In the New York Daily News web edition, Mike Lupica writes a column intended to show that the 'real' target of the town hall protestors is President Obama, not the policies pertaining to health care reform.

At least, that's what I thought it was intended to show. In point of fact, Mr. Lupica doesn't establish that at all. In fact, it is a remarkable feat that he does pull off. He manages to write an entire column of opinion that doesn't 'show' anything at all!

He does have a few things going in this column. I'll give him credit for the fact that he has allegations aplenty. He alleges that the “debate about health care has turned into a sideshow and in some cases even more of a freak show than Glen Beck's.” (Did I mention that Mr. Lupica likes to use name calling a lot too?) He alleges that there have been many times “when people with legitimate concerns and legitimate points to make were overwhelmed by the wing nuts and screamers who take their marching orders from right-wing radio and television and the internet.” He alleges that many protestors are “idiots” who “come to these town hall meetings more to be seen than heard, and think creating chaos makes them great Americans.” Finally, he makes the claim that “The notion that this is all honest dissent is just one more lie.”

These are only a few examples from Mr. Lupica's column. He effervesces a plethora of allegations and is generous with name calling throughout his piece. He seems (but I may be mistaken here) to want us to get the impression that he doesn't like the protestors which have shown up at town hall meetings across our land. To be more precise, he wants us to know that those who protest against Obama's and the Congress' plans for our healthcare are definitely off his Christmas list. Unfortunately for his readers who might be searching for genuine understanding, that is about the only thing we really know from his column.

There seems to be something vital missing from what Mr. Lupica wrote. It is difficult to put one's finger on, but I believe what's missing is just one concrete specific example of what Mr. Lupica is talking about. Allegations can make great theater. Accusations and name calling are the stuff of drama to be sure. But when 'we the people' are being asked to make a decision, or allow our representatives to make such a decision, of the magnitude of changing our entire health care system, we need facts and truth. Mr. Lupica, with all his charm, is woefully short on both.

We have seen it before and it is intriguing in it's tenacity and endurance. We saw it with Elvis. After his death the media and the worshiping hordes made the event much larger than life. It was much larger than even the many hugely popular and controversial events of his own life. The Elvis cult following was enormous while he was alive. It is one of the factors involved in making him a legend while he was yet alive. But it pales in comparison to what he has become since death. Since death, the legend has become a god and his status has not waned in the interim to today. He is adored after death by untold millions of people who never saw him, never even heard him, and are far too young to have been caught up into the furor of his musical popularity. It now appears that the same phenomenon is asserting itself with the untimely passing of Michael Jackson.

I must confess that I have never cared for this kind of thing. Idolization of anyone is more than a bit distasteful to me. I am not one to follow the drama of celebrity lives played out nightly on various TV programs and the Internet as well. However, as it happens today one can hardly escape being bombarded by personal information about the various musicians, sports stars, actors and others who have become “celebrities” in our culture. Even so, I generally have not paid a lot of attention to this. The celebrity worship culture has always seemed to me to be of little real importance or relevance to what really matters in the world. It seems to me that Britney's latest fashion faux paus pales in comparison to Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons. However, after giving this most recent tragic event some thought I have decided that a change of mind is in order.

You see, even with the endless parade of tedium ranging from the truly boring to the overtly obscene that has repulsed me in the past, the passing of Michael Jackson is taking on a special significance I am only now beginning to recognize. It is because of this that a window of understanding has opened which gives a glimpse of the true importance of all kinds of cult-like behavior toward celebrities in general, as well as what happens to those we bestow this worship upon.

In the case of Michael Jackson, there were some circumstances of his family life as a child that set him up for a fall. The abusive behavior of his father, Joe, toward Michael and others in the family was a catalyst for the bizarre behavior Michael later displayed.

Be that as it may, it seems apparent that Michael was ill-equipped for his rocket to fame and fortune which especially manifested itself in the early 80's. He became a mega-star that outshined everyone else in popularity as a musician. The 24/7 media we are used to now was in it's infancy then, and they were more than ready to grow at anyone else's expense. Michael was perfect for them. His insecurity was exposed to a captivated audience on the gossip train via TV shows and news desperately searching for sensationalism. Soon enough, his quirky behavior began to become self-destructive with the various plastic surgeries and drugs to handle the pain. Bizarre alterations of his face became almost grotesque. There were actually points when one would wonder if his nose would simply fall back into his face because of the surgeries. His own behavior was also increasingly strange. His profligate spending and weirdness toward young children (though he was cleared of child abuse) only served to fire up the media machine more. We began to see a picture of a tragic young man probably in need of at least some serious psychotherapy. Perhaps one of the good things to come out of Michael's passing is that he won't have to endure the media scrutiny anymore. Of course it also means that many young children have possibly been saved from a terrible fate.

