Join The Debate!

Thou Shalt be Charitable

OR ELSE!!

Mr. Stossel

"I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does"

On what basis do you determine that private
charity helps the needy far better than gov't
does?

I can tell you from my own personal experience
with working with and for volunteer agencies
that efficiency and meeting deadlines are not
the strong points. You do meet wonderful people,
to be sure. But if you want to get something
done, HIRE someone to get it done, and then
give him/her a qualified staff.

Jabba th Hut

Whenever I see a picture of Michael Moore, I am reminded of Jabba the Hut.

If only I tweak my MO

I had an acquaintance who was a Mensa member and who had run afoul of Texas' Three Strikes law in his attempts to perfect his chosen profession of Armed Robbery. Despite the fact that this particular crime had a 95% arrest rate and a similar conviction rate (there tend to be cameras around when it is committed), this person thought that he could succeed at it if only he could tweak his MO.

People who think socialism will work if only they poke at it enough are just as deluded. They believe that a system that punishes success, rewards failure, and encourages people to wait passively in the washroom for TheGovernment to come and wipe their heinies is going to produce a surfeit of heinie-wipers who go joyfully into those washrooms promptly and efficiently.

"Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment?" says it all. Once a monk said that he was confident he would go to heaven because he had never done anything except what he was told to do, so therefore he had not committed any sins. That is socialism on a bumper sticker.

And for the person who said that many voluntary agencies lack structure, he is correct. The first thing I do when I come into a charity to work is volunteer to work in the office and bring that structure into play. The problem with most charities is that nobody wants to do the cinderella work; everybody wants to be out front handing out goodies and caring for the folks -- but in order to make that work, you need good people to count the cans of food, organize them by categories, check the labels for expiration dates and the cans and jars for damage; you need a diet sheet to tell people what to put in the boxes and you need people to fill those boxes. You also need people to sweep, mop, dust, scrub, change the beds, do the laundry, clean the showers, sort the clothing by size, gender, item etc. and devise a system for those who come in for clean clothes and a shower to get toiletries, towels, appropriate clothing and any physical assistance they may need.

That can all be done by volunteers. What you need to make this happen is one bossy person at the top who can convince the volunteers that cinderella work is also service to the poor and needy. As more and more executive secretaries retire, you will find this problem taken care of. Meanwhile, when you volunteer, offer to help them get organized -- don't just whine that the GubMint could do it better.

impact

Agree with what you say. But to argue the left's arguments for big government are based on a false premise is too obvious and easy.

Not singling you out but your words lead me to ask, what about the right's argument for big government that we see coming from social cons? Isn't that too based on a false premise, the same false premise?

The con is we need big government to promote virtue.

The religious right's social gospel might concerned with spiritual virtue, spreading faith, the left's with material virtue, distributing wealth, but the arguments for big government are the same, and equally mistaken.

Benevolence will never come from coercion, it comes, as Stossel argues, from individual freedom, the freedom to choose.

He's just smarter

Like most modern day socialists, Moore believes that he could run a socialist country better than any of the other failed socialist governments because he is smarter than their leaders were. And the greatest thing about being a leader in a socialist country is that you are more equal than everybody else and entitled to your more equal share of everything.

He uses bible quotes selectively, for exampel "...when I was hungry..." but he ignores the quote about the person who will not work will not eat.

Like his mockumentarys, his logic seems to skip some inconvenient parts.

As AudiR points out...

The work of charity can be hard work. Requires a personal commitment of not just money, but time.
Much easier to just pay tax and leave it to the government. Gets you off the hook for the heavy lifting, plus you don't have to think about it anymore.
Not my problem- I paid my taxes. (Tell that to St. Peter at the gates...)

Another issue with this type

of person (Michael Moore and his ilk) is part of a quote directly from this article. I am so tired of the "least among us" argument. The problem with the ideas of Moore and his idiot friends is the underlying definition of "the least among us." I think a big part of it is confusion over the meanings of the words "can't" and "won't." My definition of "the least among us" involves the word "can't" and not the word "won't." As in "She has a debilitating illness and CAN'T work," not "She WON"T work because she can pretty much get minimum wage for sitting on the couch and spending eveninigs as a receptacle for attempts at new children."

I'm not singling out women here, just making a point. We have lowered the bar so far as to whom (whom?) the least among us are that we are slowly devolving into a nation of "the least among us." Everybody wants a handout, and the gov't will always be willing to oblige to keep their power. Anybody familiar with the expression "Bread and Circuses?"

Socialism Doesn't Work . . .

Maybe somebody ought to tell Michael Moore that socialism has been tried -- in Russia and in Cuba (among other places) -- and that it has NEVER WORKED!

Oh well, he wouldn't listen....because closed minds are afraid of ideas and truth.

even private charity has been infected..

Stossel's columns are always interesting, and dead-on. What I lament is that some charities are making potential recipients apply for government aid before they will consider the applicant. I discovered this a year or so ago when I donated to a local hospital.

Now, I always ask the charity about their selection process before donating. I will only donate to those groups who do not tie their assistance to the government.

Has anyone else encountered this?

Another excellent article...

... by Mr. Stossel, who has become by far the best columnist on Townhall.

Fletch covered a couple of reasons why Mr. Stossel's claim that private charity is better than the government, but I'd like to add one more: competition. There are many charities out there competing for our voluntarily-given dollars. If a charity wants us to give to it rather than another, it has to show results because it can't compel us to give. The government, however, has the power of force; it can compel our donations, so there's no competition, no incentive for it to be more efficient.

Sure, there are charities who waste money or, even worse, steal it to enrich a chosen few. But when that word gets out, the organization either cleans up or else the donations dry up, thus providing an incentive against such behavior. Again, with the government there is no such incentive.

Bess2728

While I have not heard of the "selection process" you write of (which is ridiculous), the one that gets to me is when the solicitors call your home.

I used to give to several charities that did phone solicitation until I started asking questions, and I found out in some cases that only 15 cents of every dollar actually gets to the charity. That's the first question I ask now regardless of who I am donating to.

Altruism is the greatest evil

Helping others seems like a good idea. However, there is a larger problem created by this attitude. If half the people needed help and the other half spent all their time providing assistance, very little would ever get done.

To be an adult means being able to take care of yourself. Charity may work for children, but not for making children out of adults.

A moral society would be one in which each person willingly took care of themselves and their own children.

lonestarblues

You are exactly right. In this case, I was addressing the likes of Michael Moore, but the right is just as guilty.

