Regulation and Ethics

It is an exercise in frustration to have to deal with crimes of greed. Whether it's the greed on Wall Street, our courtrooms, or the sale of fake and weak drugs to the developing nations. Crimes of greed decimate the innocent.

The question is, what do we do about it? Should we pass new regulations? Or maybe we should teach our young the universally held values of right and wrong for a foudation from which to grow.

Just one of the problems not getting much traction in the press concerns the lack of ethics and greed of the manufacture and distribution of fake and weakened medicines to treat malaria. This quoted from the organization that fights the good fight against the devastation of malaria "Africa Fighting Malaria". Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM) seeks to raise awareness of the huge burden of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa and promote sensible policies for long-term solutions.

Fake and Substandard Drugs Threaten Malaria Treatment in Cambodia

A stream of poor-quality and counterfeit malaria drugs coming into Cambodia is contributing to a growing resistance to treatment for the disease near the Thai-Cambodian border. Many of the drugs are cheaply made and don't contain the right chemistry, or are stored at incorrect temperatures, while others are deliberate fakes that have authentic-looking pills and packaging but contain only a small percentage of the active ingredient in each pill. People in Cambodia are unknowingly using "improper drugs and fake drugs which create resistance," Duong Socheat, director of the nation's malaria control program said. The problem is fueled by the country's many informal pharmacies and merchants that don't have the proper training to provide the correct drug regimen, he said.

The AFM newsletter chronicles the efforts of the world's effort in fighting malaria. If anyone is interested in reading the continuing saga of political interference, and greedy marketing that is preventing effective control over malaria can contact AFM and subscribe to their newsletter. You can email them at Africa@fightingmalaria.org .

The outrage of greed shakes our societies to their core. We can pass more regulations against these and others who want to succeed the easy way at other people's expense, but piling on more unenforced regulations doesn't do much to stop this greedy crowd. There are already laws against most bad behavior in all countries but laws alone cannot stop this contagion.

It seems that nobody wants to step up to the plate and enforce laws governing human behavior. For almost every law there is a contingent that opposes that law. Some of the constituencies against laws governing human behavior are large enough to exert political pressure against that law's enforcement. That leaves few avenues to corral bad behavior.

As long as regulations go unenforced, passing more such regulations is futile. Passing redundant legislation may be politically expedient, but does nothing to solve the problem. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who feel compassion for the guilty and transgressors of our laws, but at some point in time, there has to be a line drawn that violators cannot cross and be made accountable for their crimes.

You can list any of several laws that are either protested or not enforced. Some of these would be:

1. Illegal entry into the United States: Numerous groups including Democrats, businesses wanting cheap labor, and Church Groups support illegal immigrants. All have a vested interest in seeing that our laws are not enforced. Our immigration laws are in shambles because of the divisions over illegal immigrants.


2. Hate Crime Laws: Passed to appease our racial strife, adds additional penalties to existing laws. It is like telling the criminal, "If you break the law in this fashion, we are really going to get mad." Respect must be earned. It is not a question of deserves. Deserves has nothing to do with it. Passing gratuitous laws serve only to create more division.


3. Wall Street Woes: There are far too many laws passed to try and overcome the greed emanating from our financial institutions. But when you follow the education trail, the Wall Street elites come from the most Liberal Institutions in this country. Liberals have no interest in the teaching of ethics or right and wrong when it comes to human behavior. Most graduates from the Eastern Ivy League group are programmed to do only one thing - make money. We cannot produce enough non-corruptible overseers for corporate greed and corruption. We are at the mercy of the private ethics held by those titans of Wall Street.


4. Marketers of Bad Drugs: Same problem as with the preceding. There are already laws against this stuff. What is needed is a strong dose of enforcement and ethics. How would more unenforced laws help?

This is why I rail so much against those whose aim it is to destroy religion. The church is about the only place that stresses right from wrong. You never hear a peep about it from the secularist. The secular can only set up boundaries for a particular group and give no incentive for following those guidelines. So many of the laws passed by local, State and Federal are designed only for extracting money from people.

Once entrapped in the legal system, whether innocent or guilty, the court has the power to not only imprison you, but also pick your wallet. It is not an equitable system. You cannot defend yourself without an understanding of courtroom protocol. The average person drowns without a lawyer because of his/her not understanding how the legal system works. The process is designed that way for the enrichment of the beneficiaries of the system. Fines enrich the local authorities; bail is set for the enrichment of authorities and bondsmen.