However, I think that another casualty is this is our society itself. It was telling enough that during his life, especially his tortuous late teen and early adult years, we couldn't seem to get enough of him. It was almost as if we enjoyed seeing someone more famous and more rich go from fame and fortune to become an emotional and physical wreck. Worse yet, we watched him become a potential danger to others and it didn't seem to matter a lot. His records sold at a brisk pace and his concert tours were sold out. What does this say about our own state of being as a culture?

One of the things that screams to me is that human envy and jealousy seems to be unbounded. Those who have what most of us think we want, money, power, fame or some intangible that accompanies these, appear to be targets at which it is fair game to take a potshot or two. If the chance arises that they fall in one way or another, the person of note is judged in a harsher manner than we would judge ourselves in the same situation. Should it happen that real tragedy befalls that person, remorse is often mingled or even overcome by the feeling that somehow, this otherwise fortunate person really deserves what happened. Why? Because we envy them. Why do we envy them? Mayhap it is because we believe that we are at least as good if not better than they are and if we cannot have what they have, they shouldn't have it either. It doesn't seem to matter very much whether of not the person who was successful worked extremely hard for many years to gain his or her fortune and fame. We perceive that somehow, they got what they have through some kind of short cut or even immoral activity. Otherwise we, whether we are hard working or talented or gifted at all, would have the wealth and fame and power too. After all, we're entitled.

These factors have, of course, always been present in our race. What disturbs is the appearance that envy and jealousy of celebrity figures has become far more prevalent in recent times. It was not always so, if we are to believe our history.

At the founding of our nation, those who were of privileged position tried to create a government which would encourage equality of opportunity to such an extent that accomplishment was rewarded. The idea was that if one actually buckled down, worked hard and honestly, and applied themselves one could rise above perceived class and deficient economics to make a better life for themselves and their posterity. The fact is this concept was alive as recently as the baby boomer generation, of which I am a part. I can remember the so-called 'protestant work ethic' being instilled within me at a young age. Both my mother and step-father provided wonderful examples of such a belief. They worked long and hard to provide a home for us. Much was sacrificed so that we children, four boys and two girls, could at least have a solid roof over our heads and food on the table. We were not well off at any time during my childhood that I can remember. The best one could say was that we were lower middle class during the years when we were most prosperous. For most of our years we were what would be called today the “working poor.” Yet our financial struggles never seemed to touch us much as a family. Every one of my brothers and sisters have grown to become hard workers themselves, and are trying to raise families of similar ilk.

Much has happened in the intervening 40 years or so. An entirely new generation has reached parental status and are now raising families of their own. Technology has exploded onto the scene in ways that reach into everyone's life. Government has become more and more intrusive and, despite the conservative Reagan years, the nanny state is alive and well and wanting more power than ever. Liberal policies of government created this cradle to grave care monster, nurtured it and fed it until it has grown to gargantuan proportions. Perhaps most significant, another generation of government dependent families has grown up and are raising families of their own. What are the chances that upwards of 90% of the children of those families will be repeating the government dependent cycle, especially considering our current economic atmosphere? And it is because one is so dependent on government assistance that one begins to believe that the actual function of government is to “care for” you from birth to death.

However, though the government does provide much, no one will ever reach the wealthy lifestyle level as a government dependent. Also, because as a government dependent, one is often not overly fond of working for a living, neither will high monetary status be attained through hard work.

