of Representatives,

I hope this letter finds you in fine fettle.

This is a first for me. I’ve never written an open letter. Usually celebrities, politicians, and academics compose and deliver these missives, often brickbats of denunciation and self-defense, to be printed in the media. For an ordinary guy like me, writing an “open letter” seems a bit pretentious. It makes me want to slip into a silk bathrobe, pop an American Spirit Light into a long-stemmed holder, dandle a glass of Korbel Brut in the other hand, and stroll about a rose garden dictating my words to a secretary who looks like Juliette Binoche.

Instead, here I sit in a McDonald’s six hours from home, sipping coffee, listening to tunes on the sound system from the fifties and sixties, and glancing now and then at a table of five old-timers nibbling their Egg McMuffins and discussing aircraft and the Wright Brothers.

Well, enough about me. Let’s talk about you.

Since Donald Trump’s election to the presidency, a number of you, some Democrats, some Republicans, some socialists, some independents, have talked and talked about impeaching the president. I can certainly understand why. His election was a stunner, wasn’t it? I’ve heard some folks were so upset they actually entered therapy. Others are still so unhappy they light themselves on fire or stab themselves. (When my candidates lose, I just toss back an extra gin-and-tonic, hit the sack, and go to work in the morning. Different strokes for different folks.)

The Mueller Report, two years in the making, exonerated President Trump of any collusion with Russia. That our president didn’t conspire with Boris and Natasha to subvert the United States is surely cause to break out the champagne, yet it brought sackcloth and ashes in certain quarters.

Now some of you are demanding that Attorney General William Barr break the law by giving you an unredacted copy of the report. Others accuse President Trump of mental illness. (The Soviets notoriously used this tactic as a way to put dissidents behind bars.) Some of you call for impeachment for no reason other than to appease your more rabid constituents.

You’ve stuck to this subject like a tick on a dog, but polls reveal most Americans are tired of the circus. You seem to forget that many of them voted for Trump and will be more than a little unhappy if you impeach him. Others, even many who didn’t vote for him, believe you are engaged in a vendetta, not a quest for justice.

Anyway, I have a suggestion for you.

Why not try solving some of our nation’s problems?

Let’s look at just two issues.

Our nation is 22 trillion dollars in debt. (I can’t even imagine how a million dollars stacks up, much less a trillion.) The Washington Post reports we are on track to a trillion dollar deficit in the 2020 budget alone. I have four children and a platoon of grandchildren, and don’t really like to imagine them living as paupers because our Congress lacked the guts to look a few years into the future and slash the budget.

And yet you seem to have your personal finances in order. Your current annual salary is $174,000. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the salary of the average American is about $45,000.) You are, as I write, considering giving yourselves a raise. (How many employees anywhere get to vote to give themselves a raise? And yes, ladies and gentlemen, you are employees, something you tend to forget.) In fact, some of you leave Congress as millionaires. How about performing this same magic on the federal deficit?

You see, what’s frustrating to those of us outside the Beltway is that so many of you seem irresponsible with everyone else’s money other than your own.

Then there’s illegal immigration. The New York Times, CNN, and other media have recently acknowledged a crisis on our southern border. The place is falling apart. Hundreds of thousands of people are entering our country, some slipping across the border, others being caught and then released inside the United States. Most recently, we have reports that hundreds of illegal immigrants from the Ebola-stricken Congo – the Congo, for heaven’s sake! – were caught wading across the Rio Grande.

Were they turned back? Nope. They were dumped in the streets of San Antonio.

So what are you doing about this invasion? Any plans?

In the last twenty years or so, Congress has had a hand in our failing education system, a health care program that baffles many and brings ever greater costs, a military second to none but with boatloads of wasted dollars, and a government with lots of “non-essential” jobs.

Were you not elected to represent your constituents and to defend American interests?

How about giving it a shot? How about doing your job?

As for impeachment, which will likely backfire big-time if you go through with it, let me conclude with the words of the young woman pressed to get an abortion by her companion in Ernest Hemingway’s short story “Hills Like White Elephants”:

“Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?”