Have you ever wondered why a bail is set? When a person comes before a judge whether innocent or guilty, for some reason, the judge only lets you plea. If you plead guilty, you get either a fine or/and a sentence for imprisonment. But if you plead innocent and want to fight the charges against you, you have to 'buy' your freedom through the bail process even if you are not a flight risk. The bail is usually set just out of reach of the average person which leaves him with no recourse other than to get a bail bond. It is a nice cozy arrangement for those in the system. If that is not enough, you have to sift your way through the low tier lawyers that haunt the courtrooms for easy government money to represent you. Or, you can hire an achieved lawyer for a princely sum. There is no way that you can get away clean, even if you are innocent, it will cost you dearly.

The legal system is what it is. I do not have the skills to design a better system. The point in writing about it is to convey a deeply held idea that the system is without ethics and has evolved into nothing more than a sham to extract money from you. Most of the crimes that come before the courts are misdemeanors and represent people who by nature are not hardened criminals. I am sure that the people involved in the system do not share my opinion, but they have done nothing to give me reason to take a different position.

In conclusion, no law should be enacted without the intention or resources to enforce it. No law should be enacted for political reasons. If any law is enacted where there is already provisions for such an incident, the old law should be stricken from the records. It seems that we never clean the books. We just keep adding to them, making life more complicated.

Everyone should be trained in ethical behavior. Many of our problems could be solved if people were just honest and truthful. But without a firm grasp of what is universally considered right and wrong, we will continue the upward spiral of unenforceable laws.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Mail a Comment to Robert

Faith and Freedom

This was written to all of those who are out to destroy Christianity. Should you succeed in destroying this faith, inadvertently you will be destroying the very freedom that you enjoy. No doubt, the understanding of Christianity and its importance has not been taught to you or you would not be so doggedly determined to destroy it. First, you should know that Christianity is a faith-based religion. It is not a scientifically provable equation. There are certainties that are accepted as faith. Christians believe that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb whose blood redeemed all who would believe in Him. Just as the Jews had to sacrifice a lamb while they were in Egypt, and put the blood of the lamb on their doors to keep the angel of death from where they lived, Jesus fulfills that same purpose for all of mankind. Promises that are included to Christians of faith are inner peace, and everlasting life.

Christians are admonished to live within the Secular systems that they find themselves; hence the “Render unto Caesar” lesson in the New Testament. And to be peaceful by, “Turning the other cheek”. Christians are required to live God fearing, useful lives, and to accept Christ as their Savior. For the believers in Christ, their faith transcends the fear of death. They have an understanding that there is something better for them after death. Having faith is a far better way of life than living in fear of what is to come. Any person, who has the knowledge that his life has been one of devotion to God, and his Son, is in an immensely better position to face his own mortality than the person who has rejected God and his teachings.

There is nothing to fear from Christians in and among a Society. And yet, Christians are attacked at every level. Why? Simply put, Christianity represents having to make a choice between right and wrong. There are a lot of people who want to live certain lifestyles that are prohibited by God. So they see the teachings of faith as an obstacle to do what they crave for their own pleasures. Those who are weak and refuse to obey God, turn to the Secular to make things right for them. They want laws changed to address their concerns. The problem with shaping the Secular laws to suit the wants of people is that it’s like re-arranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. Their mortality still approaches and God has the final judgment, not man. Those who reject Christ need to ask themselves if a few years of depravity is worth an eternity of damnation.

Likewise, to those who have the authority to shape Secular law. By attempting to sanctify that which is prohibited by God, are you also not in danger of losing Paradise for yourself?

For the sake of not being misunderstood, I want to be clear that rules are necessary for the governance and protection of a society. But I want to explore the differences between the Secular and non-Secular adhesion to rules. It is these differences that define whether we are held hostage to “Big Brother” or allowed the freedom to maintain our societies.

There is a difference between having to obey Secular laws and a willingness to obey God’s laws. Secular laws are mere boundaries. They represent limits for which a transgression can be either criminal or just a fine. There is no guidance in navigating these boundaries. A person is free to bounce around in his Secular society as long as he doesn’t run afoul of one of these boundaries. There are Secular boundaries everywhere, but no guidance. You are allowed to drive your car down the highway as you choose as long as you don’t go over the speed limit, make an improper turn, fail to yield, not stop for a stop sign, and on and on. The lesson here is that society wants you to drive safely so as not to harm yourself or others. Hence, we have the establishment of all those boundaries. (Laws)

The differences I am talking about are profound. For instance, when a person who rejects faith approaches a stop sign and sees nobody, he may or may not run the stop sign. Running the stop sign gives him no remorse, because after all, there wasn’t any oncoming traffic. However, because there is no remorse, the lesson to him is that it is okay to disobey a Secular law. Remember though, all of the intersections won’t be empty. Others can be put in danger if it isn't realized that on this day, he was lucky.