Yet you, and him, and her, and me desire the blessings of riches, with whatever motive in mind. That desire and the inability to fulfill it lead to a frustration of our circumstances. Envy is one of the natural fruits of frustration. When we see others with those possessions and position and power and popularity that we crave, we envy them. We wish the circumstances were different and we were the affluent ones. However, since we can't be what they are, we want to turn the tables on the “rich”. We want them to suffer as we have suffered. We want them to know what it's like to light candles because you can't pay the light bill. To know how it feels being rejected for the 15th or 50th job you have tried to get. What it is to decide whether or not to buy groceries or pay the car payment. We want them to know these things and since we cannot go up to their level, we will try to drag them down to ours. Since we cannot take their money from them directly, we will have our government heap tax burdens upon them until they are crippled or leave. Since we can't have their position and power, we will hound them for photos and video and statements, while we analyze their lives with a microscope. We probe for every indiscretion, peer into their darkest past secrets, and pry in the closets and bedrooms looking for any morsel to use for public celebrity humiliation. Even the best among us might fare poorly under that kind of scrutiny. And when it happens that one of the icons fall, we mourn the falling. Why? We as the public, the gossip fan, the entertainment junkie, set up the conditions for failure and then we are shocked when it happens? The bigger the star, the more we mourn his or her passing, as we can see with Michael Jackson.

I believe that the cult of the celebrity is beginning to show signs of becoming a very ugly part of humanity. Certainly the mirror of Michael Jackson's death and it's aftermath is not showing us a pretty picture, and I fear it will only get worse. I fear as well that the ugliness of that picture will affect our icon worshiping culture. The culture will absorb the ugly scenes of Michael's demise in life through to death, and go on devouring others who have the temerity to achieve or simply are fortunate to have what the rest of us don't have. The message this sends is simple. Don't be famous! Don't be talented in any way that could garner attention. Lay low and stay low. If you have some kind of gift or talent, hide it desperately. For if you become a celebrity, there will be followers and even worshipers. And may God help you then.

Recently the California Supreme Court upheld the legality of Proposition 8 which amended the California Constitution to read that "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." However, there are one or two caveats to the court's ruling.
First, the legal status of the current 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain unchanged. Second, there is no mention of whether or not same-sex marriages performed out of state would be recognized. This ruling did nothing to silence the homosexual activists, rather it served to make them protest louder, and not just against the political powers. Protests were also staged at various religious venues such as the Latter Day Saints Church, aka the Mormons, who were one of many religious groups to support Proposition 8. While the ruling in California is somewhat hopeful, it may amount to a finger in a collapsing dam holding back the flood of societal change that could soon wash over our land.

The fact is the result of society accepting the concept that a same-sex marriage is even possible is the death knell of marriage itself. Once the definition of marriage is broadened to include anything other than the union of a man and a woman, the door has been opened to literally define marriage in any way one wishes. There have already been examples of just what I am talking about with the recent advocation of the "triad" marriage. This is a 'marriage' between three people of any gender combination. According to Abby Ellin in thedailybeast.com, "triads...demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other." This is not some kind of open marriage or swinger's arrangement. Citing one of the parties involved in seeking a "triad" marriage, Ellin writes that the woman named Sasha states "I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand and live together and openly proclaim our relationship...(and) also to have those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that."

In the same article, examples are given of triads, quads and even “quints”, which would be five in a continuous committed relationship. As one might imagine, there are some creative agreements and arrangements out there to try and facilitate this. One couple who counsels people who live in these relationships “offer tips for creating agreements among them, 'User Time Limited Agreements Where Needed' (i.e. two weeks, two months and so on) and 'Check in Periodically, Renegotiate if Needed.' “

A particularly intriguing example given in the article is that of three men, Doug Carr, Robert Hill, and Paul Wilson, who formed a committed 'triad' 29 years ago. “They would like to marry legally,” Ellin writes. She also notes that “Despite the fact that they are also 'Dad, Daddy, and Pappa' to the 4-year old quadruplets Carr sired with a lesbian couple, they actually see themselves as quite traditional.”

These relatively newer marriage-like arrangements come equipped with large advocacy groups. Perhaps the largest is simply known as The Polyamory Society. On their website they have a twelve part mission statement. Number 1 is “To Support, Defend and Promote the Social Institution of Polyamory.” Numbers 5 and 6 are particularly interesting. They state that it is also the mission of the society “To Support Accurate Representation and Preservation of Polyamory as a Relationship Style for Future Generations”, and “To Assist in the Creation of Polyamory Relationship Contractual Agreements.” The final statement, number 12, states that the mission is “To Sponsor and Support a Polyamory Family Day to Celebrate and Publicize our Lovestyle.”