Encouraging you to do so, and to do your duty to the rest of us,

Jeff Minick

[Image Credit: Architect of the Capitol, Public Domain]

This post An Open Letter to the U.S. House of Representatives was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by Jeff Minick. Reposted by permission.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/all/themes/ito/js/ito-repub.js

The Case For the Electoral College

leave a comment »

Damn that antiquated constitution and it’s old fashioned rules regarding how we elect our leaders!

The political Left appears to be in all out war against the constitution, the Founders of our nation, and our history. They wish to pick and choose which parts they will adhere to and which parts they won’t depending on the political advantage or disadvantage said parts provide them…

Now they are after the Electoral College.Electoral College

Apparently the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton so riled the Leftists that they are now convinced, after 230+ years of use, the Electoral College is no longer useful. They are convinced abolishing the Electoral College will solve all of their election woes (and put them solidly back in eternal power).

But in their rush to get rid of one of the oldest institutions in our political system, they are overlooking some significant consequences should they be able to do so. You see, the pendulum always swings back.

Many of the points I will discuss come from the writings of Tara Ross. Tara Ross is a historical scholar on the Constitutional Republican form of government, the constitution itself, and our Founders. I encourage you to follow her on social media. You will learn much about America and how it is governed.

The Founders created the Electoral College because they knew several things we seem to have forgotten:

  1. Simple democracies are dangerous.
  2. Bare or emotional majorities can tyrannize even large minority groups.
  3. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner is not a good system.

They understood that humans are fallible. Power corrupts. Ambition, selfishness, and greed are dangers to freedom. Some claim Founders were elitists who didn’t trust the people. NO. They didn’t trust ANYONE. Not the people, not elected officials, not states or feds. Checks & balances on EVERYONE.

Carol Berkin states this wonderfully, noting that delegates to the Constitutional Convention were the most likely men to be elected to the first Senate or as the first President, yet they still sat and debated how to put checks and balances on those offices because THEY DIDN’T TRUST THEMSELVES either.

The Electoral College serves us well. It has several benefits that go unrecognized. First it makes it harder to steal elections. You can’t steal an election unless you can steal votes in right state at the right time and during a close national election.

With a National Popular Vote system, any vote stolen anywhere affects national outcome. This is true even if the vote is easily stolen in a very safe blue or red state. This is a dangerous situation that the Electoral College protects us from today.

Second, the Electoral College rewards coalition-building. Perhaps that sounds weird after 2016? But NO ONE really focused on coalition building that year. The result? A close election. One party lost. The other mostly avoided losing. But, yes, there was a coalition and it won.

The coalition that won in 2016 consisted of a group of voters who grew tired of being ruled by DC elites. They felt ignored, unheard. They saw DC insiders living by one set of rules while they were forced to live by another. They were tired of being told what to think and tired of being called names simply because they didn’t agree with those elites.

Some of this coalition voted for Trump enthusiastically. Some held their noses and voted for him. But the coalition all agreed he was most likely to upset the status quo in D.C. and that gave Trump the White House. Right now, Democrats are very focused on eliminating the Electoral College they believe caused them to lose. But they’d be better off focusing on why they lost in first place. They should consider how they might reach out to the millions of voters who feel ignored. They should be searching for middle ground. They should focus on things that bring us together instead of things that drive us apart. They should figure out why they lost the trust of so many voters within their own ranks who crossed over.

They need to run a campaign more like FDR. If Democrats can find that nominee, they will win in a landslide in 2020 WITH the Electoral College firmly in place. Similarly, Republicans don’t have to be stuck in world where they barely win by the skin of their teeth each election. They too should find middle ground. How can they build coalitions? Earn trust? Figure that out and their will start winning again in Reagan-like landslides.

We need to stop going off in our partisan corners. Quit pointing fingers at the other side. Quit blaming the Electoral College for the party’s own failures. Instead focus on what your own party did wrong or right in 2016.

The first party to take hard look inward and fix its own flaws will start winning again. In landslides. Electoral College and all. We’ve been here before. After the Civil War, the country was sharply divided between North and South. But due to the Electoral College, both political parties were forced to move past that division or suffer massive defeat politically.

Pretty much whether they wanted to or not, Democrats in South simply couldn’t win without reaching a hand across the aisle. Republicans could win by relying on their safe areas, but just barely. Both sides had incentives to look at their own mistakes and figure out how to build better coalitions.

