Michael Jackson was a blind genius

Some people are missing love and happiness so much they try to find it through other people and things, and what they realize is they never quite find it. I think Michael Jackson had that kind of life.

I think he was a person a head of his time. He was a great man. He was the Socrates of his generation. He had a miserable childhood, yet even in his childhood he lived the dream he never saw. He had it all up on that stage, and he was the star he never saw.

He had the money to buy everything he ever wanted, and yet he never found the happiness he was looking for in his childhood. Yes, in a way he lived his childhood dream as an adult, and yet he never found happiness.

He morphed his body into what he became mainly because he flaunted the money and doctors didn't do the ethical thing and tell the young man, "No." I think that was the main problem with Mr. Jackson, the King of Pop. He was a genius, yet he surrounded himself with flawed men.

His was a big man, even bigger in my opinion than Elvis, as he set the stage for many of the musicians we listen to on a daily basis today. And yet to find true happiness he had to resort to material things. When he never found happiness there, he resorted to drugs, the same way Elvis did.

And I don't know nor care that he ever did anything illegal, and in a country as great as ours I think we should all be inclined to agree that he is innocent of all the charges thrown at him, especially the great speculation that he was on some sort of drugs, and that is what killed the King.

He created the ultimate land for his happiness that he called Neverland, and he left it a few years ago because he learned that this place did not bring him happiness at all, but total misery as it resulted in accusation after accusation that he was using his dream home as a lure for little boys. Yes, it is nothing but speculation.

As I wrote a few words ago, I think Michael Jackson was a great man, a man ahead of his time. I don't' think he meant any harm to any boy, he merely wanted to make sure every child had an opportunity to have a wonderful childhood -- something he claims he did not have.

He wanted every child to find happiness, something he never found. Yet, if he had looked, he had it all along all around him, as millions flocked to him and thought of him as a god. He had three little ones running around his home. He had himself.

I told my boy just yesterday that one of the greatest lessons we learn from men that are treated like gods like Elvis and Jackson is fame brings great power and popularity, but power does not bring happiness, and popularity is the hardest thing in the world to maintain.

Michael was a genius, yet he wasn't smart enough to respect himself and his wallet. In a sense, like many popular people, he was a blind genius.

It's time for U.S. action in Iran

I'm siting here listening to a lady on CNN who just watched the Iranian government torture and maim Iranian people who were protesting in the streets for their freedom.

Her voice was shaken, "They are taking axes and sticking them in the hearts of young men.... young men who just want freedom like you...please..," she pleaded, "please come and do something. Please, I beg you, please come and help us."

Republican Senators have been calling on Obama to condemn these actions since the elections, and it wasn't until yesterday that Obama finally said he believes the elections were not right. So, one reporter said, "What took you so long."

To that, Obama said, "I have been consistent all along."

Obama, in a speech today, finally said he condemns the actions of the Iranian government, but he added, "I don't think people understand how hard is to use diplomacy."

I personally do not think the U.S. government should go into Iran to fight Iran's fights. I think it is the responsibility of Iranians to fight for the Iranians, and that is what they are doing. What the United States should do is support the insurgents in Iran. Obama needs to send people into Iran to encourage them, to teach them how to make the transition and form their own democracy.

Yet Obama seems to be more interested in keeping the door open to a radical Muslim regime that, as the lady mentioned above, "Is like Hitler. What is going on here is like Hitler. It's torture. Help! Help! Why don't you guys help us!"

While I don't think it is the role of the U.S. to fight Iran's wars, I do think this is the job of the U.N. However, since the U.N. is a useless body, I think the U.S. should step in and protect the people of Iran who want to fight for their God given rights.

I have a feeling that neither Obama nor the U.N. will do anything here because they are more interested in keeping up their poll numbers and appeasing terrorist regimes with the hopes keeping open the doors of diplomacy open, rather than doing what is right.

The regime that is in power in Iran right now has already proven it will not negotiate, and will not be reasonable. It is time the U.S. back the Iranian's fighting for their freedom, for a free Iran would mean a stabilized Middle East.

Iranian freedom fight direct result of Bush policy

You have to believe that what is going on in Iran right now is a direct result of George W. Bush's foreign policy. It was Bush who almost single handedly helped the Iraqi people to form a democracy and stable nation.

