I’m writing this in a waiting room in a large hospital. My wife and I have been here several days with her mother who broke her leg a few days ago. With a lot of time on my hands in the midst of all this healthcare I found myself thinking about Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s plans to solve the healthcare "crisis."

Their primary concern seems to be the cost of needed healthcare, not its actual availability. There are many reasons that healthcare costs have increased at a higher rate than most life essentials. Among these are two of the biggest reasons: the availability of expensive high-tech diagnostic equipment and medical malpractice litigation. This post is about the latter reason.

I believe that if we can get rid of malpractice suits, and the need for doctors to carry very expensive insurance to protect themselves from such suits, healthcare will become much less expensive. Some will complain though that people must be able to sue to protect themselves from incompetent healthcare providers. I say a better approach is to do your homework in choosing your healthcare providers and then just take your lumps if things go wrong. But I have a plan that will accommodate both approaches.

Congress should pass a law that allows individuals to choose their approach. If they choose to carefully select their providers and then take their chances without the right to be compensated for damages, they should expect to pay much less for their healthcare. If they choose to retain the right to to be compensated for damages, they should expect to pay much more for their healthcare. The law should allow healthcare providers to operate exclusively under one approach or the other or under either approach on a case by case basis. The law should provide a form or document containing a standardized statement that guarantees that a healthcare provider cannot be sued for malpractice if his patient signs the document before receiving treatment.

I believe only a few years will have passed before everyone will be opting for the less expensive approach and that this law will then make more affordable healthcare available to more people than either of the candidates’ plans. And maybe we could avoid having the same caliber of government-provided healthcare as our government-provided education.

CBS News reports that factory workers in Ohio doubt that either Obama or Clinton’s ideas go far enough to stem the tide of manufacturing jobs leaving Ohio.

Those ideas are welcome here in heavily unionized and heavily Democratic northwest Ohio, but at the same time, no one seems to believe they go far enough to reverse the powerful tide of globalization that many blame for the constant manufacturing job losses.

Democrats love labor unions. Labor unions love Democrats. Labor unions are the biggest reason that manufacturing jobs first migrated South and now migrate abroad. Factory workers love unions and Democrats. Go figure!

Factory workers that make washing machines want their pay forced up as high as possible, but they don’t want to have to buy a television set built with the same high-cost labor.

High pay rates seem nice but if your cost of living increases proportionately you haven’t improved your life style. In fact you may have lost ground due to having to pay a higher tax rate.

Democrats and labor unions (and Republicans) should get out of the way and let the free market work.

The talking heads this morning are totally immersed in discussing a New York Times story accusing John McCain of granting political favors to a female lobbyist. I don’t know if these accusations are true (McCain denies them), but I can’t see why it’s such a big deal. Accusing a politician of granting favors to a lobbyist is like accusing a comedian of cracking jokes.
_______________

Not that I want to help Hillary Clinton, but if her campaign managers asked me I could give them some good advice: Tell her to wipe that goofy smile off her face. In her speeches she talks about the plight of the downtrodden with a smile splitting her face. It’s like she’s thinking, “Oh, it is so fortunate that I have these people to help me get elected, and I never realized it would be so much fun pretending to be their saviour.”
_______________

One of Barack Obama’s favorite statements is “our planet is in peril.” Merriam-Webster defines “peril” as exposure to the risk of being injured, destroyed or lost. Surely Obama doesn’t think the planet is in danger of being lost. Anyway, why would it matter if we’re all still on it and the sun’s rays still reach us? Nor do I believe that he thinks the planet is about to be destroyed. Even Al Gore doesn’t go that far in spreading his global warming alarmism. So that leaves injured.

Apparently he thinks the planet is in great danger of being injured, and he’s probably thinking about global warming. His constantly bringing it up in his campaign speeches implies that he wants to do something about it. How many of you believe that he intends to make great sacrifices in order to save the planet from being injured? How many of you believe that he intends for you to make great sacrifices?

Yes, he wants you to follow his leadership. All leaders of renown have depended on the sacrifices of others. The real question should be: Is the cause worth the sacrifice? Frankly, I haven’t seen any real evidence that I should give up anything yet. I think I’ll wait until Miami is underwater before doing anything drastic — like voting for Obama.
_______________

Obama’s campaign slogan is “CHANGE we can believe in.” With a nod (and apology) to country singer Chris Cagle I want to ask, what kind of change are we talkin’ ’bout here? When Cagle’s woman walked out, slammed the door and said “I’m gone,” he responded:

Well there’s gone for good and there’s good and gone
and there’s gone with the long before it.
I wish she’d been just a little more clear.
Well there’s gone for the day and gone for the night
and gone for the rest of your doggone life.
Is it whiskey night or just a couple beers?
I mean what kind of gone are we talkin’ ’bout here?