Same scene with a Christian at the stop sign, and he also determines it is safe to run it. Now however, he knows he has done wrong, and it bothers him. His conscience will not allow the broken law to go unnoticed.

The Secular world without Christ just bounces one around from one boundary to the next. The only price to be paid, if caught, is maybe a fine or it could be a life behind bars, depending on the boundary that was violated. The emptiness of such a life is real. The search for “neat” things in the Secular world will expand exponentially because nothing can quench this thirst. The search for satisfaction eventually runs afoul of the Secular boundaries. The person is left with nothing. He becomes an island of despair, and turning to the Secular world for help is also empty. Nothing in the Secular world can help because the help that is needed is spiritual. No pill can mend what is broken.

When we accept Christ as our Savior, we also accept the responsibilities for our actions. Whenever a Christian does the wrong thing, there is this tug at his conscience that tells him about it. Guilt is spawned out of doing wrong, whether by disobedience to God’s Law or Secular Law.

The love of God creates a goal that is beyond Earthly goals. It is for that reason Christians are constantly aware of their actions here on earth. Once a person becomes a Christian, they receive an indescribable joy in their hearts. This spirit will guide them for the rest of their days. They will renounce sin and pray for forgiveness when they falter. And, all will falter, contrition is vital if there is to be any relief from the relentless tug of the conscience knowledge of transgression. It is our conscience reminding us and guiding us that makes life bearable for all of society.

Should this Nation lose it’s faith and succumb to nonbelief, the goodness that has bound us together since our founding will be lost. No more will we be guided by our conscience into doing the right thing, for we will have rejected the premise of right and wrong. The common trust between everyone will dissolve into avaricious behavior for riches and power. The great United States would be powerless in the face of such fractious behavior. Anarchy would reign.

So be of good faith, and know that your faith is the ultimate guarantor of freedom. There can be no freedom without faith. Remember, it is faith that creates the need for a decent life, not the threat of punishment from Secular laws.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Texas Heat Wave of 2009

Texas has experienced a record-breaking heat wave between May and at least half of July. The main culprit isn't global warming, but rather a very persistent high-pressure area over the south-central region of the United States.

High-pressure areas, generally looked upon favorably because they usually mean good weather for the area they encompass. -But persistent high-pressure areas that don't move also have a darker side.

The air mass within a high-pressure area is mainly cloud free so rain or other precipitation is not possible. The clear sky gives an unrestricted window for the Sun to penetrate to the Earth's surface. A persistent high-pressure that lingers over an area for extended periods - up to 2 months or more can have a devastating effect on vegetation.

Watering plants help, but for a lot of plants fully exposed to the Sun, we still see a stunted growth. The continual exposure to an unrestricted Sun and high temperature difference between night and day is ruinous to most plants. Temperature differences, referred to as the temperature split, reaches about 20˚F within a high-pressure area in a 24-hour period. For instance, if you are experiencing 100˚F in the daytime, you can expect around 80˚F for a low temperature before sunup. Plants like a more even temperature and less radiation from the direct Sunlight to thrive which is why many gardeners and farmers try to shade their plants from the hot afternoon Sun.

I am no climatologist so I cannot explain why our high-pressure area was so persistent. But it was, and the grass outside is crunchy dry. My outside thermometer (electronic sensor) stays shaded by a popcorn tree for most of the day but there are periods when the full light of the Sun is on it. During the shaded times the sensor has registered as much as 104˚F, and in full Sun it has registered and astounding 114˚F.

The cloudless conditions we have been experiencing for the past two months have been painful. I am grateful for being retired because working outside in these conditions is brutal. Whenever I see those who have to be outside to make a living, I am just grateful it is not me. Those people deserve our admiration and respect for what they are going through to make a living.

The end of this period nears and rain chances are starting to appear in the forecast. My assumption is that the grass will green up if we ever get some rain. I don't know, but I hope the grass just goes dormant rather than dying when it gets this dry. We water our main plants but do not have the ability to water the full two acres that I live on so our yard looks a little polka-dotted with the green splotches where we have been watering.