Can anyone doubt that these people are as serious as a heart attack here? The more accepted same-sex marriage as a concept becomes, the more other relationship groups will want in on the action. And who's to stop them? What possible logical or legal argument could be mustered that has any chance of stopping them? Any perversion of “relationship” presently known to man, and probably a few that haven't been invented yet, will be claiming they deserve to be deemed a “marriage” and to claim all the rights and legal benefits that go along with it, including raising children and publicly displaying themselves as legitimate families in front of everyone else's children. At the moment it is only generally socially acceptable for these relationships to be limited to adults in whatever numbers may be imagined. How long before the definition of 'adult' begins to include younger and younger ages of males and females? If 18 is legal, why not 17? Why not 16 or 15? Or 14, 13 or even 12 for that matter? The North American Man Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA provides us a very pertinent example of this. They strongly advocate lowering the age of consent to numbers such as just were mentioned. In fact, on NAMBLA's website is featured a “letter from a twelve year old” espousing the great benefits he has received being loved by his “man-friend” and how the “gay liberation” movement should embrace (pun intended) those like himself who believe in man-boy love. There is also no doubt that NAMBLA, despite protestations from the homosexual activists, perceives a strong connection to the “gay liberation” movement. A cursory glance at the NAMBLA website shows this to be true.

The conclusion of these small examples is that marriage will cease to exist on any kind of meaningful level. When any and every relationship can be deemed as a marriage, it follows that the meaning of “marriage” has been lost. When something can mean anything it really means nothing at all.

What does the end of marriage mean for our world? One of the consequences will likely be that the “act” of marriage will simply cease to exist as a sacred institution. At least for now, marriage is generally seen as more than a simple contract. For the most part, people would agree that marriage is a covenant agreement between the man, woman and God. Vows are taken in strictly civil ceremonies, to be sure, but not in numbers comparable to vows taken in religious ceremonies. Should we continue down this road toward the end of marriage, many religious institutions will stop doing marriage ceremonies altogether. The acceptance of same-sex marriages and beyond in law will serve to put enormous pressure on churches to conduct these alternative “weddings” or face civil penalties of some kind. If any religious institution would insist that they will only conduct traditional weddings, they will be accused of illegal discrimination. The only legal recourse for these kind of institutions is to cease performing any weddings at all. Other institutions that give in to the pressure and begin to perform the plethora of different weddings for various kinds, numbers, sexes, ages and perhaps species as well will quickly find that trying to make all those different kinds of ceremonies “sacred” is laughable.

A second, subsequent consequence will be the virtual disappearance of “marriages” at all. The unions of the future might be called marriages, but they would not resemble in the least what the 5,000 plus year old definition of marriage has been. In fact, these concocted coupling (and more) arrangements will lack any definition at all! They will resemble so many different things that they will resemble nothing at all. One thing the majority of them will have in common is some form of sexual expression. Another is that all of these relationships will be so fluid as to defy any commitment beyond the satisfaction of the moment. Combine these factors extended to the totality of society and one can virtually ensure chaos as the result.

That is the likely end of the path on which we are currently treading. I fear that nothing short of a revolutionary change of heart, dare I say a miraculous intervention in our hearts, can keep these dogs at bay. If that's the case then folks, we all better start praying for one soon.

 

Recently President Obama spoke about passing new legislation aimed at “reform” of the Credit Card laws in order to prevent the Credit Card companies from taking unfair advantage of the consumer. The president chided them about everything from the high interest rates they charge to the so-called “hidden charges” contained in the large amount of fine print in credit card agreements.

I believe that there is a need for some reform of the manner in which credit card companies operate so as to make it more fair for the average consumer. It also seems to me that no fair-minded individual could dispute that. The amount of credit card debt that many people in our land have acquired has indeed led to an alarming situation. It is certainly a contributing factor to the rise of bankruptcy in America. The large amount of credit card debt in this nation is also helping our economy further into the tank, as people pull back from spending on anything other than necessities and are having to choose between paying for groceries and paying the credit card bill.

However, I feel I must protest this protest on the president's part. Not because the idea of credit card reform is a bad idea, but because of the incredible hypocrisy and misdirection the idea represents.

The monumental hypocrisy is shown by the simple fact that the worst abuser of credit in the nation, perhaps in the known universe, is our very own federal government! It was recently revealed that for every dollar spent by our government, at least fifty cents has to be borrowed! That is as astounding admission. With our current record budget of 3.7 trillion dollars, half of that, or 1.85 trillion dollars, will have to be borrowed from somewhere. Actually, it will be many “somewheres”, because no one institution or even nation can afford to lend that amount of money without bankrupting themselves! Paying that kind of debt back is literally impossible without opening the printing presses to run off money 24/7 which would result in making the double-digit inflation of the 1970's look like the “good ol' days”!