While Iranians do not allow supporters of the new Iraqi democracy into this country for fear his people might see what it is like to be free, you know some do. You know there are free Iraqi's in Iran who show the Iranians what it is like to be able to speak freely, and protest without fear of the government killing you like what is going on in Iran today.

I remember when liberals were chanting how evil the war in Iraq was, and conservatives like me confirmed the idea that if a stable democracy can be formed in Iraq neighboring nations will see this and they themselves will want to be free (I wrote about this here way back on January 1, 2008).

Here is part of what I wrote:

In essence, whether you agree or not that the Iraq war was necessary in the first place, us keeping that nation stable has now become of vital importance to maintaining peace and stability in that region. And, if that region is secure, so
too will be our nations.

Thus, the ultimate strategy of the Bush foreign policy is create a stable Iraq. Once a stable Iraqi democracy is formed, people of neighboring nation like Iran and Syria will see what it is like to live in freedom, and will wish to have that for themselves.

And, thus, the ultimate goal is a free and stable Middle East.

After all the Bush hating, Bush lied rhetoric, one who has supporting the efforts in Iraq and our President W. all along can't help feeling some solace here.

True believers in the passage that there has only been one war in the history of the world between two democratic nations should also feel solace and hope for a democracy in Iran. And this is why our President should fully support the Iranian freedom fight.

Nat. Health Care may cause real crisis

As I wrote two days ago, I'm not convinced there really is a health care crisis, that is is manufactured by the media and politicians.

I say this because we are told there are people suffering becaue they don't have access to healthcare, but when you ask around, you don't see it; you don't see people not getting healthcare. In fact, it's not possible for ERs to turn sick people down -- it's against the law.

What we need to do in this country is teach people that they don't need to go to the hospital for every little cold, every little cut, every little mole they discover on their bodies while taking a shower in the morning.

I remember when I was a kid felt sick my mom would put me in her bed and there I would stay for the next few days. I remember having headaches so bad, and being so nauseous I thought i was going to die. But mom never took me to the ER. I survived.

That's how it used to be when people paid for their own health care. That's how it was when people were forced to be frugal because they didn't want to get a medical bill. That's how it was before there was health insurance.

Today, however, we have created a bunch of spoiled people who think they can go to the hospital for every little bug or cut because they are told they are entitled to it.

I remember my dad telling me I needed to get a job when I was 16 because it was my responsibility to support myself. He didn't tell me that if I sat around all day he'd support me and give me a free paycheck. But that's the attitude the government creates when it gives citizens something for nothing.

We are told every day that we are going to get cancer if we sit in the sun. We are told we will die of a car accident if we drive too fast. We are told we will get sick if we are exposed to too many germs. And we encourage people to get checked up for every little bump.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of our bodies and come to the ER if we are having crushing chest pain. I'm saying people need to be told, as my father told me, that you don't need to cry like a baby every time you fall off the couch.

Yet, by creating a Health Care system that makes it so the person who is sick will not get a bill, we are encouraging people to cry and piss and moan and see an ER doctor instead of being responsible and making a wise decision regarding their health and finances.

And it is for this very reason that the cost of medicine is going up. The cost of medicine is not going up because prescription drugs cost so much, because new drugs have always been expensive.

The cost of healthcare actually was relatively low until 40 years ago when the government decided to get involved in healthcare. Since that time, the cost of medicine has done nothing but increase.

So, add more government healthcare, and the cost will go up even more. And, with more people flocking to already overcrowded ERs, we may have a true medical crisis on our hands.

AMA in poor position to oppose Obama

The American Medical Association (AMA) is against Obama's proposed HealthCare plan because his plan is basially an extension of the current Medicare program. It would basically extend Medicare.

And since the government already is telling doctors that they will only reimburse them 80% for Medicare patients, many doctors refuse to take Medicare patients. Why take up a slot when you will only get paid 80% when you can have a patient in that time slot you can make 100% from.

If the U.S. goes to a completee Medicare program, doctors will only get reimbursed 80% for all patients.

