Health Care: Right or Privilege?

This is one of those eternal questions in the world of medicine. Even among physicians and health care providers, the field is split fairly evenly, just like in the general population. Conservatives generally consider it a privilege, while Liberals consider it a right. But what do those terms mean in this context?

A "right" is a just claim, whether legal, prescriptive or moral. Obviously, there are no legal or prescriptive rights to health care. So the question here is whether there is a MORAL right to health care. Historically, the answer has clearly been no. In fact, in the history of mankind, it has not been until the 20th century when such a question even existed. Prior to that time, medical care has always been like any other service provided: if you wanted it, you had to pay for it. But if we guarantee our citizens the rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," should health care be implicitly included there? After all, don't you need health care to LIVE? Or do you? There are some people who live very full, long lives and never see a doctor. In fact, some sects of Christianity in the US actually FORBID medical care. Does that mean those people don't live? Of course not. Furthermore, if we consider health care a basic RIGHT, given to all citizens by the government, then shouldn't food be a basic right? And a home? And clothing? And cable TV? Yes, I just said that. After all, how can you "pursue happiness" without having at least 100 channels of entertainment going into the home 24 hours per day?

So, clearly, my question is, "Where do we draw the line?" Why are my services, or the services of other physicians, so worthless that the public should not have to pay a single dime for them? But it's okay to charge people $200 to see the Detroit Pistons play basketball? Or $10 to see a movie? Or $100 per month for cable TV? Why are the services of professional athletes or movie stars placed at a higher monetary value than medical care? Why can all other professions in the country charge "market value" for their services, but physicians should be subject to government price controls?

Frankly, I find it insulting that people now believe health care is a basic right. What does that really mean? It's so important, so valuable, that you shouldn't even have to pay for it? If the government takes over health care, in order the minimize costs, the government will determine the fair price for all services. The problem is, the "fair price" is not what the doctors consider fair, but rather the politicians. This is really no different than in the old Soviet Union how the government determined the "fair price" for bread. Of course, this led to lines around the block for people to buy it.

If the Obama administration wants to mess with basic supply and demand, they are going to get a lot more trouble than they're bargaining for. And if the American public is so stupid that they don't understand the connection here, then they frankly deserve what they get.

Why Am I So Conservative?

People often wonder why I'm so politically active. My wife and I have friends who ask, "What's the deal? Why does Dave always go off on these crazy right-wing rants against Obama?" Of course, that's what our more liberal friends ask. Our conservative friends make comments like: "Good for you Dave!" "You just said what I've been thinking!" "Sorry I can't post comments on your blog, but I'm more of a 'closet-Republican.'"

Well, of course, it is not popular these days to be a conservative. Obama was one of the most popular presidential candidates in history, he has achieved rock-star celebrity status, and he's black. So, if you don't like him, you must be a racist, right? WRONG. But more importantly, if you're conservative these days, then you must be a cold, heartless bastard. After all, the liberals want the government to take care of all of those helpless people who aren't able to care for themselves. Conservatives just want to steal as much money from the common people as possible and funnel it off to the Caymen Islands, right? WRONG AGAIN. I do agree that liberals think with their hearts. They really do have good intentions and they WANT to do the right thing. On the other hand, conservatives think with their brains. They UNDERSTAND human nature, and realize that giving people entitlements from the government only makes people DEPEND on those entitlements in the future, thus taking away incentives to take care of themselves. Furthermore, history has shown that free enterprise and the capitalist system is what has created the greatest nation in the world. If all people worked hard to better their own lot in life, then everyone's lives would be better. The problem, as I see it, is that people have lost sight of that American Dream. People at a young age start figuring out ways to 'scam the system' and get the government to take care of them.

As a physician, I can't even tell you how many people I've seen over the years who are looking for something for nothing. From people with no true disability asking for disability forms to be filled out, to teenage mothers on Medicaid who are addicted to all kinds of substances and not working, to people who retire from GM at 48 and rely on their pension. This has become what our American culture is all about. How to get something for nothing.

In the Obama Utopia, all of these individuals and others will be cared for by "the people" (i.e., the government). There will be no suffering in our world, because all of the less fortunate people will simply be GIVEN what they need to survive. In my Utopia, all of these people would have stayed in school, not have become pregnant before they're married (or at least not before they're self-sufficient), not addicted to chemical substances, and not retiring at 48 to let the younger generations take care of them.