Years ago, I postulated a political model that is more the shape of a clock with the six o'clock position representing minimum government according to the constitution. The higher up the loeft, the more economic controls (leftists) and the higher up the right side, the more personal control. What I like about this model is that it allows for positions anywhere in the clock face with many mixed in between positions.

What neither the right or the left seem to realize is that the more controls on one side of the scale, the other side is inevitably pulled into more controls. E.g. With high levels of control about economics, how long will it be to censor opposing views? We see this aready with PC and hate speech laws. Global warming nutcases are already calling any opposition (SCIENCE) the equivalent of holocost deniers. Similarly on the right fringes, trying to stop you from spending your money on anything they consider "immoral."

Ultimately, both end up at midnight as the left and right horn of statism. Visualize Stalin and Hitler signing their non-aggression pact at midnight.

Any way you slice it, a pox on all who would try to run anyone else's life or damage another. No, I am actually not a conservative. Mostly a small l libertarian.

Phylo

Way to "cherry pick" the column. I don't think it's a matter of whether he hates America. It's a matter of him being clueless as to which direction this country takes in terms of it's social policies.

He thinks that the only way this country can survive is to have the "right people" run a socialist government despite the fact that this country was built and is still being built (barely) on self determination and "rugged individualism."

HE DOESN'T GET IT!

impact

"and how is it that a people who are too stupid to run their own lives can elect a government of the "right people?"

One might ask just how bright you are if you
believe that you run your own life? No one
runs their own life all by themselves. Even
emporers rely on cronies and paid thugs to keep
citizens in line. We form governments to protect
us from those who have too much power and those
who would do us evil. How much we ask of the
government is where politics (and money) come into play.

Sometimes your side wins, sometimes it doesn't.
But on the whole, the citizens of the United
States have decided to be on the side of charity
and compassion. It is one of the ways that we
define ourselves. We recognize our size, our
power, our wealth and we also recognize that we
didn't become this way as a nation and as
individuals JUST because we are so darned wonderful that we deserve it all.

We also recognize (the majority of us anyway) that sometimes we are part of the problem. The
Civil Rights wars of the '50's and '60's come
to mind, as one of the most obvious things.
Does any civilized country have a more outrageous
race record than us? Lots of them have problems
but few have asked for them as vigorously as we
have, starting with making our livings with the
huge help of slavery.

I have noticed, once again, that posters have
been going off onto other things not mentioned
in the original column. Socialism has become
Communism according to TH posters (hey folks, there is a big difference) and what we have and what liberals are proposing is a far cry from a Socialistic state. In fact, the only thing that
I am aware of is the possibility of socialized
medicine and that is by no means etched in stone
for the Democratic platform, though you can be
sure that health care change is coming down the
pike and it is high, high, high time. Even the
Republicans can't ignore that - at least until
election time, anyway.

So, first of all, wouldn't it be wonderful to
stick to the subject at hand once in awhile.
Second, we are a compassionate society. Be glad
of that. And third, no Stossel, you are wrong.
Volunteer organizations are not the most efficient and productive way to get things done.
They are the cheapest, to be sure. But most
"cheapest" things, are not the best.

It typically takes the government a

minimum of ten dollars to get one dollar into a needy person's hands. With some programs it takes up to a hundred dollars or more to get one dollar into the hands of a needy person.

A few years back the government was trying to find a way to set up a college scholarship fund of something like $3,000,000 a year to provide scholarships for some socially appropriate class of needy students. Divided up amongst the 50 states, it would have been $60,000 per state.

It was going to cost the taxpayers over $30,000,000 per year to set up and staff the bureaucracy to spend the $3 million dollars.

The breakdown was indicative of the way government works.

Setting up offices at each of the 50 states, with a staff of 10 people Average salary per person was $30,000. Total cost per these employees including salary,benefits(health, social security, retirement, etc), offices and equipment, cleaning services,etc normally runs about $60,000/year.

500 employees costing $60,000 per year equals $30,000,000.

The measure was finally defeated, but the defenders of the bill claimed that the purpose of the bill would have accomplished two significant purposes. First, $60,000 in scholarship grants to each state each year, and secondly it would have provided employment to at least 500 people who would be spending 15 million dollars into the economy. Of course it would be have been taking 30 million dollars out of the economy to do this. Thirty million that the taxpayers could have been putting in their 401K's, Their childrens' scholarship funds, buying new cars, houses, eating at restaraunts, etc.

Uh, Phylo...

Congratulations. You have exposed "another right wing lie"... except, of course, you've done nothing of the kind. In fact, Moore has made it qute clear that he hates America AS IT IS, as opposed to how he perceives it should be. At best, you can descibe it as a (slight) exaggeration.

Now, before patting yourself on the back about all the "right wing lies" you (erroneously) believe you have exposed, perhaps, you might take a crack at the dozens of outright falsehoods and distortions that make up the bulk of Moore's filmmaking - everything from blaming the CEO of GM for the demise of Flint, Michigan, rather than the UAW that priced its members completely out of the market to the staged scenes in "Bowling for Columbine" (when they hadn't actually been bowling that morning), to the dozens of falsehoods in "Fahrenheit 911" that have been extensively documented.

Thought not.

No wonder "Phylo out".

John, can I have...

... a framed and autographed copy of this essay?

Much oblige.

Dr k

hmmm...Dr K is ok with a "resonable" profit for health care professionals paid for by government...I would reccommend poverty level. How bout you give up you're mercedes and million dollar house and month long vacations and join the rest of us Dr K? Oh wait! Dr K gets to decide what "reasonable" profit for himself is I guess...

viruddh

So let me get this straight. The ONLY way to "fix" our health care system is to let the Federal Gov't handle it? Are you kidding me? Name one thing the Federal gov't handles better than the private sector (other than defense). Just one. They can't even run the post office without screwing it up.

We don't need socialized medicine. Britain is getting ready to ration it and France's system is about ready to collapse under it's own weight of debt and other problems.

Take the regulatory handcuffs off of the insurance companies, get some real tort reform so that doctors are building in the cost of their malpractice ins. into their rates, and let the free market do its work.

No wait, then people would have too much control over their own lives. That's right. We can't have that!

And if you think it starts and stops with socialized medicine.....think again.

Still going...

"Beautiful point. The point being that people are running around like chickens with their heads chopped off, saying anything that comes to mind (the more ridiculous the better),..."