By the 1930s, of course, Democrats were winning in repeated landslides. The lesson? Remember that we live in a big, diverse country! Don’t force people into one-size-fits-all thinking. THAT is the lesson the Electoral College has taught over and over again, throughout our history.

Getting rid of the system now, when we are so angry and divided…. Well, it’s the worst possible solution. We’ll be stuck in this angry place forever. We are better off trying to remember why we have the Electoral College in first place.

Interestingly, there have been only five occasions in which a closely divided popular vote for the presidency and the Electoral College vote have failed to point in the same direction. 5 times in 235 years.

The Electoral College was designed by the framers deliberately, like the rest of the Constitution, to counteract the worst human impulses and protect the nation from the dangers inherent in democracy. The Electoral College is neither antiquated nor toxic; it is an under-appreciated institution that helps preserve our constitutional system, and it deserves a full-throated defense.

 

Written by DCL

May 21, 2019 at 3:59 pm

Posted in Politics

Tagged with ,

CBS News Reporter Confirms: News Media Has Leftwing Bias

leave a comment »

Lara Logan CBS NewsLara Logan may not be a household name in the world of journalism, but she has been a part of some well-known international news stories over the past decade.

Logan, who is from South Africa, began her news career there in Durban in 1990 and has worked for Reuters, ABC, NBC, and CBS as a freelance reporter internationally. In 2002 Logan was offered a correspondent position with CBS News where she spent most of her time on battlefields reporting in war zones around the world. Logan also made regular appearances on CBS 60 Minutes.

But Logan is perhaps best known for what happened to her off camera than on. In 2011 she was in Egypt covering the Egyptian revolution when she and her camera crew were arrested and detained by Egyptian police. They were later released but as they moved back into the streets a large group of Egyptian males encountered them and began to make lurid comments about Logan. Soon the crowd became aggressive and Logan was taken by the mob and sexually assaulted. She would later say she believed she was going to be killed. She spent several days in a US hospital upon her arrival from Egypt.

With nearly 30 years of journalistic experience at major news networks around the world, Logan is a prime candidate to speak on the subject of bias in the news industry. She sat down with retired Navy Seal Mike Ritland and was interviewed for Mike’s podcast “Mike Drop.” Logan had interviewed Ritland 6 years earlier for a segment on 60 Minutes. Now Logan was on the side being questioned.

Ritland has been a harsh critic of the American news media, calling it “absurdly left-leaning” and that “Democrat biases were a huge —-ing problem” and a disaster for the country. “I agree with that. That’s true,” Logan replied. She also implied it wasn’t just an American problem. “The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just the U.S.,” she said. In the U.S., Logan says there are only a small number of news organizations that don’t march to the Leftist drumbeat. She cited Fox News and Breitbart as two examples.

In the podcast with Ritland, Logan talks about her experience in newsrooms.

“Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men. To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them. And that’s a problem for me, because even if it was reversed, if it was vastly mostly on the right, that would also be a problem for me.”

“My experience has been that the more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life — everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right? Nothing is black and white.”

“This is the problem that I have. There’s one Fox, and there’s many, many, many more organizations on the left. … The problem is the weight of all these organizations on one side of the political spectrum. When you turn on your computer, or you walk past the TV, or you see a newspaper headline in the grocery store If they’re all saying the same thing, the weight of that convinces you that it’s true. You don’t question it, because everyone is saying it. Unless you seek out Breitbart on your computer, you’re probably not even going to know what the other side is saying.”

She wonders how people can know what’s accurate and what’s not when so many news outlets are saying the exact same thing, in many cases word for word.

“How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage?” she asked.

“When they simplify it all, there’s no gray. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not. Something’s wrong. For example, all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative. … That’s a distortion of the way things go in real life.”

Logan continued, “Although the media has historically always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense, or at least the effort, to be objective today. We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.”

Another major problem she sees is the use of anonymous sources, particularly in the government. “That’s not journalism, it’s horse shit,” she said. “Responsibility for fake news begins with us.”

At the end of the three hour and forty-nine minute interview, Logan said something that in itself is very revealing of the state of our free press in America. She said, “This interview is professional suicide for me.” A sad, but likely all too true, sentiment in the era of Trump and the news media.

Here is the full video of the interview from the Mike Drop podcast.