In spite of a very hot and dry summer, I am expecting a very cold winter. But that is another story.

Stay cool!

Cheers,

-Robert-

Email Comments to Robert

Obama and Taxation

Obama has pledged to the American people that no one making less than 250 thousand dollars would see a tax increase but instead would receive a tax cut. Can he make good on such a pledge and still pay for expensive new programs? The classical answer would be no, but connivance still reigns in the political arena.

The payroll tax is only one source of revenue for the government. But the one key thought to remember, is that all revenue comes from the taxpaying citizens. When a particular segment of the population receives a benefit, other tax devices are used. The government has resorted to 'targeted' taxes that result in taxing special interests. You know them as cigarette taxes, phone taxes, liquor taxes, etc. Other targeted taxes are licenses. Licenses make up another income stream for both local and Federal governments. There are too many targeted taxes to list here, but suffice it to say, that if you own it, subscribe to it, buy it, or use it, the government gets a share of its cost.

The money any politician can spend begins with the taxpayer. Taxpayers provide 100% of the money the government spends. The government has elevated the different ways of extracting money from its citizens into an art form. The more money the politicians have - the more power they have to wield over everybody. We have allowed the tin pot politicians to take control of our society and wrest the freedom to choose and decide from us. Once government injects dollars into an entity, politicians can then take a commanding role with that entity. The entity no longer has any independence. This is how we as citizens empower the government.

Don't get me wrong, there are places that the government must assert itself on behalf of the national interest. Defense, interstate commerce, and justice are but a few of the major roles that government must represent us. But not all projects rise to the level of national importance.

The definition of what politicians define as local or national projects separates me from Liberals. It seems lately, that all problems are national problems. Ambitious politicians anxious to climb the political ladder see the money from the government as the way to fame and glory. Thus, politicians use earmarks and political patronage as their stepping-stones. Local initiatives for ridiculous projects generally fail. But by acquiring Federal tax-dollars, the local inhabitants get a project for an apparent bargain, even though they would not have paid for it out of their pockets.

But I want to remind everybody that the combination of all federally paid projects comes with a big price tag. That is why we are all bending from the weight of all those taxes. Seeking the easy and cheap way out has cost us dearly in real terms of jobs and national wealth. As the government 'helps' more people, it needs more and more money. Taxes go up. Our politicians have been very creative in coming up with ways to get more taxes so that they can fund more projects. This creation of governmental dependence is a cycle that is mathematically certain to collapse the economy. It is important to note that as we demand more from our government, the more our government will have to demand from us.

That brings us back to the processes that Obama has put into motion. Recently, using the power of the governmental purse, the U.S. has loaned several large corporations billions of dollars. Because of the large stake in those businesses, the government has assumed a commanding role in dictating both function and management of those entities. After all, somebody has to look after the taxpayers investments. Obama has put into motion several projects that will cost trillions of dollars. The only source for that money is the taxpaying citizens of this country.

There are few options to get the money for his extravagance. He can monetize the debt (print the money), borrow the money from other countries on the hope that we will once again regain the upper hand, or he can use various taxing schemes to extract the money from the citizenry.

Monetizing the debt will devalue our currency and cause massive inflation.

Borrowing will put us in the same position that our American companies have found themselves in when they borrowed. The foreign lenders will have a commanding role in our country because they now own a large part of our economy. Borrowing massive amounts of foreign money is a disaster in the making. Americans will again lose their independence because others own us.

Taxation is the only method left. But as Obama will find out, the increase in taxes will only cause the economy to get worse. More jobs will be lost as businesses move to tax friendlier countries. Obama has pinned his hopes on revenue raising schemes such as 'Cap and Trade'. That irresponsible legislation is only another tax levied on all of us. It does not matter how much money that the government collects, it is never enough.

Federal intervention in lieu of local control robs each and every citizen of the ability to control and exercise his/her responsibility as a citizen. When the National Government usurps the local say-so, those citizens have lost the freedom to chart their course as they see fit. This is not about taking control from the Federal government, but rather about a takeover by the Federal Government. We have to say no to those schemes hatched by politicians for self-aggrandizement. If a project is worthy, the people will accede and find a way to pay for it without federalizing it.