We are not responsible for the actions of liberals....

"[Conservatives] assume that we are on the verge of becoming a communist/socialist nation."

The statement is absurd. The argument is that even the adoption of socialism piecemeal is utterly stupid.

"Michael Moore makes one of the most legitimate and needed statements about health care..."

Michael Moore's film is no less a pack of lies than his earlier efforts. If you want an idea of what the Canadian System is REALLY like, see a movie called "Dead Meat" or look at the statistics compiled by the Fraser Institute and Health canada indicating just how many Canadians die each year simply waiting to receive necessary surgery.

"...and [Moore] is now a commie. Thank you bright guy."

No. Moore is a socialist and a liar and those who believe his debunked nonsense at this point are fools. That is not the same thing.

"Get over the hysteria and use your brain. Either
you work for a very wonderful, large, rich company that will give you medical insurance
until the day that you die (and won't fire you sometime between now & then), or you plan to commit suicide if you ever get really ill, or you have not the power of imagination to figure out what it might be like to face the future with its absurdly expensive medical costs."

Say hello to Mr, Rorke and Tattoo while you're there on the island. The reality is that even the uninsured get care in this country - often at everyone else's expense and it was the government intervention into the system in the first place that has driven insurance decisions out of the hands of individuals, into the hands of employers and VASTLY driven up costs. The problem is entirely a creation OF govermnment in the first place. Is it then at all rational to expect them to fix it?

You'll forgive me for giving anecdotal evidence all the response (and weight) it deserves.

Something is going on with Michael Moore

Did anyone see The Fat, Liberal, Millionare, Hypocrite pitch a SissyBoy, Hissy-Fit at Wolf Blitzer? IMHO, Moore is self deluded. He subscribes to The “If I Say It, It’s True!” school of Liberal Filmmaking, which is among Al Gore’s inventions :). He sees ‘Sicko’ fading fast and is STUNNED that Americans didn’t swallow his lies, Hook, line and sinker.

I will begin production in the fall on a film about Self-Deluded, Liberals. I will focus on three examples of this syndrome, Michael Moore, Al Gore and Phylo. It will be entitled “Gore, Moore and Bore”.

Fletch

I disagree with everything you have replied to
me nearly 100%. Especially, the part about
government being the cause of the rise in
medical costs. I have never heard that argument by anyone before.

I have heard that the rise continues because
costs are unchecked, because of the lack of
competition, because of insurance companies and
pharmaceutical companies, because we are sheep
who continue to let them get by with this in spite of (or is that because of) our rugged
individualism. As for the cost of insurance
being in the hands of the employers, that is a
choice. It is not a mandate. I know where I
have worked, I pay my insurance through my
employer. The advantage, of course, is that I
then get lower rates, but my employer pays nothing. The only time an employer has ever paid
my insurance is when I worked for the State in
my 20's.

Valient try, but no cigar.

Deification of Government...............

Let me get this straight we want government to take over NATIONAL health care? They can't even run V.A. HOSPITALS no less run everyones health care.When the Kennedy's and Edwards give up their plush health care system they have in the Senate then we will START to discuss National health care.Tugging at the heartstrings usually is followed by tugging at the purse strings.!!!

Mr. Stossel

I hope you took a shower when you were done interviewing MM. Get ready for him to lambast you like he does others that dare challenge him.

doctork

I went to your website and read your dribble. What you want is taxed and govt. control of medicine. You doctors complain now about HMO's telling you how to practice medicine, so what do you think will happen when the govt. gets involved?

In other words your no different than MM and the other socialists. You think we all have to accept mediocrity.

Healthcare is not a Constitutional right. You have a right to what you can pay for, and the poor are already covered irregardless.

National Health Care

is a direct violation of the constitution. Read it, learn it, embrace it, love it and you will understand that the liberal agenda is unconstitutional. If they would be honest and say what they want to do and that it will require constitutional amendments and they will fight for those amendments while upholding the constitution as is until they can can change it they could take power and keep it forever.

They would just have to accept that the constitution is based on conservative ideas and not do anything opposing them until they can get their amendments through. Ofcourse since the courts have been stacked since FDR a law being unconstitutional doesn't mean much. Hopefully Bush will have fixed that with his justice appointments, about the the only thing he's gotten right durring his Presidency.

Fletch

I'm glad you fielded the gov't invention in the system and it's impact. That was pretty good.

I learned a couple of things there. Well done.

We won't even go into what the lack of tort reform has done to healthcare costs. At least not yet.

From where do rights come?

Simply stating "everyone has a right to healthcare" doesn't make it so.

If I had a $1 for every time someone invoked 'I/we/they have a right to healthcare, citizenship, or whatever' I could retire.

Scaramouche

I would be happy to stop taking deductions on charitable contributions as soon as the government stops trying to be nanny with the money I earned. First off, the tax is what I pay on the money that I own. The deduction is a limited way for me to take exception to the use of the tax money that I PAID and use it for something I consider to be of greater value. You see, there is no virtue in giving away other people's money, only your own. If there were no nanny state, there would be no need for a deduction.

But here's the deal

I am a self-made man. My folks never bought me a car. I worked my way through college by fighting forest fires in the summer and delivering Pizzas during my college years.

I started my own business in 1969 and am still running it. I have put my wife and my two daughters through college. My wife, who graduated from high school with a GED now teaches at a college.

We are true bootstrappers, starting with nothing and now, while not millionaires yet, are solid financially.

If anyone has the right to take the conservative position of working hard and making your own way, it's me. And I do, to some extent.

But I have a problem with conservatives who have a running start in life and look down on those who can't boot strap like I did.

Take our president, for example. He's a snot-nosed child of privilege who couldn't get a job at a 7/11 without improving his communication skills. Yet through his connections and the efforts of the truly evil men around him, he sits in our highest office, unearned and undeserved.

He calls himself a conservative and praises our system. Yet, left on his own, without his family's money and connections, he would perish.

So, before you call yourself a conservative and look down on those who have less than you, make sure that you have earned the right to be a conservative. If you have taken advantage of your family's wealth and position even once, your "free-market" bootstrapping posturing is suspect and hypocritical.

viruddh, is the government any better?

viruddh, you indicate that you encountered less than efficient processing from private charities. Well, do you really think that government agencies are better, especially on the average, when we consider the range of private organizations that collect and administer charity, and compare them to all bureaucracies that are tasked with giving out resources?

