I ran into a guy yesterday who huffed and puffed about the fact that, for now anyway, one can’t just walk into any clinic or hospital and demand treatment at no expense to the individual. No doubt this man believes that medical care is a basic human right and to allow entanglements such as the concept of directly compensating others for the service or product they provide you not only unnecessary, but ghastly. Folks like him are quick to point out that citizens of other more enlightened countries never have to pay out of pocket for treatment. Of course they fail to acknowledge the plenitude horror stories about waits for simple tests and procedures, treatments that are “too expensive,” and the other nightmares that result from rationing.

Food is a basic human necessity. What if we were to declare that a human right? No one should be denied the food that keeps them alive because they can’t perform that tired old ritual of paying for it right? Poor people should have access to the same food the filthy rich enjoy. Lets see what would happen if we did with our grocery stores and eateries what liberals want to finish doing to health care.

All the restaurants and grocery stores would become overnight an extension of the government. All you’d have to do is walk in, pick out what you need, and walk out. I doubt they’d even demand you prove your citizenship, but bring your drivers license just in case.

My first stop would be Ruth’s Chris. Bone-on ribeye for me please, and being Uncle Sam is picking up the tab, I’ll splurge and order two sides. No reason not to have desert and an espresso. On the way home I’ll stop by the supermarket and pick up some more steaks for breakfast. I can afford better than plain old bacon now. “What’s this? They’re out of steaks already!” There’s been a run on the meat department. No problem - there’s still a rib roast left, I’ll just pick that up, carve a few steaks off that, and throw away the rest so it doesn’t go bad.

That’s the story of the first day. It won’t take that long before the government sees the need to close some loops. No one is eating turkey and chicken and tuna any longer - they’re all eating steak and lobster. More steak and lobster is not in the budget - and what to do with all the poultry? To cut costs and make things fair, they’d probably take all edible animal protein and grind it all together into easily-rationable frozen pucks. Now, whether you go to the steak house or McDonalds, you’ll get the same meat product disk. Smile, at least no one else is eating better than you just because they can afford it. You wish you could return to the days of plain old bacon. Quit complaining, its not like you’re paying for it.

If you believe something like this could and would happen to food if the government made it a single payer program why wouldn’t you think the same will happen to health care once the government is done with it?

I say done with it because they already have taken way too much control of health care. The paradigm that someone else should write the check for your health care has existed far too long. Employers pick out your health care program, and you buy whatever they’re offering by agreeing to work for them with that as part of your compensation. How about taking a cut in pay and having them pick out your groceries too?

The bottom line is its all our money regardless what it pays for. We the people should control it, individual by individual, rather than the government.

One he threw the shoe, he was quickly subdued first by another journalist, then by Maliki’s security detail, and roughed up. According to this NYT story, “his cries could be heard in a nearby room.”

Let me guess: The narrative on the left is about to change. So far its been all gloating and giggles and verbal high fives because this joker “was brave enough to express his righteous anger…blah blah blah.” Now it will be all about how horrible and brutally Zaidi is being treated - what a mess we have created. Oh yeah, there will be moonbats, mark my words, who actually blame how al-Zaidi has or will be treated on the U.S. just like they were mad at their own country for the way the Saddam Hussein execution was handled.

Now, if this story is true, and al-Zaidi was beaten in the next room, that certainly is a departure from our standards for how to treat people under arrest. Of course, its a vast improvement over how he’d been treated if he farted at a Saddam Hussein appearance, but that’s already a tired point. Yes, if it were Hussein in power, no one would throw a shoe. Ironic that the man he threw a shoe at was responsible for the freedom he felt to do so.

I have an opinion on harsh treatment of a subdued prisoner, but I also recognize (and the multiculturalists should be able to identify) that they do things different over there. We aren’t supposed to be forcing our standards on them right? So anyway, on the scale of what bothers me, Zaidi being roughed up is pretty far down the scale.

Anyone who thinks that throwing something at the face of a person you disagree with politically is fine and funny shouldn’t be too bothered by the violence either. But the liberals will whine for him nonetheless, and they won’t see they hypocrisy in it.

He has cancer. He is terminally ill. His doctors agree that a specific drug could add years to his life. But its doubtful he’ll get it because his government controls who receives what medical treatments, and his government is telling him this treatment is too expensive.

This story sounds too extreme to be true, but it is true, and it doesn’t surprise opponents of a national health care program like we’ll face under the Barack Obama administration. Situations like this aren’t only possible under health care systems like our Democrats want for the U.S. they are to be expected.

The reason is simple. No matter how much a government bilks the successful, it has to deal with a budget. This means a finite amount of money - a limit - on what can be spent for health care. This in turn means they have to make decisions about what they will pay for and what they won’t pay for.

This is why a man named Jack Rosser in the UK has strangers - bureaucrats in government making life and death decisions about his health care. They were forced into deciding whether to spend a bunch of money on keeping one man alive or spend the money on the health care needs of dozens or hundreds of other individuals.