Remember if you are making clubs that others use to beat you; it is time to stop making clubs. We keep asking for punishment every time we allow someone else to assume the responsibility that is ours. What seems as the best way today will eventually haunt us. The piper always gets paid and when he claims his payday, we will suffer for our actions.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Lazy Stupid Republicans

Every day I receive emails from different Republicans both notable and wannabee notables that decry their pitiful plight under the Obama administration. They also have one thing in common, they all want donations. What a joke!

These guys were nowhere to be seen when we needed them. Where were they during the Bush years when we should have been reigning in spending? Where was their concern when Fred Thompson paired up with John McCain in the primaries to divide the conservative vote? The three conservative candidates divided that vote leaving McCain as the only non-conservative in the field. Guess who won? A pox on all their houses!

Where was the outcry about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae when Bush tried to prevent the economical collapse in 2005? The Republicans knew exactly what was happening, but they just couldn't bring themselves to prevent a catastrophe - let the good times roll! Very few, if any Republicans bothered to stand on their hind legs when we needed them. And now, they have the gall to ask me for my money!

Where were the Republicans during the outrage happening in Iraq? Far too many American soldiers died before Bush finally made a positive move to gain the upper hand. Remember, everybody loves a winner and for 3 years, we weren’t winning. Reporters were too scared to even venture out of their hotels, and all the while, the Bush administration did nothing to even present a light at the end of the tunnel. Worse, Bush could not find any reason to defend either himself or his administration. Bush lost both public confidence as well as popularity for his perceived inaction. Bush failed us in so many ways that the Democrats made a mockery out of the Republicans.

Bush allowed Scooter Libby to languish through Hell even though the man was innocent until he finally committed the process crime of - not remembering. Bush allowed two border guards Ramos and Campean to be prosecuted and victimized because of political patronage to Mexico. Those guys were innocent and just doing their jobs - victims of mixing politics and justice. Bush knew that those two were innocent and finally commuted their sentences, but not their conviction, just before leaving office. Where was the Republican leadership in the senate that allowed those outrages to happen? Other than a few voices in the House of Representatives, the silence was deafening.

The Republicans created the conditions for Obama's rise from obscurity. Obama became a champion to the voters because he offered change from the 'business as usual' politics in Washington. Well, we sure got change! Remember, people always get the type of government that they deserve.

Even now, a fledgling protest movement is afoot, but there is no leadership from any mainstream Republicans there to support it. Oh, there are those who will applaud such actions as TEA parties, but other than a very small group of elected representatives that actively support the movement, it goes mostly unnoticed. And this group of sit on their hands Republicans still asks me for my money! How dare they be so brash? Do they think I buy hot air?

I do not recommend sending this lazy, lead with their jaws, afraid to rock the boat, money for any reason. The infighting for the direction of the Republican Party will either consume the Party or give birth to a new party, provided leadership can be located from somewhere in the bowels of chaos.

At one time, I thought that Newt Gingrich looked like a possible leader, but he too has failed miserably to vigorously pursue the good ideas he has. He conveniently slips back into his intellectual mode of softness instead of being the drumbeater for anything interesting. McCain isn't even up for discussion. Then, there are the forgettable former governors of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Are they inspiring? Not in my estimation, they espouse values but offer no reason to believe in their leadership. Huckabee makes a better entertainer than any political attributes that I can see. He is the master of the one-liner and an adequate bass guitar player, but still has the personality of a Baptist preacher.

Mitt Romney has a past that resoundingly says 'Liberal'. His tenure as governor in Massachusetts pretty well defines his brand of politics. So who is left?

Ron Paul? This Libertarian has a good record and stands firm on how he views the political landscape. But I don't see him as the one who can unseat Obama. His political viewpoints are not universally acceptable by Republicans.

Personally, I am keeping an eye on Sarah Palin. She has demonstrated that she will not stand by and allow the political opposition to succeed with their personal attacks on her and her family. She has the attributes of a leader who is not to be denied. The Democrats realize that she is a powerhouse and are throwing everything in the book at her to derail her politically. But the refreshing thing is, they are failing to make a dent. This moose-hunting, good-looking lady from Alaska defies their every effort. Here is a possible future candidate who may deserve your support. Asking you to contribute to her now may be a little premature but so far, I like what I see in her.