I want to say to Obama:

Well there’s change for a dollar and a change of mind
and there’s change of underwear with the dirty before it.
I wish you’d be just a little more clear.
Well there’s change for the better and change for the worse
and change for the rest of our ever-changing lives.
Is this change good for you or good for me?
I mean what kind of change are we talkin’ ’bout here?

The block quotes below are from Michelle Obama in an interview conducted by Katie Couric:

I mean, they wanna believe that the system as it’s structured … is basically doing what it’s supposed to do. But when you’ve gone through years and years and years of just things getting progressively worse for everyday working people. I think people are at the point where they’re frustrated. And they don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Years and years and years of things getting progressively worse for everyday working people? What the hell is she talking about? Despite all the government growth and interference since the days of FDR and LBJ (and GWB?) everyday working people are more prosperous than at any time in history. But I’m for change too. I want all the nanny state messiahs like Barack to get out of the way and let the free market work better. Barack wants to throw obstacles in the path of the producers and grease the path of the non-producers.

Today we have teenagers becoming millionaires by coming up with an idea and working hard to implement it. These things don’t just happen to them; it takes effort and perseverance. Granted, it’s hard to become a millionaire when one hand is constantly committed to holding up your pants.

You can, you know, you can tough it through any bad situation. But I think folks are starting to think about the next generation to follow. And if we don’t make those changes … what’s this country gonna look like for our children?

You’re exactly right there Michelle. I am worried about what this country is going to look like for my children and grandchildren. I’m worried that a socialist leader like Barack would take away more of our freedom and destroy our economy. I’m worried that a socialist leader like Barack would confiscate my children’s inheritance and give it to someone he thinks needs it more than my children. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, right Michelle?

The changes that we need to make in this country are gonna be hard, and they’re gonna require a whole lot of sacrifice from every single American. And it’s gonna require a level of unity in this country that we haven’t seen yet and we haven’t experienced it, at least in my adult lifetime.

Every single American? You’re going to ask the poor working people to make sacrifices? I thought Barack was going to make things better for the poor working people. Actually I think you’re right. If Barack becomes president we’ll see a lot sacrificed for the supposed good of all. Whoever this “all” is.

When you’re talking about ensuring that your kids have a decent public school to go to, what’s more important than that? And how do you ensure that that happens? How do you ensure that the government, the federal government, is going to invest enough resources to ensure that every single child in this country has access to a decent education?

I noticed that you emphasized that you believe the federal government should be engaged in educating our children. Are you aware that the constitution does not give the federal government that power? Or have you decided that it doesn’t really matter since George W. Bush and other presidents have ignored that little detail?

Barack has traveled the world, lived in other countries. He brings a certain unconventional approach to the Oval Office. And what people are saying all around the country is that that’s what they’re looking for. They’re not looking for the conventional years in Washington. We’ve done that. So let’s try something new. Let’s bring somebody in who’s … gonna look at this stuff in a very different perspective. And that’s exactly what I tell people.

Traveled the world, lived in other countries? Unconventional approach? Different perspective? And we’re talking about a man named Barack Hussein Obama. To me that’s pretty scary. That’s a lot of change for me to take in.

It looks like the government (meaning the taxpayers) is going to rescue people who made bad home-buying decisions. The government is helping so many people with financial problems now; I wonder if it would be willing to help me pay for a new set of tires for my car. I didn’t count on them wearing out as soon as they have. And it’s a public safety issue; if I keep driving on them I might have a blowout and kill someone.
_______________

Quite frequently lately I hear about some survey finding that about 70 percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. They never mention that every person surveyed probably has a different definition of the wrong track and the right track. One person’s wrong track might be another person’s right track and vice versa. It’s surprising to me that 30 percent think we’re on the right track. I don’t think I’ve ever believed we were on the right track. How close to the right track do we have to be to be considered “on the right track?”
_______________

I’ve long thought the fact that we are constantly entreated not to be judgmental is kind of stupid. It would be hard to be successful in our personal or business lives without judging the people with whom we have to interact. I can remember when not being judgmental simply meant not judging someone harshly based only on superficial knowledge of that person. But, like many other things, it has been hijacked by the politically correctness crowd and now constitutes an outright ban. I’ll bet it hasn’t been long since you heard some teenager shout “don’t judge me!” — even if just on television.