I think we all agree that we'd live in a better place if there were no suffering. But the difference between the liberal and the conservative is that the liberal wants to take what little wealth there is and spread it around equally; the conservative wants to create more wealth for everyone by everyone taking an active role in that wealth creation. You are simply not going to motivate people to take care of themselves if they see that they can survive by letting someone else take care of them. In this "new era of responsibility," I think people need to start taking some responsibility for themselves, first and foremost. After all, if you can't be responsible for yourself, how can President Obama expect you to be responsible for the country?

And that brings us to health care. As a physician, I have often debated others on the question of whether health care is a right or a privilege. You can probably already imagine my opinion on the subject, but that will be the topic of my next blog entry.

Responsibility and Sacrifice

At the press conference last night, President Obama once again spoke about two of the key words he has been emphasizing during the first two months of his presidency: responsibility and sacrifice. Let's talk about what these words really mean, starting with responsibility.

What does it mean to be responsible? Well, you're responsible when you work for a living, when you do your homework, when you provide for your family, when you pay your taxes. I think we can all agree that those are things a responsible person does. But what about the person who doesn't work, who doesn't provide for their family, who drops out of school, who doesn't pay taxes? Is that person responsible? By Joe Biden's definition, they're certainly not patriotic. But are they even responsible?

What about sacrifice? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of sacrifice, in this context, is "forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim." So, in order to SACRIFICE something, you need to have something highly valued to forfeit in the first place, and you need to voluntarily give it up in order to achieve some greater good. So, once again, someone who pays a higher tax rate will be SACRIFICING part of their income in order to help society as a whole.

So, obviously, people who are already responsible are being asked to sacrifice in order to help the nation as a whole. But what about the LESS responsible people, or the IRRESPONSIBLE people? Are they being asked to sacrifice anything? Are they being asked to GIVE UP something for the common good? In fact, are they even being asked to be more responsible?

Does anyone else see the basic flaw here? Shouldn't we be asking SOMETHING...ANYTHING from the recipients of the sacrifice that most of us are being asked to make? If, as Americans, we're all really in the same boat and we all need to work for the common good, then shouldn't we all have to make some kind of sacrifice? Furthermore, is it right that the more RESPONSIBLE members of society are being punished by having to provide to the less responsible members? Does that send the right message?

I think President Obama needs to understand that this is not about the "class warfare" that he and Mr. Emanuel are trying to provoke. Rather it is about basic fairness and right vs. wrong. The same way we don't ask children with A's on their report cards to "sacrifice" some of those A's and give them to the less fortunate C studnets, we should not be TAKING from the responsible adults and GIVING to the less responsible adults, with no strings attached. Rewarding irresponsibility is not the answer to ushering in a new era of responsibility.

We the People!

This is a GREAT video! Let's get organized!

Man-Caused Disaster? Are You Kidding Me?

I need to mention something about our new Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. She has decided to redefine the word "terrorism" as a "man-caused disaster."

Now, do you think the families of the victims of 9/11 like to think of those planes crashing into the World Trade Center as a "man-caused disaster?" It sounds like what you would call a poorly designed bridge collapsing, like that one in Minnesota a year or two ago. It does NOT sound like something caused by some insane Islamic fundamentalists intentionally crashing a plane into a skyscraper. Furthermore, I believe it diminishes the significance of what the terrorists DID and MIGHT STILL DO.

Ms. Napolitano, being "politically correct" so as not to insult the terrorists or any other crazy Islamic fundamentalists is NOT going to prevent terrorist attacks in the future, nor is it going to make Americans any more proud to be Americans. I don't think Osama Bin Laden is now thinking, "Wait! If they're not calling us terrorists anymore, maybe they're not so bad after all." I think you need to keep your eye on the ball a little better. So far, you have not demonstrated that you have any ability to keep this country safe. Rather, like the president who appointed you, you've demonstrated a tremendous capacity for kissing Islamic ass. Frankly, your redefinition of terms has me more terrorized than ever.

What Do I Think of the Auto Bailout?

A friend of mine on Facebook asked a very good question: "As a primary care physician in the Detroit area, what do you think of the auto bail out?"

Of course, on the one hand, if we are to believe what the auto executives and the media tell us, then we are to believe that if the domestic auto industry crumbles, so too will the fabric of our republic. The auto industry affects so many jobs in so many other industries, that our entire economy could suffer -- but most of all, in Detroit.