Let your dissatisfaction over the lack of leadership in the Republican Party be known to all office holders. Write to them, email them, and call their office. The more you care, the more they will care. The last thing this bunch of milk toast politicians want is to lose their jobs. If you want the horse to buck, you have to spur him on. Or, just throw the whole bunch of spineless sponges out of office.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Send Comments to: editor@robfg.com

Intelligent DNA 2

Questions that lead to more questions result from the search for how an entity became what it is today. Take an ordinary watermelon for instance. What in the world inspired the watermelon to evolve? Think about it for a moment.

The watermelon we live with today fits nicely into a niche that keeps it thriving. There had to be a point in time that no watermelons existed. What brought it into existence? We can look at its current life cycle for clues, but the light we shine on the current life cycle only brings more questions.

Currently, the watermelon produces a tasty fruit that when ingested, its seeds travel through the digestive system of the animal that ate the fruit, then finally deposited in a dung heap that nourishes the seed into a new watermelon plant. It sounds easy up to this point, but my question is, how did the process start?

The seed knew that just popping out of a pod with seeds did not distribute the plant very well, and they might or might not have the proper conditions to grow. What the seed needed was distribution. It may be dry in its present location, but by moving to another location, the seed may find favorable conditions to grow. All sorts of methods for distribution evolved. Some, like the dandelion figured out that by making its seed light enough with hair like protrusions to catch the wind, it could distribute itself without the help of animals. But some plants, like the watermelon (and others), enlisted the help of animals.

In my mind's eye, I can just see the first seed (of another long gone plant) that made it through the digestive tract of an animal. The end of that journey left it deposited in the dung heap. The resulting plant flourished. The experience was so good for the seed that it started seeking ways to insure that its resulting seeds would be so lucky.

The seed at this point had two worries. The seed must coat itself to avoid digestion and attract an animal with an inefficient digestive system. (Where the animals with an inefficient digestive system came from is another question for another article.) Picking the proper animal group to distribute its seeds was a vexing chore. After all, the seeds didn't know what the animals wanted to eat. Biologists would tell us that natural selection solved the mystery, but I am not sure that natural selection initiated the process. The process for change started with a plant's need to reproduce itself. Natural selection only solved the dilemma after the DNA tried different strategies. New problems confronted the seed at every turn. Among its new problems was to figure out the best way to produce its seeds and how many to produce. Should it use a pod and make the pod attractive with odor or use many pods with the seeds bound together in a fleshy encasement.

An organism's DNA comes up with different strategies, but natural selection determines the winners and losers. You have to hand to the DNA structure; it realizes that a change would be beneficial so it starts the process of modification. The conditions that start the DNA to modify may be climate, predation, or competition with other organisms. The life structure seems self-programmed to succeed against a variety of obstacles. You can be sure that something in the inner workings of this life structure determines that a change is necessary. That is why I believe that DNA, because of its ability to self-program, is a creation of intelligence. DNA doesn't care what form it takes as long as that life form is successful. The dead-end life forms fail because the time to adapt is too short. Adaption time can be cut short because of severe climate changes, predation, or cosmic events. I'm sure there are other reasons but the idea is only to demonstrate some of the possible causes for extinction of different life form. But given ample time to adapt, the DNA will see to it that needed changes will emerge that can compete.

The opinions expressed here about DNA are mine. This is not a scientific document.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Send comments to: editor@robfg.com

Health Care Woes

The news is full of unoriginal clichés. We hear about the 43 million people who are uninsured and how medical costs are skyrocketing. Then we hear about all of the savings to be had if we just had universal coverage. Sitting in my small office, I wonder if the bureaucrats have actually looked at the problems surrounding our health care.

Nobody is denied emergency or basic care regardless of income. However, the quality of care is better for those with coverage. What you do not hear is that if everybody had insurance, quality of health care would not improve. To begin with, our health care system is already overburdened. Even with money to spend on health, it takes at least a week to get an appointment with a doctor. How would your accessibility change if everybody had good insurance? Our doctors can see no more people than they do already. Most work long hours and their patient schedules are full. The burden on the medical community is also the reason for the long waits in emergency rooms. Simply put, there are already more patients than the doctors can treat in a timely manner. Appointments can be as long as a month for a specialist, a week or more for your family physician, or several hours in the emergency room.

To become a doctor, it takes years of training. Some of these doctor want-to-be students go through the years of training because they just want to serve their fellow man, but what motivates most is the prospect of building a private practice and having financial security. Yes, it is the good old profit motive.