Of course, everyone can think of Hurricane Katrina as an example where private organizations outperformed FEMA in many, if not all respects. Does anyone know of any other examples? It would be interesting to compare.

My thesis is that, on the average, private organizations are, on average, more efficient at each stage, from identifying people in need, to collecting resources, to distributing those resources, than is any government agency.

Looks like I've got some homework to...

Hillary delenda est.

theBaron

Perhaps a voluntary organization ought to be
more clearly defined. Charitable organizations
can come as a funded organization, a non-funded
entity or a combination. And the types of help
each agency has can be different. I have worked
on a voluntary level for both funded and non-
funded agencies. The non-funded ones can be
almost laughable in their lack of efficiency.
Others who are funded can be superb. The Red
Cross comes to mind. And I am not sure who
funds them, though I do know they get at least
part of their funds from government entities
including local govts. I am sure private donations are a big source too, though I have
never seen them advertise for donations beyond
those times when there is a national or international disaster.

The disaster is New Orleans and beyond is an
interesting example. FEMA certainly did not do
the job they were called to do. I am not sure
why that has happened but certainly the
insinuations have been out there. 1) Cronies
at the top who didn't know what they were doing;
2) We were paying for a war, so other things
have gone un- or under-attended and funded.
3) and then there was the race issue.

Within a day or two of Katrina I was talking with
a few people at our University who were from
China. They said to me that disaster aid was
so short in coming because it was the blacks who
were suffering the most. I assured them that that was not the case. Well, I am not that
confident any more. And much of my change of mind came from postings on Town Hall of those
who accused the blacks and the poor of everything
and anything to take away the responsibility
of anyone else.

Those volunteers, including many young people from my church, have done a tremendous job, but
this is after the fact. They did not save any
lives, but they did do a tremendous job in helping with the cleanup.

I have also recently heard that in spite of FEMA's extremely poor job, the Coast Guard was
tremendously helpful and heroic and saved many
many lives, often working around the clock.
The quality of the people in the jobs and the
quality of the leaders can make a huge difference.



So, in that sense, if you have a government
program in place but a leader who is indifferent
to it, it is a waste of time and money. The
voters need to elect people who's heart is in
helping.

zzx375

"From where do rights come?
Simply stating "everyone has a right to healthcare" doesn't make it so."

True enough. I guess your stunningly original
idea needs some explanation.

I have heard that healthcare should be a right,
and perhaps I have even heard that healthcare
is a right. But it always come from those who
are the advocates rather than the needy.

We want to live in a nation who sees healthcare
as a right because we are rich and we are powerful and we have the resources. We are not
asking for a car for everyone, or the latest
electronics gadget, or a house on a hilltop. We
are asking for health care for all because that
is the sort of people most of us are.

Help sometimes cripples

lonestarstate whether or not you like to hear it from some of these "heartless" conservatives on Townhall. It seems as if you confuse having the "right feelings" with results. A belief (supported by this country's past experience with welfare policies) has amply demonstrated how the destruction of will and self esteem can happen with hand outs and this belief does not mean the believers havn't the "right feelings" about the recipients. To be dismayed by people's inability to help oneself is not cruel.

He keeps going and going and going

"The Red Cross comes to mind. And I am not sure who funds them, though I do know they get at least part of their funds from government entities including local govts."

Actually, the American Red Cross gets virtually NONE of its funding from governments. About a third of its funding comes from private donations and 60% comes free fees charged, the remainder, which does include a small amount of grant money, is primarily the result of investment income on funds held until they are needed.

"I am sure private donations are a big source too, though I have never seen them advertise for donations beyond those times when there is a national or international disaster."

Most of that private funding comes from employer coordinated campaigns and participation in the United Way (who also primarily works through employer coordinated activities becasue they are so effective).

"The disaster is New Orleans and beyond is an
interesting example. FEMA certainly did not do
the job they were called to do. I am not sure
why that has happened but certainly the
insinuations have been out there."

People routinely evacuate even the poorest sections of Florida when faced with imminent hurricane landfall. The people of Louisiana (and New Orleans, in particular) are among the poorest in the nation and the biggest recipients of governmental aid. A huge percentage of that population didn't leave becasue they were so busy waiting for government to do FOR them.

The failure of government to respond to such emergencies is by no means some new phenomenon and it takes a tremendous amount of self-deception to assume that events would have unfolded differently under some other administration. The notion that "paying for a war left other things unfunded", given the amount of money the government takes in and wastes is simply laughable. And you were aware, of course, that the victims of Katrina were more likely to be white than the racial demographic of the area would indicate, were you not? By all means, don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-conservative diatribe!

Viruddh states:

"We are not asking for a car for everyone, or the latest electronics gadget, or a house on a hilltop. We are asking for health care for all because that is the sort of people most of us are."

Is this not provided by Medicaid? Is Medicaid not available for low income people?

What is the problem with that? Why must everybody be forced into a National Healthcare Boondoggle that could very well bankrupt us.

Health care

"We want to live in a nation who sees healthcare as a right because we are rich and we are powerful and we have the resources."

But, if the goal is to see that the greatest care for the greatest number of people with the fewest falling through the cracks, then adopting a system that has failed to accomplish anything even remotely approaching that anywhere it has ever been tried and instead results in nothing but care rationing, long waits and even more people falling thorough the cracks seems like a bad idea to me.

Call me crazy.

virrudh has questions, Doc has answers

"Does any civilized country have a more outrageous race record than us?"

"Deutschland, deutschland, uber alles" ring any bells?

"Lots of them have problems"

Nice weasel-out, there.

"but few have asked for them as vigorously as we
have, starting with making our livings with the
huge help of slavery."

Indeed, the English-speaking peoples should never have made the mistake of adopting the African institution of slavery (imported to the New World by the Spanish and Portuguese).

However, the US fought a Civil War in which the majority "race" (i.e. skin color) would FREE the enslaved minority. In the space below, I will list all of the other nations on earth which have done the same thing:



Any more questions, feel free to ask.

Virudhh

Obama is God's gifts to this country?

He hasn't done anything yet. Which, politically is a pretty smart move on his part because he doesn't have long record in the Senate that can be used against him.

All I can say is "That loud sucking sound coming from your pay stub is Pres.Obama's audacity of hope entitlement programs at work. Hang onto your wallets for as long as you can!"