According to the New York Times article, "Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan," the AMA has little bargaining power, as they are trying hard to work with Democrats at getting that 80% increased to 100%. So, if they oppose democrats to much, key democratic leaders may cut their support of the AMA.

Plus, if the AMA irritates democrats too much, they might lower their reimbursement to 70% or even 60% or less.

The claim that Obama's plan would be an extension of Medicare is valid, because you have to consider the majority of people who use healthcare services are the elderly, and 20% of the people in the U.S. pay 80% of the Healthcare costs.

Democrats may be riding the wave of public optimism regarding nationalized healthcare, and Obama's popularity (currently at 60%). Yet, they may also be taking advantage of the fact members of the AMA may have their hands tied, and be unable to market their opposition to his plan.

Nat. Healthcare does not mean better healthcare

Instead of discussing the pros and cons of Nationalized Healthcare, I thought today would be a good day to take a good look at how Nationalized Healthcare in the rest of the world compares with the current U.S. Healthcare System.

According to John C. Goodman, May 25, 2009, National Review:

1. The U.S. uses fewer doctors than the average developed country to produce the same or better outcomes. We also use fewer nurses and fewer hospital beds, make fewer phsician visits, and spend fewer days in the hospital. About the only thing we use more of is technology.

2. The largest international study to date found that the five-year survival rate for all types of cancer among both men and women was higher in the U.S. than Europe.

3. Fewer health and disibility related problems occur among U.S. spinal cord injury patients than among Canadian and British patients.

4. Britain has only 1/4 as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and 1/3 as many MRI scanners.

5. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only 1/4 the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only 2/3 the U.S. rate.

6. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older.

7. Nearly 1.8 million Britons are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. In 2002-2004, dialysis patients waited an average of 16 days for permanent blood-vessel access in the U.S., 20 days in Europe, and 62 days in Canada.

8. In 2000, Norwegian patients waited an average 133 days for hip replacement, 63 days for cataract surgery, 160 days for knee replacement adn 46 days for bypass surgery after being approved for treatment (short waits for such surgeries produce better outcomes).

9. Studies show that only 5% of Americans wait more than 4 months for surgery, compared with 23% of Australians, 26% of New Zealanders, 27% of Canadians, and 36% of Britons.

10. It is said that those who pay directly will scimp on preventative care. But, the proportion of middle-aged Canadian women who have never had a mammogram is twice that of the U.S., and three times as many Canadian women have never had a Pap smear.

11. Fewer than a fifth of canadian men have ever been tested for prostrate specific antigen, compared with about half of American men. Only one in 10 adult Canadians has had a colonoscopy, compared with about a third of adult Americans.

12. Likewise, the mortality rate in Canada is 25% higher for prostate cancer, and 13% higher for colo-rectal cancer.

13. While half of all diabetics have high blood pressure, it is controlled in 36% of U.S. cases, compared with only 9% of cases in Canada.

14. Of 46 million uninsured in the U.S., about 12 million are eligible for such public programs as Medicaid and the S-CHIP, and about 17 million are living in households with annual incomes of at least $50,000, suggesting that they are uninsured by choice.

15. Like unemployment, uninsurance is usually transitory: 75% of uninsured spells last one year or less, and 91% last two years or less.

16. Guaranteed issue laws, state high-risk pools, and retroactive Medicaid eligibility make it increasingly easy to obtain insurance after becoming ill in the U.S.

17. In Canada, the wealthy and powerful have significantly greater access to medical specialists than do the less well connected poor. High profile patients enjoymore frequent services, shorter waiting times, and greater choice of specialists.

18. Non-elderly, white, low-income Canadians are 22% more likely to be in poor health than their U.S. counterparts.

Plus I can add some:

19. 60% of uninsured are illegal aliens

20. 25,000 uninsured choose not to get health insurance

You may also wish to check out, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," by Sally Pipes.

It's not wise to panic over healthcare crisis

It's obvious there is a healthcare crisis in America, and while a majority of Americans want a national healthcare system, an even greater majority doesn't want to pay for one.

Yet, still, while there's a cry for relief for the 40 million without healthcare, there are no people lying in the streets crying because they can't get the help they need in hospitals in the U.S. The reason is that in the U.S. there is a law stating that no person can be turned down for care.