Written by DCL

February 19, 2019 at 10:45 am

No. Socialized Medicine Is Not the Answer

leave a comment »

Socialized medicineWhenever I see people arguing about universal healthcare aka single-payer system aka socialized medicine, I always see the same rationale when it comes to why it would work here when it has been less than ideal in every other country where it is used. “Because we (America) can do it better! We can do it right.”

That’s a fallacy.

No different than this idea that we can somehow make Socialism work as a political governing ideology. No, we can’t. No one has and no one will.

Socialized medicine will fail here just as we see it failing, or at best providing benefits well below what we’ve come to expect from American medicine. Why?

Human nature.

People lack appreciation and/or respect for things they get for free. If I have to provide examples here, you’ve never been in a public park restroom. People don’t value what they don’t pay for. When there’s no skin in the game they don’t care. When you take competition from a marketplace and replace it with guaranteed free services it creates expectations from which an entitlement mentality forms.

It is well documented in single-payer systems where doctors and nurses deal with more self-entitled people coming into their facility demanding healthcare because, “my tax dollars pay your salary.” It’s demoralizing for medical professionals. Quality of care suffers. People become objects to be slowly dragged through the system (often waiting long periods of time between treatments or to begin them) to milk as much money from the government as it can.

When you try to take the profit motive out of business and give government the reins to that business, all you really do is transfer the motive away from the business to customer relationship required to maintain customer loyalty to that business, to “how can I get more government money from this person?” To combat this the government with its deep pockets of taxpayer dollars, will pour more money into a broken system. It will pass more regulations to make things “fair.” Due to the fact that tax dollars are NOT unlimited, the government must, at some point, pick and choose what it deems a “necessary” operation or treatment to save on costs. In one example out of Canada a dental patient was in need of a root canal. The government said no, it was an “unnecessary tooth” and would only pay to have the tooth removed. “Necessity” is subjective.

Our healthcare system became the best in the world because of our innovation which is spurred by competition. Argue till you’re blue in the face, but if you take away competition, innovation will slow or even die with it because innovation is risky and expensive. Who will invest in new treatments, drugs, or surgical procedures, if government price-fixing doesn’t provide a way for the risk taker to get a return on investment?

The problem isn’t our medical system. The problem is with our politicians who always manage to get their grubby fingers into the private sector. They’re in bed with the insurance industry, big Pharma, and the large healthcare conglomerates. The mutual back-scratching is endless. Regulations have largely catered to these big businesses, not to patients or doctors. I believe one step to take would be to remove as many federal regulations as possible. Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Make it a true competitive marketplace. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That doesn’t mean employers can’t use it as a benefit to entice high quality workers but it shouldn’t be incentivized with tax perks. We should be allowed to shop for our healthcare just as we would a car or home. Enough with these hospital “networks” that only take such and such insurance.

Free market forces are incredible regulators and balancers when allowed to function properly and under the watchful eye of honest ethical leadership. Does that mean there will be winners and losers? Yes. But that’s life. Those who provide the best care and service for the best price will win and prosper. Those who don’t will lose and go out of business. Family doctors and practices will return to communities rather than reside only with large, exclusive, medical conglomerates. Family practitioners and general physicians would be salaried in a single-payer system with less control over their pay and though many argue their pay would not go down that simply isn’t feasible unless the number of doctors and nurses is curtailed or reduced. Over-specialization in medicine, which is one reason costs are so high in the U.S, will self-moderate based on market forces.

The truly needy who can’t afford care can, and should, be provided with care. There must always be a safety net. There is no reason we can’t create one that actually works within the private sector.

I don’t claim to know all the answers, nor do I believe government can’t have a role in our healthcare system, but it should be one of oversight and enforcement of laws to make sure the care providers and companies in the medical industry are operating fairly and ethically. Government enforces the rules and laws deemed necessary by the people it governs. That is one thing it can and should do well. Government should not be paying individual bills or managing the private sector. That is not its function and it has proven over and over again how poorly government manages anything business related.

We can get our healthcare system back to where it is healthy and functions to help all Americans afford and have access to proper healthcare. We don’t need to follow in Canada or Great Britain’s footsteps.

Written by DCL

November 9, 2018 at 3:33 pm