I can't wait to have enough money to be able to afford to be a liberal Democrat, and tell other people how their money should be spent. I will then know that I have "arrived." Then I'll know how Kennedy and Edwards must feel all of the time.

Viruddh says:

"You should read Obama's book, "Audacity of Hope."
In it he speaks of listening to some senator on
the Senate floor talk about what a detriment to
the self-esteem and motivation it is to 4 and 5
year olds to have a breakfast given to them in
the morning."

What did Obama's book say about the pracitice in the African American Community of maintaining a quaint practice of 75% illegitimate birth rates and single parent households?

What does it do to a child's view of the world when his "momma" doesn't have a clue who the child's daddy is. What effect does taht have on the child's view of how a father should act, or be responsible?

Thanks to F1etch

... for some excellent comments. I would add the following: Medicare's original and worst sin has been separating the delivery of care to an individual from any burden on the individual to have knowledge of what the care actually costs, and to make decisions about consumption, and preparations for the cost, on that basis.

In the absence of Medicare (and Medicaid, and similar state-level programs), "health care plans" would not be able to preserve that separation. They would have no pervasive government-enforced pricing model to hide behind.

Michael Moore would say that this separation is exactly what he's trying to achieve, and call it insulating the individual from the onerous cost of medical care. In fact, however, severing the link of cost-price knowledge is EXACTLY what has allowed prices to rise, with people having no recourse from it, and no idea what to do about it.

The fundamental problem is that "cost-sharing," which we already have today, doesn't insulate us from costs: it allows costs to rise without the individual having control over even his own "demand." His "demand" is represented as an aggregate average that (a) has almost nothing to do with his actual, personal demand for the service, and (b) must still be billed to cover the costs incurred by the aggregate system, including non-contributing beneficiaries and bureaucratic overhead.

If you go to the doctor for an annual check-up and he charges you, say, $350, you know that you have paid $350 for that service, and the doctor knows why he charged you $350: to cover his costs of operating, in light of what he has done for you.

(It's worth noting that if he doesn't have to deal with Medicare or private insurance, the doctor can charge you $200, or $50, for the check-up, if he knows you're poor and struggling; and manage his annual budget by charging his average patient $360. Doctors used to do this all the time.)

But if you pay $450 a month to your health care organization, and zero, or perhaps a $40 co-pay, for your annual check-up, you have no idea what the check-up might reasonably cost. You don't know "how much" health care you're consuming, and what else is going on with your health care dollars. You may have a hazy idea that they are being invested for future payouts in case you have an expensive illness, but you really don't know.

You do know, especially if you have kids, that whatever your plan pays for each year, you're by-God gonna use. This "demand" may not be artificial, but then again it certainly may be.

Meanwhile, statements of benefits, when they arrive in the mail, scare the pants off of you: you see your plan was billed $900 for the blood tests your doctor ordered, but then you also see that your plan only reimbursed the lab company for $328 of that. None of it makes sense; you just breathe a sigh of relief that the sentence at the bottom of the statement reads: "This is not a bill" -- and no further bill comes.

Who the heck knows what's happening with your $5400 a year in health care premiums? You have no idea if you're using "$5400" worth of health services. If you, personally, would use only around $800 of health services a year, you'd sure rather just buy catastrophic medical insurance for $35 a month, and pay for the rest as you go. But you haven't a clue what relation each dollar has to an amount of actual health care.

Now consider that public schools and public streets and highways operate on precisely the same model. The government raises funds generically for "schools" and "highways," just as you pay $450 a month, generically, for "health care" -- but you can't make sense of a relationship between how much you spend and what you get.

What has been the result, in both cases (schools and roads)? It keeps becoming more and more expensive to run schools and maintain roads. Think about it. Whether it is increasing sales taxes, increasing "sin" and luxury taxes, running lottos and Powerball, or floating bonds and outright borrowing, government perpetually asks for more money to run the schools and pave the roads -- more and more beyond the more and more we have already ponied up. The real (constant) dollar cost of maintaining a student in a public school has soared over the last 40 years, as has the real dollar cost of laying or repaving a mile of road.

Yet we have no good way of accounting for what WE, individually, are getting from our school and road dollars. In fact, regardless of what we WANT to get from them, we will pay the same premium as everyone else who pays, and get the same thing everyone else gets. Our actual demand will have no impact on either the price or the product. We pay a bureaucracy to manage our demand for us.

In such managed systems, "prices," in the form of mandated premiums (called "taxes" in the case of schools and roads), go in only one direction: UP. For Americans, this system already exists in the market for medical care. The original reason is Medicare.

California may be about to give everyone a lesson in this dynamic, with Ahnold's universal health care plan. Basically, Ahnold is acknowledging that it will, indeed, cost even more than it does now to hand everyone (who admits he's here) an official "insurance" guarantee of some kind (as opposed to the guarantee of emergency or indigent care we all already have). What he proposes to do is "share" the cost of providing "insurance" to everyone by extracting money from every financial party to a health care transaction (ie., all payers -- of premiums and bills -- and all service-providers receiving payment).

What this plan will do is separate the health care consumer's premiums even further than they are now from the cost of his own actual health care services. Again, Michael Moore would approve the idea that the premium-payer is paying more so that the non-payer can have quality health care.

But the REASON the cost of the whole system will just go up and up is precisely that the relation of the premium to the payer's actual consumption is more and more tenuous. He's not paying for HIS health care -- he's effectively just paying taxes to maintain a system whose aggregate demand is driven by millions of people he has no influence or control over, and managed by politicians and bureaucrats.

Numerous posters here have pointed out that making health care "free" to political constituencies causes demand to increase exponentially. But my point here is that when you separate the actual cost of health care services from what any of us has to pay for them, THAT is what guarantees the price paid in premiums, or taxes, will rise.

And that is the biggest reason health care has become so expensive in the US in the last 40 years.

Health care as a right

If a person has a right to health care, who must provide that health care? If I am a doctor, do you have a right to my time and experience? I believe that is called slavery.

And the is no "perhaps" about America being the greatest country in the history of the world!

More liberal canards

"Oh but hospitals can and do turn people away all the time."

Actually, that's complete nonsense. Yes, it DOES happen, but it is by far the exception. People are simply NOT dying on the streets in thsi country due to lack of care. On the other hand, the wonderful system in Canada makes people wait so long for care that in a single year more than 70 Ontarians died just while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and more than 100 more were removed from the waiting list as they had become too ill to survive the surgery. As many people die, per capita, waiting for care under socialized medicine than die in this country for failing to seek care (and only a fraction of that group - estimated at about 18,000 - are uninsured).