The misdirection represented here would make any slight of hand practitioner proud. While the president shows with one hand his good intention of reforming the credit card laws, you and I are distracted from the other hand picking our pockets through an ever increasing tax burden. I would submit that of the two financial villains, it is the tax that is far more insidious and destructive.

That is certainly not to say the credit card laws do not need reforming. There are many things that could and should be done in that arena which would benefit many people. People who have become victims of greed and a lack of fiscal discipline. People who in many cases are trapped by a system, legal though it is, which is morally corrupt. A system which can suck them in with tempting offers and then increase interest rates to levels even above 20%. This virtually guarantees financial slavery for the borrower. This does make the credit card companies look like first class villains, that is certain.

However, as bad as this is, the credit card companies are mere pikers compared to the federal government and the IRS! At their very worst, the credit card companies cannot simply take your money. Even when wages are garnished to pay credit card bills, a legal procedure of some kind is necessary and even that can be circumvented by the consumer if they choose the hard route of bankruptcy. Not so with the IRS! They simply take your money directly from your paycheck. The credit card companies cannot simply seize money directly from an inheritance. The IRS can and does with the inheritance tax. The credit card companies cannot simply take money from the profit you may have made from the sale of a home. The IRS with the capitol gains tax can and does. As much profit as the credit card companies may be making from the interest they charge, at least they had to allow the consumer to have funds or the equivalent of funds before they could collect money. The IRS does not give the individual consumer any funds and just takes from money that the producer earned him or herself. With the credit card company, I must sign an agreement or contract of some sort if I want to be able to use the card. No one can force me to have any credit card or to use any credit card that I have. Until I use the card itself, nothing or very little is due to the company from me. In addition, I can pay off cards and cancel the service, even if it is very difficult to do so. There are many services nowadays that will give aid to a consumer in over his head with credit card debt. In some cases, the debt can be paid off at pennies on the dollar! Yes, there are such legal services available for people in trouble with the IRS, and that can also result in paying the tax debt at a fraction of the original amount. However, there is a substantial difference between these cases. Once the credit card debt is taken care of, the consumer no longer has to pay anymore. Not so with the IRS! Income taxes and other confiscations are still taken from the person who paid off the tax debt. He or she will never be free of the predations of the government as long as they live! Even after retirement, Social Security income and retirement account income will be taxed.

This is revdto and this is 4 Ur Consideration

In the last post we saw the unfortunate yet seemingly inevitable situation our nation is headed toward concerning the future of our health care system.  

"the (current) supply of physicians cannot meet current demand and certainly will not be able to meet the future demand of a universal health care system. TWO, the demand for health care will increase to almost unimaginable levels under a universal health care system. THREE, a universal heath care system in the United States will almost certainly come to pass. However, this would seem to describe an impossible situation. All three of these conditions cannot exist as they are. The tension will become unbearable between supply and demand. The structure will not hold and the entire health care system will collapse under it's own weight. It would appear that there is no way to avoid this predicament."
 
Of course, there are those who can foresee this future we seem to be hurtling toward. In fact, there are certainly those within the Obama administration, perhaps even the president himself, who have already foreseen this and they have planned accordingly. The health care system in our land truly is headed for a severe crisis. The operative word here is crisis.

Right after he was chosen as Obama'a Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel made a statement concerning the economic “crisis” to the effect that every crisis is an “opportunity” to take radical action on the government's behalf. What is meant is that the time of crisis is the time to propose that the government exercise greater and newer power in order to remedy the crisis. In addition, the more severe the crisis, the easier it will be to increase the power of government.

If it is true that we are headed for a severe health care crisis, then, according to the administration's own philosophy, we are also headed for a further increase in government power. That is exactly what should be expected because an expansion of power will be necessary in order to ameliorate the collapse of health care in the United States. In point of fact, it is not simply an expansion of government power that will be needed, but a government takeover of the entire health care system!

It should be made clear that this is not just a takeover of the health care insurance industry where the government actually becomes the insurer. That is a given because that is what the president is now trying to make a reality. In order for the crisis to be managed (it cannot be solved as will be seen), it will be necessary for the government to control both the supply and demand sides of the health care industry! Take a moment and absorb that statement.