Health care is a market driven business. That means, if you have enough money, you can have access to the best care that is available. But the best care is in limited supply and not everybody can possibly get the best care. So would a change in that system be good for anybody? I go back to the years it takes to become a doctor. How do you think that removing the profit motive will affect the number of young people entering medical school? Removing the motivation to become a doctor would be disastrous and lead to even more mediocrity and health rationing.

As stated, the best treatment is in limited supply. Do you remember when you were in school? There were the nerds who always made good grades, then there were the regulars who made satisfactory grades, and last were the dullards who just barely got by. Well, doctors are like that also. A third of all doctors graduated from the 'dullard' section, another third from the regular section, and then the elites of the class came from the top third of the class. It is literally and physically impossible for everybody to be treated by the top third of the class. So, only a fraction of patients has access to the smartest and most knowledgeable of our doctors.

It is also true that not all doctors treat the sick. There is a huge market for 'vanity' doctors. Vanity doctors are doctors that do the boob jobs, sexual reassignment operations and tummy tucks. Aesthetic cosmetic surgery, not to be confused with reconstruction plastic surgery, siphons off the supply of doctors who would otherwise treat our ailments. In 2007 there were 12 million cosmetic surgeries performed. The five most common were breast augmentation, liposuction, nasal surgery, eyelid surgery, and abdominoplasty.

Doctors doing vanity surgery specialize in that field and do not treat the sick. Not only does cosmetic surgery yield higher income, but only limited record keeping and insurance filings are necessary which drastically reduce office costs. Higher fees plus reduced cost makes cosmetic surgery highly attractive to doctors.

Some of the data available is revealing if people would take the time to inform themselves. Let's look a little closer at health care and health care dollars in the United States.

To begin with, basic health care is available to everyone. If you go to a state funded hospital or any emergency room, you will be treated regardless of your ability to pay.

Look at the statistics on the uninsured. In 2007, 45.7 million people did not have health coverage. 21% or 10 million of that total were full-time employees and 59% or 27 million were part time employees. 20% or one-fifth of the uninsured population could afford health coverage, but decide for their own reasons not to. 38% or 17.3 million of the uninsured lived in households making $50,000 or better.

According to the Census Bureau, 36 million or 78.7% of the uninsured were legal citizens while 9.7 million or 21.2% are non-citizens.

A large part of my writings have always been about solutions that are not well thought out. Americans are sold the glittering part of an idea but never the darker side. Computerizing our medical records may help with some costs, but there will also have to be staff enlargements at the doctor's office to put the data into the computers. Every visit has details that get recorded. Normally, the doctor would just write out the details of your visit and file your record. But by computerizing the data, we need yet another layer of personnel to enter the data into the computers. Office costs go up. That money has to come from somewhere, I wonder whom.

A doctor's office also has to retain a person(s) to do insurance filings. This person makes sure the codes are correct and that your provider is legitimate. There is no reason why we as patients and customers of our insurance companies can't file our own insurance claims. Doctors still take money for their services and it would reduce the health care cost if this added burden weren't added to the doctor's office expense. Insurance filing could be simplified with a method of verification so that you could file your own claims. By filing your claim, it would give more assurance to the provider that the doctor's office is not gaming the system.

By far the largest elephant in the room is lawsuits. Doctors are human and they make mistakes, some of them tragic and stupid. But I can't remember the last time that I met a doctor who wanted to make a mistake or hurt his patients. But for protection against lawsuits, doctors have to order unnecessary tests, pay huge insurance premiums, and regard every patient as a possible threat to his livelihood. Tort reform would help this situation but is not a part of the plan that congress is considering. Litigation and the threat of litigation substantially increase the cost of health care.

Another subject that I won't dwell on much is the rules and regulations of building a hospital that drive the costs up substantially. Local, state, and federal regulations that do nothing for patient safety or health, menace every part of the construction of new facilities. It is the little things like hospital grade sockets and plugs. Hospital grade outlets mandate that you need at least a four pound pull to dislodge the plug from it. Most sockets that you buy meets and exceeds this rating. But the contractor has to purchase 'hospital rated' outlets to comply with the code. That special rating comes with a special price.

There are literally thousands of other examples of rules that are written at the local and state level just for the benefit of certain individuals. All of which increase the cost of providing health care.

I want to say that I am for honest change but not political change that just redistributes how we pay and ration our health care. But sadly, the bill before congress does not accomplish anything useful, unless you do not plan on getting old.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Send comments to: editor@robfg.com