"The other is about the government's role in the cost of health care. Your argument is so silly I am furious with myself for even responding to it at all."

Funnel your fury at your own ignorance of basic behavioral and economic principles. People make decisions based upon their consumption of their own financial resources. If you subsidize ANYTHING you must, by definition, get more of it. If you subsidize visits to the doctor (by imposing price caps or distancing payment from cost (as nationalized healthcare does) you vastly increase demand for services - creating a still greater burden on the system.

The hypocondraic will continue to see the doctor as frequently as possible so long as her financial resources hold out (or she is prevented from doing so by whoever is the source of her financial resources). Just as the "shopaholic" cannot feed the poor behavior in the absence of sufficient resources, so too must the hypocondriac respond to the same constraints. What you are suggesting is that the shopaholic simply be given sufficient resources to continue at the expense of everyone else.

"As for those fairytale people who have insurance so fantastic that they never see the bill..."

They are exactly what is created by any socialized medical system (including Medicare and Medicaid).

"...don't have to worry about whether the insurance company will even let you have a procedure on their nickel no matter if the doctor says you need it..."

This is another canard of the left. The reality is quite different. Overwhelmingly insured individuals do receive the care that they need.

"...doesn't ever have the experience of finding out that 20/80 means 80% of what the insurance company deems a realistic price, not what the hospital actually bills you - show me one."

No one forced you to get that particular type opf insurance coverage. You could as easily have gotten HMO coverage or a premium plan that has lower deductibles. Your choice to get a cheaper plan is no one's fault but your own.

"I want their job and their insurance policy. I have never met that person, and the vast majority of my friends are professional people with better-than-most insurance."

Well, given the general accuracy of your ealier comments, the assertions of who and what you have :never seen" and the value of anecdotal evidence in any discussion, we'll be sure to take that under advisement.

"Everyone I know..."

See the above comment. You sound like the New York reporter that couldn't believe that Nixon got elected "because no one I know voted for him". You proceed from the (silly) assumption that your experiences (or those of the limited group with which you speak) are indicative of any national trend or reality.

BTW, should you make the mistake of assuming that my experiences with the healthcare system are simply insufficient to see what it is "really" like, be aware that I am a type II diabetic with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and a skin condition that prevented me from considering military service. I take nearly 20 pills a day (though it would only be about 7 if they made single pills in the dosage I need), and I had to deal with a family member, under my insurance coverage, having multiple surgeries for a brain tumor the size of a grapefruit and the related procedure of actually putting her eyes back where they belonged - so I am not unaware of what it takes to deal with long term medical issues. It doesn't change the facts or my understanding of basic economics.

"The last time I looked, I believe that Medicaid/ Medicare payments were being taken out of my salary."

No. The TAXES for such things are taken out of your salary (and everyone else's). They are entirely divorced from your actual use of services.

"It may become a problem because, as usual (a lesson never learned) it using my money now to fund a war..."

Perhaps one day you'll grasp the basic reality that governmental funding imperatives are independent and that none of your precious liberal programs are being defunded because of war expensitures. More's the pity.

Of course you think I'm crazy. I have the audacity to prefer a more efficient and equitable system than the disaster that you are advancing. To you, apparently, it is sane to adopt a system that actually HARMS more people because you're compassionate. Go figure.

Fletch

Well said. The girlfriend of my uncle went back to her home country of England because the cancer treatments would be "free." I'm sure you can guess what happened. Yep, she died waiting to see the doctor.

Cookie

The "anecdotal argument" is a staple of the Left - and Michael Moore's latest film is just another example. It is easy to seek out the most outrageous examples (or self-select "everyone I know" who we are told are experiencing the "real" problems with [fill in the blank] as if their limited worldview is all encompassing and we should accept their word on faith).

Sure, there examples of people falling thrrough the cracks in this country - as Moore shows or as can be found on such reliable sources as YouTube (chuckle). No system is perfect. But the reality is that EVEN MORE PEOPLE fall through such cracks under the system that is proposed as a "solution" to the current system which was created (along with all of its problems) by government.

Consider:

"Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly 'reforming' their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they're always busy 'reforming' is an implicit admission that they didn't get it right the first 50 times." – Lawrence W. Reed

Parting Shots

COOKIE --- For someone who calls herself Cookie, I wouldn't be calling other people a moron without a far better reason than you have.

DOCNOLECAT: "Deutschland, deutschland, uber alles" ring any bells? - NO ONE can deny the atrocity of the Holocaust. But Jews have lived
in Germany for well over 1500 years and much of
that time was in relative peace. We have not
been stellar with our relations with Jews here either or with the Hispanics or with anyone else
who has tread on our sacred ground, including the
Indians. But yes, Jews have not fared well in
most of the world. And how ironic, that the
Palestinians are not faring well under the Jews
either. We must all hate someone, I guess.
As to our relations with the blacks, we have been
one of the very last countries in the world to
officially eradicate slavery. I think one or
two Caribbean islands were the only nations to
hold out longer.

FERNANDO: After having a good life spent collecting a pile of money, you now expect someone else to pay for your healthcare. That's the health care crisis? --- Are you seriously dumb or do you actively attempt to miss
the point? (I might also add that the last time
I checked, I was paying for my future health care
out of my salary).

ELONG: No wait, then people would have too much control over their own lives. That's right. We can't have that! --- If you think that you
have control of your life in regards to health
care right now you are either very wealthy indeed, or have one fantastic health insurance
policy, or you are seriously mistaken.

ELONG (AGAIN): And if you think it starts and stops with socialized medicine.....think again.
- - - It won't start with socialized medicine. We already have Social Security. And retirement for the old folks has been one hellish experience ever since.

MR CAL: What does it do to a child's view of the world when his "momma" doesn't have a clue who the child's daddy is. What effect does taht have on the child's view of how a father should act, or be responsible? --- mmm? Are we
supposed to be punishing the kids for the sins
of the parents?

PAT IN ATLANTA: If a person has a right to health care, who must provide that health care? If I am a doctor, do you have a right to my time and experience? I believe that is called slavery.
--- I can only call this statement inane. What
is it's relevance? If you have an employer and
that employer expects you to do something, well,
you can either do it, give a darn good reason why
you won't or can't do it, or move on. There is no slavery about it at all. It is called working for a living. Kind of what most of us
are faced with every day. Or am I missing something here. Are doctors too elevated on the
social and economic scale to live by the usual
rules?