What this means is that the federal government will attempt to exert full control over both the demand for health care, as well as the supply of health care. In order for that to happen, there will need to be some measure of control over the quantity and quality of physicians, and the numbers of people who will receive health care. A common name for that kind of control is rationing. Physicians themselves will become government employees, because private practice will never be able to produce the needed numbers of physicians. This means that medical education will need to be mass produced as well. I shudder to think of the quality of medical care which a government school and employment will produce. If you are a veteran and have had to deal with the VA Medical system, you have a small idea of what awaits.

In the same way, all kinds of health care delivery will be determined by the government. They will determine when and if you visit a doctor for whatever malady, when and if you get treated and how long you will have to wait for treatment and medicines. In fact, it is not that difficult to imagine the government mandating certain behaviors for people in order to prevent diseases of whatever sort. This could easily enter into the arena of diet and drink, levels of exercise being required, high risk behaviors being banned and eventually many “healthy” behaviors themselves being required. In other words, you had better enjoy your steaks and beer now, because it'll be tofu and water as a steady diet in the future, whether you want it that way or not.

Even those measures will probably not suffice to reduce demand enough for the health care “supply” to adequately meet it. There is another, more sinister way to reduce the demand for health care which will become available to the government. That way will be much easier to encourage once the government has grown to the mammoth proportions deemed necessary to give us all the fine, quality health care that will be promised. That way is to simply reduce the number of people who require health care. And the most efficient way to accomplish this is to reduce the number of people period. The most efficient and least intrusive way to do that is to reduce the numbers of people who come into the world along with reducing the numbers of people at the end of life who need some “extra” care. Thus abortion on demand switches gears a bit to emphasize not legalized abortion as demanded by the choice of the mother, but instead legalized abortion as demanded by the choice of the government. Of course this will all be properly regulated and controlled and licensed and taxed. There will also be a necessary department of the government created and tasked with making euthanasia of those who are living less than productive and enjoyable lives an efficient industry all it's own. Perhaps it could be called the Department for End of Life Transaction Authority, or DELTA. Wouldn't that make a keen acronym to add to the Fed's alphabet soup?

If this sounds a bit far-fetched to you, it shouldn't. We are already entering an era of government control over companies such as GM. I know one commentator who now says that GM should stand for “Government Motors” instead of General Motors. Soon, under the auspices of environmentalism, new SUV's will be banned from production at GM, as well as trucks and any large, comfortable and safe vehicle. The newest cars will have to be super “green” and the choice the consumer will have will slowly be narrowed down to stylized go-karts run on electricity and wind. This is happening right now in the car industry. Government control promises to be even more pervasive in the health care industry.

There is one aspect of all this that is far-fetched. Yet it is an extremely simple way to avoid all of this and the dire consequences to follow. If you haven't yet guessed, dear reader, you can be forgiven. For, as simple as this is, it is also practically inconceivable. The way is.... for the Obama administration to drop it's plans for universal health care coverage. That would be the prudent thing to do. That would be the proper thing to do. And that would be the patriotic thing to do for it would preserve a piece of our freedom which going ahead will almost certainly destroy.

But folks, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. It's bad for your health you know, and I'm not sure the OHCIC (Obama Health Care Insurance Company) would allow that kind of behavior.

This is revdto and this is 4 Ur Consideration

Recently, the Senate announced an aggressive timetable to bring comprehensive health care "reform" legislation to the floor of both houses of Congress and have it passed by early fall of this year. With democratic majorities in both houses, the passage of the legislation would be assured. It would seem as though nothing can stop this leap into a socialist 'nirvana'.

Not so fast, Marxist breath! A new obstacle has appeared on the horizon which may derail this health care gravy train. Ironically enough, it concerns the basic economic law of supply and demand asserting it's ugly little head. It seems we are becoming short on the supply of doctors in our current semi-socialist health care system, and the Medicare monster is largely to blame.

In an April 26^th article appearing in the New York Times, Robert Pear writes that,

“Obama administration officials, alarmed at doctor shortages, are looking for ways to increase the supply of physicians to meet the needs of an aging population and millions of uninsured people who would gain coverage under legislation championed by the president.”

In other words, we have here an instance of a shortage of supply which is unable to meet the demand. But this is not simply a shortage of the supply of a product we are talking about here. This is a shortage of qualified people absolutely necessary to meet the demand that is anticipated should mandated universal health care become a reality.