On the other hand, if one company (or at worst, three companies) declare bankruptcy, could this REALLY destroy the entire economy? Is our whole country really that dependent on this one industry? Should these companies even be ALLOWED to exist if they have that much power over the entire economy? Isn't that more like a monopoly, or at least a cartel?

The bottom line is that I believe in competition and free markets, and I do NOT believe some companies should have to compete more than others. We can debate forever about what caused the auto industry to collapse. Is it simply that they can't build competitive and attractive cars? Is it that the unions have too much power and have forced the companies to pay too much and for too long for so many employees who don't even work there anymore? Or is it simply that the Japanese and German manufacturers can build a better mousetrap? Whatever the case is, it simply is NOT FAIR that certain companies get bailed out, while others (such as small businesses, like my own) would be left to die a painful death.

If GM can't survive any longer, then I believe it is time for evolution to do it's thing and let the strong survive. If GM declared bankruptcy, it would be devastating, especially where I live. But that doesn't make it RIGHT for them to be getting a bailout from the taxpayers. If they went bankrupt now, they would have to reorganize, get rid of the old union contracts, start over and make some more competitive vehicles. Instead, they are basically running business as usual with the same crappy cars (except maybe the Corvette -- which has always rocked) and still negotiating with unions. Free markets would FORCE GM (and the others) to be competitive. Otherwise, I say let Toyota, Honda and Volkswagen move in and take over the US markets.

Sorry, Cindy (my Facebook friend who asked the question), but I'm not that hypocritical. Just because I'm from Detroit, it doesn't mean I abandon my principles when I know I'm right. I believe that my family and I would figure something out, and those who could not should get out of Dodge. One of the beautiful things about the United States is that there are 50 of them. If you don't like Michigan, move somewhere else!

Why Capitalism WORKS!

This is an excerpt of an interview Phil Donahue did with Milton Friedman about 30 years ago. But everything he said then is true today. People who hate capitalism and greed have no understanding how the USA became the economic superpower it is today. We did not become a great nation by redistributing wealth and increasing entitlement programs. Furthermore, such programs only lead to a greater reliance on government and cause a decrease in self-sufficiency in the population.

The people who did not vote for John McCain because they were afraid of the fact that Sarah Palin believes in Creationism are completely missing the big picture. Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in evolution. Did that make him a bad president? Why does this kind of thing even matter? Isn't it more important to support the same values that made this country what it is today? Isn't the world economy more important than whether a president believed the world was created in 6 days?

My opinion is that people in the country have really got their priorities all mixed up. Of course, as a physician and a scientist who is not religious (to say the least), I very strongly believe in evolution and, at best, question the existence of God. But I would take Sarah Palin as president ANY DAY over Barack Obama, simply because she supports free enterprise and he does not. If it weren't for free enterprise, we would have never had Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Guglielmo Marconi, Alexander Graham Bell, Samuel Morse, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates...need I continue? In a Obama's proposed system of wealth redistribution and socialism, we will still have poverty (albeit, maybe less extreme), but we will likely have many less innovations, fewer people getting advanced degrees, and lower economic growth. Our country will go the way of the European countries, and we will stagnate. Is that really what we want?

Should President Obama fire Timothy Geithner?

This is a fairly simple one. In the two months since Obama's inauguration, his Treasury Secretary, Mr. Timothy Geithner, has proven himself to be a tax cheat and either incompetent or a liar (or both). Mr. Geithner was the architect of the AIG bailout last fall, and he claims that he knew nothing about executive bonuses. Therefore, he is either LYING, or he simply didn't read or understand the very bill he supposedly was so instrumental in writing.

Furthermore, since he has assumed his position at the treasury department, the stock market has sharply declined (mostly on the days he speaks), and his department continues to have 18 job openings, making it the most disorganized of all executive departments in government. But yet we've been told by President Obama that Geithner was the ONLY man capable of doing this job. Now, am I the only one who finds that hard to believe? Also, am I the only one who smells corruption every time Geithner shows his face on TV? And President Obama compares Geithner's challenges to those which faced Alexander Hamilton?!?

Now, Mr. Obama, I may not have known Alexander Hamilton personally, but I'm fairly certain that Timothy Geithner is no Alexander Hamilton!