Moore and his ilk

consistently conjure the image of ants who have decided that they will take the picnic from here, thank you very much. These same ants insist enough isn't done for the world's fattest poor, and advocate cradle to grave government support as if the state of our inner cities and many school systems aren't enough proof of the limitations of great society ideology and programs. The takers are perilously close to outnumbering the producers, and when that happens (Moore's plan hastens things along)- there will only be the wealthy like Moore and the rest of us serfs living with the impoverished consequences.

The current social welfare and mental health systems we have, perhaps inadvertantly, foster dependence and self perpetuate through a variety of means. I have clients who haven't the slightest compunction about telling me they wouldn't have it any other way. The ones who want to become all they can be in life have to WORK AROUND the system services, and it is very gratifying to help them.

Our only hope as a nation is to offer people the maturity and esteem that only comes with industry and accomplishment. Moore is literally an entertainer who has stepped out of his prosperity provided and protected ring in the circus to give witless orders to and criticize those who do the heavy lifting.

dishonest virrudh

"For someone who calls herself Cookie, I wouldn't be calling other people a moron without a far better reason than you have."

So long as you keep providing such compelling reasons...

"NO ONE can deny the atrocity of the Holocaust."

Good of you.

"But Jews have lived in Germany for well over 1500 years and much of that time was in relative peace."

Do you enjoy demonstrating that you have no grasp of history?

"We have not been stellar with our relations with Jews here either or with the Hispanics or with anyone else who has tread on our sacred ground, including the Indians."

Neither has anyone else.

"And how ironic, that the Palestinians are not faring well under the Jews either."

Do you enjoy demonstrating that you have no grasp of current events?

"As to our relations with the blacks, we have been one of the very last countries in the world to officially eradicate slavery."

Judges? Buzz!! I'm sorry, but you don't win the Ginsu Knives, the year's supply of Trurtke Wax or a copy of our hiome game. The statement is absurd. In fact, when the Founders discussed restrictions upon the slave trade in the early 1780s, they were among the very first governments to even consider such restrictions (the international slave trade was abolished by the Constitution while serfdom lasted in Britain until 1799). Slavery continued apace in the Carribbean and most of South America for years after. Brazil, for example, abolished the practice pievemeal over the 1870s and 18880s.

"Are you seriously dumb or do you actively attempt to miss the point? (I might also add that the last time I checked, I was paying for my future health care out of my salary)."

That assertion is no more true than the first time you made it. fernando's point is well taken especially considering that the elderly are the wealthiest segment of our society (and by a significant margin).

"If you think that you have control of your life in regards to health care right now you are either very wealthy indeed, or have one fantastic health insurance policy, or you are seriously mistaken."

That assertion is no more true than the first time you made it and for reasons that have already been presented at length.

"It won't start with socialized medicine. We already have Social Security. And retirement for the old folks has been one hellish experience ever since."

It certainly hasn't yielded benefits anywhere near what people have paid in and now faces changes becasue of its unsustainability (there is no trust fund; the so-called bonds held by social security have absolutely no economic value).

"mmm? Are we supposed to be punishing the kids for the sins of the parents?"

No. But you suggest continuing to incent the behavior that places such children in peril in the first place.

"I can only call this statement inane."

So that justifies mischaracterizing it?

"What is it's relevance? If you have an employer and that employer expects you to do something, well, you can either do it, give a darn good reason why you won't or can't do it, or move on."

But it has nothing to do with the "employer". You are arguing that the doctor should provide his services for "free" or, at minimum, for significantly less than he can ask in a free market. You are directly devaluing the effort he has put in to become a physician.

"There is no slavery about it at all."

You are advocating a system in which an individual is compelled by force of law to provide services without having access to compensation that he could receive in a free system. Is that not the very definition of slavery?

"It is called working for a living."

...when you offer a service for pay ... but that is not what you are advocating.

"Or am I missing something here."

Obviously.

Note for the Religious

Ok, Ok, God said you have an obligation to feed the hungry.

He didn't say to force someone else to feed the hungry via government, now did He? YOU'RE supposed to feed the hungry, NOT government.

Do Tax Deductions Offset Giving?

quoth Scaramouche: "if you take a deduction for the charitable contribution the government is reimbursing you"

Actually you're confusing a *deduction* with a *credit*.

For a tax "credit", yes, the government does in effect reimburse your cost. Charity is not a credit though, it's a deduction.

A "deduction" reduces your taxable income, so you pay *less* tax. To take an off-the-wall example (i.e., I'm not going to run Turbo-Tax to get real numbers), if you're earning $50K, and paying 20% of that in taxes, then you'd pay $10,000 tax. If you donate $1000 to charity and write that off, then your taxable income drops to $49K, and your tax bill becomes $9,800.

So the government "helps out a little," but you're still out of pocket for 800 dollars.

Of course, it's really a lot more complicated than that, considering the actual tax law, printed in very tiny font, would fill the Grand Canyon and overflow into the Colorado River all the way down to the Pacific Ocean; plus the river water would get it all wet and make it unreadable; as if anybody can read it *now*;

-- but I think you get the point.

Seeing with clear eyes

Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism

*cough* *cough*

Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism Socialism

There, I think I've got all those sneaky socialistic tendencies out of my system. Now, why limit libertarian principles to health care? Let's get rid of those socialized police departments and put all the cops in neighborhoods rich enough to pay for protection. Ditto fire departments. All that fancy equipment just encourages more people to burn their houses down.

And, my goodness! Socialist "public" education takes up something like a third of state and local spending. Why, even the children of welfare mothers, who themselves contribute nothing to the public good, can feed from the overflowing trough of books and instruction paid for by honest working people like you and me! That's just wrong from the standpoint of personal responsibility.

You are too happy with the status quo if you think socialism hasn't already infected government programs through and through.

oldsocialworker

Not sure what you are referring to. It seems we are definitely on the same side. I've also watched the housing go up in Chicago and get systematically destroyed. It is human nature to care much more for something one has earned vs. something that is given to you.

I also don't want to get into a big rant on slavery, I just used an analogy with doctors and certain folks like veruddh expecting producers to give away their work product simply because he wants something. Akin to the definition of slavery but I did not mean to trivialize real slavery. Which hilights the fact that it is ridiculous that slavery is still trotted out as an excuse for every failure and as strictly an evil of the white man. If Black leaders were intellectually honest, they would be railing against the Black on Black slavery you mentioned in your post. Just not as interesting when there is no "whitey" to blame.