The fact is simply this; we do not have enough primary care physicians to meet current demand let alone the inevitable large increase in demand for health care which would result in an environment of universal health care. In the same article for the Times, Pear writes that “Lawmakers from both parties say the shortage of health care professionals is already having serious consequences.”

The article goes on to cite the fact that Massachusetts, which recently expanded government health care coverage, is now experiencing a crisis in physician supply. This has meant that we have fewer doctors to take care of larger numbers of people. In fact, because of this 2006 law, the “ratio of primary care doctors to population is higher in Massachusetts than in other states.”

If this current shortage cannot be addressed, the future of health care in our land is in jeopardy, and the idea of universal health care for all Americans may well be in the Intensive Care Unit, if not terminal.

However, the omniscient, all-wise government is not blind to the problem. With apologies to Bill O'Reilly, they are “looking out for you,”. Even now there are some solutions being proposed to meet this crisis. One is to increase Medicare payments to primary care physicians. In order to find these funds, the proposal suggests lowering Medicare reimbursements to high-paid specialists, something these specialists are not likely to take lying down. Other proposals include increasing enrollment in medical schools and residency training programs, and encouraging a greater use of nurse practitioners for primary care. Expanding the National Health Service Corps, which helps get health care practitioners to rural and poor neighborhoods is another option being considered. With these solutions in place, perhaps the current shortage in supply can be brought to a place where the current demand can be reasonably met without a large increase in costs. One thing seems sure though, someone will pay a larger amount just to solve the current problem. Remember, we are dealing with a law of economics here, the law of supply and demand. According to that law, a shortage of supply or an increase in demand for any product will result in an increase in the price. In the case of health care in the U.S., we are presently experiencing both of these phenomena! If we assume that the currently proposed solutions actually work (a dubious admission at best) to increase the supply of physicians enough to better meet the current demand, we still have a large problem facing us even without a government program for universal health care. That is the problem of our aging society in which ever larger numbers of people are going to demand more primary and specialist health care. More and more people, as they live longer in our land, are going to become eligible for Medicare. The Medicare and Medicaid systems we have now are ill-equipped to deal with present day health care demands, as almost everyone attests to. Soon, many millions more retirees and elderly will come on the rolls for these services, and the demand will soar. If we add a universal health care system into the mix, the demand will become astronomical.

 

If one analyzes this situation from a logical and economic standpoint, the following facts emerge. FIRST, it is virtually impossible to increase the supply of physicians to the point where the number will be adequate to address the needed demand of a universal health care system. The supply of physicians cannot be increased in the same way a factory-made product can. We cannot simply manufacture more doctors on an assembly line until we have enough of the “product.” It might be feasible to increase doctor supply by increasing economic incentives to become a doctor. But that will mean an increase in the cost of health care. And that will at the least mean an increase in taxes to pay for these incentives. Even then, it cannot be assured that enough people will become the doctors which will be needed.

SECOND, That the demand will increase is indisputable. As has already been mentioned, this is bound to happen even without universal health care coming to pass. Besides the facts of the increasing population of the elderly, we have the increase in illegal immigrants whom we have obligated ourselves to care for. This includes giving most health care for little or no cost to them. But as with all things, somebody pays, and if you guessed it was the average Joe taxpayer, give yourself a gold star! This is helping drive our health care dilemma to new heights even now. Imagine what a nightmare this will become under universal health care!

THIRD, the Obama administration will not allow anything to stand in the way of bringing about a universal health care system in the United States. It is far more than a political maneuver on the part of President Obama. He is an ideologue especially concerning this particular idea. He is a “true believer” in socialism, no matter what he or others might choose to call it. His record as a politician before he came to the presidency, and more so since, amply demonstrates this.

 

To sum up, ONE the supply of physicians cannot meet current demand and certainly will not be able to meet the future demand of a universal health care system. TWO, the demand for health care will increase to almost unimaginable levels under a universal health care system. THREE, a universal heath care system in the United States will almost certainly come to pass. However, this would seem to describe an impossible situation. All three of these conditions cannot exist as they are. The tension will become unbearable between supply and demand. The structure will not hold and the entire health care system will collapse under it's own weight. It would appear that there is no way to avoid this predicament. 

 

However, such is not the case, as we will see in the next post.

 

4YC  revdto