Is there really a health care crisis, or is this something we are just being told? We are all told there is a crisis, yet I no of zero people who don't have access to it.

I have written before on this blog that the reason the cost of medicine is so high in the country is not because there is too little government involvement in healthcare, but too much. In fact, HC prices never started to go up until 40 years ago when the government got involved.

The truth is all the people who already receive free healthcare are flooding into already crowded emergency rooms, and driving up the cost for everyone else.

Say Joe Thomas has Medicare, has a cold, and knows he can receive free healthcare in an emergency room. Therefore, instead of using his head (no pun intended) and staying home, he goes to the ER.

Now, if he had had a doctor and went to see him, that doctor would have assessed him in the office (a $50 charge) and prescribed an antibiotic if that (a $10 charge). Since he has no insureance, he goes to the ER, where, because doctors are afraid of being sued, it is mandatory that all people coming in with cold symptoms have labs drawn, an breathing treatment, and an x-ray. The cost of this visit is over $1,000.

You can see right there why free healthcare is driving up the cost of medicine. Yet, consider also that when demand goes up (more patients in the ER) and supply stays the same (limited # of nurses, RTs, Drs, and medical equipment), the price automatically goes up. It's a matter of economics 101.

Thus, if we provide free healthcare to 40 million plus more Americans, that means there will be 40 milllion more poeple with the option of flooding the ER.

Now granted many of these will see their family physicians in leiu of going to the ER, but still many of those people will flood already flooded ER rooms.

It's crazy I know. And I'm sure I'm not the first to warn you guys that a nationalized healthcare system will not solve the healthcare crisis. When millions of people get something for free, the people who do pay will be forced to pay more.

Other than making the healthcare system more expensive, no government program ever costs as little ( a trillion dollars the current HC bill is expected to cost) as it is estimated, as estimates are usually low to make the bill sound better to those potential signers.

Plus, a new government program may be irriversible regardless of whether it is successful. It will be the new Holy Grail to go along with Social Security. As you may not remember, the Social Security program FDR drafted was orriginally supposed to be self supporting.

We all know it is not even close to that, in fact it is failing. And even though we know it will run out of money as baby boomers retire, no politician can change it for fear he will lose popularity. And you all know what happens with an unpopular politician.

Obama said, "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep 'em honest and it will keep... their prices down."

Is this true? Or, will a public healthcare system work the same way as the public school system, whereas people would like to go to better private schools, but choose to go to the free government run schools.

Plus, private insurance companies aren't even going to try to compete with a public one, they are going to want to become part of it. So, you can see how easily this Obama plan will turn into a Nationalized Healthcare plan.

However, we will be told that it's not a National Plan. We will be told you can keep your healthcare as it is. We will be told you can keep your current doctor. We are told what we want to hear so we buy into the plan. And, then, once it's approved, it will slowly morph into European Socialistic Healthcare System.

Yes there is a problem with the status quo. But drastic change may actually make things worse.

People want the security of their own healthcare plans, but they do not want to pay the taxes to go with it. And, if this healthcare program goes the way of other government programs before it, it is doomed to be less pretty than the current drawings on the blackboard.

Therefore, rather than making a drastic move and passing a bill few people have read nor understand, it may be wise to

Rather than give free healthcare (well, it's not free since we will be paying for it through higher taxes) to people, we ought to do two things to make healthcare cheaper and more available to the masses:

1. We ought to make tort reform. If ER docs weren't fearful of lawsuits they wouldn't order frivolous procedures that drive up the cost of medicine.

2. We ought to get rid of third party payers: Instead of getting your insurance through your work, you should get your insurance yourself. If you are directly paying the medical bills, you will pay more attention and question the bill before you.

Likewise, when you are the patient, you will question when an RT comes into your room and sayd, "I'm going to give you a breathing treatment." You might say, "Um, I'm not short-of-breath, so I don't need that.

Also, since you are flipping the bill, you will be more apt to request the doctor provide you with a generic prescription rather than just the most popular, expensive and convenient.

Everybody deserves a chance to good health, and the American Healthcare Sytem already guarantees that. So, instead of panicking and making rash changes, politicians (and giddy Americans) would be wise to stand back, consider the consequences of another government program, and consider their options.