Just yesterday I judged a bum (what we used to call homeless people) who approached me at a Burger King and asked for a buck because he was hungry:

Me: “I saw you walk across the parking lot carrying a large pack on your back. What’s wrong with you?”

Him: “What do you mean?”

Me: “There doesn’t appear to be anything wrong with you. Why don’t you have a job? If 12 million illegal immigrants can find work here why can’t you?”

Him: “Uhhhh…”

Me: “Basically, you’re just a bum, right?”

Him: “Yeah.”

Me: “Okay, here’s a buck.”

Him: “Thanks, man.”
_______________

It’s a certainty now that the Democrats will nominate a lipstick-wearing candidate. I’m sure Obama was wearing lipstick (or at least lip gloss) in a speech I saw reported on television this morning.

If you were holding a local event would you want it sanctioned by a higher authority or not? Before answering this question let’s look at the Florida and Michigan primary elections as an example. The following block quotes are taken from a CBS News description of the dilemma that the Democrat Party now faces over its treatment of those primaries (emphasis mine):

The Democratic National Committee sanctioned Michigan and Florida for moving up their nominating contests in violation of party rules; it declared their primaries unofficial and denied them the right to seat their delegations in Denver.

The DNC indicated its disapproval of the state’s actions and punished them. So being sanctioned is a bad thing, right? Well, maybe not.

Clinton won both Michigan and Florida handily. She won Michigan in part because Obama and other Democrats took their names off the ballot in solidarity with the DNC and as part of a pledge to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-voting states not to participate in unsanctioned contests.

But we established above that those contests were sanctioned. Now they seem to be saying the contests were not sanctioned. Confused enough?

Short of scheduling sanctioned events, this will have to be resolved by DNC Chairman Howard Dean and the two presidential campaigns.

Now the DNC wants to sanction its own events. Is the DNC or CBS confused about what “sanction” means? No, according to Merriam-Webster “sanction” is a very flexible word. It can mean approval or disapproval.

So, before you ask for sanctioning of your event you’d better find out what flavor of sanction the higher authority is willing to offer.

If it will help the authorities round up and deport the illegal immigrants, I’m willing to carry and present a National ID card when asked. I already carry several pieces of identification so how much can one more hurt? I have a driver’s license, a card that identifies me as a retired DoD employee, a Medicare card and another health insurance card.

Some of the presidential candidates have indicated that they want to issue ID cards to legal immigrants. But that won’t help unless every legal resident is required to carry identification of their status as well. Today there is no requirement for citizens to carry identification if they aren’t engaging in activity that requires a license – like driving a car, fishing or hunting — or a passport. If an illegal is challenged he can simply say that he is a citizen exercising his right to not be harassed by law enforcement officers.

In this age of super-sensitivity authorities are careful not to engage in profiling. That is, they don’t want to confront only those who look as if they likely got here by swimming the Rio Grande at night. There are plenty of legal residents that have similar physical characteristics.  If every legal resident of the USA were required to carry identification and present it when asked by a proper authority, the profiling concern is alleviated.

I started thinking about this while I was having lunch at Taco Bell a few weeks ago. A pickup truck with a shell over the bed pulled up and seven Hispanic-looking men climbed out and came inside for lunch. They all went directly to a table. After conferring in Spanish for a few minutes the driver went to the counter and ordered their food. The comportment of the whole group was excellent.

Of course I considered it likely that they were illegal immigrants — with the possible exception of the driver. If I were a law enforcement officer, what could I have done? Ask them for identification? Why, because they looked Hispanic? Wouldn’t that be profiling? Anyway, only the driver was required to have identification. None of the others was engaging in an activity that requires it.

My hands were tied by political correctness. However, if all legal residents were required to carry and present identification when asked, I could have stood and announced to the whole room that everyone should prepare for a quick walk-around ID check. Yes, it was still the Hispanic-looking men that prompted me to do the ID check, but at least everyone in the room was subjected to the same treatment.

I regret that this additional infringement on our liberty seems to be necessary. But neither do I want to see this country overcome by lawlessness.