Goverment for the people

We have a goverment under the constitution that provides for the common welfare. Why not have a goverment administered single payer healthcare system to replace what just about everyone knows is a horribly disfunctional system which enriches a few at the expense of the many while leaving other citizens out in the cold? I deal with many Canadian truck drivers and they all think their system is great. They are horrified to learn that if I quit my job I loose my health care. They cant understand why we put up with such a coercive employer/employee relationship.
The people who dont want a single payer system should try and get rid of medicare and medicaid.
Geezer lynch mob, film at eleven...Canada spends one fifth per capita on healthcare vs the US and they cover everyone...no multimillion dollar ececutives...no wealthy trial lawyers living off malpratice claims...they get rid of incompetent doctors, who often come to the US to get licensed...here they go from state to state and keep butchering people...Politicians think they will fool people into accepting a "universal healthcare system" where everyone is FORCED to buy into the current system of private for profit insurance, like what Mass. is doing...coercing everyone into being a customer for the insurance industry's profit...I knew all this before M Moore took up the issue...and so do a lot of other people. TIME FOR A CHANGE. Dump the mess we have now and start over. Let the parasitic insurance company execs get real jobs...GOVERMENT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE!!
Not by the lobbyists for the politicians!!
I broke my leg and had to wait 2 wks for a doctor "in my plan" to set it...the hospital doctor could have done it the next day but I would have had to pay myself for going "out of network"...to make it worse another doctor who didnt even do the surgury also billed the insurance company for it and despite my attempts to twice stop them paying when they billed a third time the insurance company paid it!! I went to the guys office on crutches twice to tell them the bill was wrong and another doctor had done the sugury!! How effecient is this? Canada is worse? England is worse?? Get ready for a deluge of insurance company paid ad agency propaganda about how the poor Canadians have to wait in line for an MRI. Two thirds of the MRIs done in this country are ordered by doctors covering their asses with potential malpratice suits...and making money because they have a financial interest in the MRI business...This is good healthcare?? People have HAD ENOUGH !!!

More re Pompous Pete

The point about MRIs in the US is that we don't have to wait in line for them.

It's probably not two-thirds that are ordered for a**-covering purposes, but a substantial number are, virtually all in emergency rooms -- and mandated by the hospitals, not the physicians. My late father and my sister-in-law, both radiologists, could give first-hand verification of that. That ERs have to mandate MRIs because of the likelihood of lawsuits is certainly a comment on our society.

It is no comment at all, however, on the medical profession or the health care community.

By contrast, the ready availability of MRIs in America, like the ready availability of gas at American pumps, IS a comment on the power of the free market.

If we want CYA MRIs to slow down, the states need to cap the awards in civil suits. Socializing health care will merely result in less availability of MRIs, and waiting lists for their services that Americans don't have to suffer now.

healthcare

Health care by the government is Medicare. Medicare pays so poorly that I can't afford to do much more of it. As I have blogged before,

Single payor health care is good only if it pays enough to doctors, hospitals, etc to provide at least a slim profit margin.

When libs like Moore run around indicating health care is a right, I chuckle. It is to say that people have the right to services that took me half my life to learn to provide at a rate that loses me money.

Now that is funny.

Michael Moore must have forgotten

the famous words of Ronald Reagan. "Government isn't the answer it's the Problem. He must have also forgotten the old adage, "Show a man how to fish he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he'll eat for a lifetime. I guess fat, drunk and stupid is a good way to live. It sure made him alot of money.

Wisolman

"Moore is one dumb fat boy" And you are one
wise old man. Right.

So, he is a fat boy. So is Al Gore, or is on his
way anyway. And you can argue about their
premises until the cows come home. But that
doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of them.

There are still thousands upon thousands of
people in the U.S. who still believe the earth
was created 6 thousand years ago, that dinosaurs
never existed, that there has been no evolution.

That doesn't make it true. Nor does saying
global warming doesn't exist make it true. Nor
does saying over and over and over again that we
have the greatest health care services in the
world make it true.

You can berate the messenger, but you perhaps would be a wiser old man if you listened to the
message.

Elong, again

I was not promoting Obama as candidate for the
Presidency. I am still hoping that Hillary gets
in.

What I said is that I read his book (both of them
actually) and I consider him an absolute marvel.
The sort of person I would love to know personally, the sort of person I would love to have on my team, the sort of person I wish more
people (myself included) were like.

I think that if more TownHallers would read this
book, they would soften their attitudes a bit
about a lot of things. The sort of attitude that
says in essence that poor people are poor because
they are weak, they have made poor choices, they
don't deserve anything better. And that rich
people are rich because they not only deserve to
be rich but that they are doing the country a
favor by being rich.

My own addition to the argument: I guess because they hire lots of people to work (never mind that they also drive a lot of people out of business, often pay scanty wages to the undeserving poor, and raid companies to make the stock market go up and get rid of lots of employees.

In fact, to listen to TownHallers, the only rich
that don't deserve to be rich are movie stars,
maybe because they are among the few who really
have to earn it from scratch and stand the greatest chance of losing their stardom. Nothing
worse than a has-been rich person, I always say.

Cookie

Isn't it amazing how everyone who is absolutely
convinced that we will all abuse the health
system if allowed to has a hypochondriac relative
or friend who goes to the doctor every two weeks.

You know what, I don't believe your story.

And isn't it amazing how the girlfriend of your
uncle went back to England and died waiting to
get helped. Get helped for what? Apparently
whiz guy Fletch knows but I am not sure that
anyone else does. Did the woman have insurance
here? If so, why didn't she stay here? After
all we have the greatest health care services
in the world. And if she didn't, well Fletch
declares that no one gets turned away if you
really need help, & he certainly knows all.

Let me tell you a TRUE story. An employee of
my husband had heart problems when he was in
his late 40's. He was put on a waiting list for
a heart transplant but died a year later before
one was found for him. There are some things
that just can't be fixed when we want them to
be fixed no matter what the system.

(By the way, there are ways to set up a system
whereby for whatever the procedure the user pays
something. That is like a great big DUH! Let's
just hope that the guys who set up the system
are smart enough to recognize that - not a given,
considering the quality of so many of them, and
the compromises so many others have to make to
get anything done).