Even if Rosser had the money himself, under a single payer system it doesn’t matter. You aren’t allowed the freedom to buy what you want. The fact is, Rosser never had any choice. He couldn’t choose between insurance programs with various amounts of coverage. He has what the government is willing to give him. He can’t appeal to charity, selling his house to pay for the drugs is no use - the government is in complete control.

After all, it wouldn’t be fair if the “rich” could afford the best treatments while “poor” people are stuck with whatever they can get right?

Rosser is begging his government for his life. He has appealed their decision to refuse him treatment for his cancer twice, and has only been rejected so far.

If you support a health care system like Obama and other Democrats have been proposing, I hope you’ll think again. Adopting such a program will invariably put Americans in the same deadly position Rosser is in now.

I took a few days off blogging. I wasn’t feeling very feisty because I had some big things going on in my life and I also wanted to see how long it would take him, as President Elect, to disappoint me. Regardless of the fact I haven’t been paying close attention to the news the last few days, it didn’t take long.

His first chance at a press conference following his decisive win he had to swing a low blow at the 86 year-old widow of one of the most beloved presidents of our time. He also demonstrated he can’t get his facts straight when he’s not reading the carefully crafted words of someone else.

He was asked if he’d spoken to any ex-presidents, and answered that he had indeed “spoken to all of them…that are living.” Obviously uncomfortable moments after making other brilliant declarations like “when we have an announcement we’ll make it” he ran for cover by making fun of Nancy Reagan. He seemed to have forgotten he wasn’t just among his elitist liberal friends and supporters in the media, but the world was watching too.

“I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances…”

That wasn’t Nancy Reagan. Think Eleanor Roosevelt. This reminds me of his idiotic reference to Fred Sanford telling “Weezy” (The Jeffersons) he was having the big one. Only this wasn’t funny at all. It wasn’t clean. It wasn’t articulate. It surely wasn’t presidential.

Yes, Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer. But if we want to talk about who gets their inspiration and guidance from where at a national press conference, let’s have a look at where Mr. Obama got his the last twenty years like we should have before the election. Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright, would you come to the podium please and take a few questions?

To his credit, Mr. Obama called Nancy Reagan and apologized for the “careless” remark.

The problem is, Mr. Obama is not going to have the teleprompter when he speaks to all these rogue foreign leaders he’s assured us he’ll meet without preconditions. What if he insults one of them or their wife?

Vice President Elect Biden has done a little gazing into the future himself and sees an international crisis within six months of Obama taking office. Obama will be tested. What happens when he tries to crack wise in one of his trademark flurries of uhhmmms, errrrs, and uhhhs and makes another “careless and offhanded” remark? Will it matter if he calls them later and says he’s sorry?

On Friday, the State Employees’ Insurance Board announced a new plan beginning next year in which state employees will be required to receive medication screenings for several conditions, including body mass index. Those considered obese or who have high blood pressure, high cholesterol or high glucose will have to pay $25 a month more in health insurance beginning in January 2011, if they don’t take steps to address their health problems. Alabama to place ‘fat tax’ on obese state employees | Booster Shots | Los Angeles Times

From my blog article in 2003:

The people discriminating against the smokers do so on the grounds that its too expensive to pay the health care costs of someone who is potentially taking risks with their long-term health. They think its unfair, if they’re going to pick up the bill for someones health care, that the person can engage it behavior likely to increase the amount of those medical bills. I can’t really disagree with the logic.

While we’re at it, I’d also like to see public employees prohibited from having high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and being fat. Those are all risk factors for heart disease – a very expensive malady, and anyone suffering from them needs to be removed immediately from the government payroll. Oh yeah, the ones who pass their blood pressure tests and get to keep their job need to be forced to exercise three times a week. On their own time.

Now that they’re saying fast food and junk food increases your risk of cancer, any government employee caught indulging in a Big Mac can get canned just like the cop that was fired after someone wrote a anonymous letter accusing him of smoking at a party.

That all sounds pretty silly doesn’t it? But can you tell me where I crossed the line from rational to unreasonable?

The funny thing is, when I wrote that five years ago, I did think it sounded silly. It seemed like I was stretching a little to make the point. It seemed difficult to imagine the state actually shaking fat people down. Now they are. This is Big Brother folks. He sucked you in by promising to take care of your every need, now he’s telling you what your body will be like and punishing you financially if it doesn’t meet government approval.

The old axiom applies, when you give the government power to do everything for you, you give the government power to do anything to you. I said recently in The Seven Things to Think About Before Supporting National Health Care:

Once the government is paying the bill for your healthcare, the government may eventually feel obligated to help you make the best decisions concerning your health.

I can’t think of any.

His own running mate has called a campaign commercial Obama approved “terrible.” Just this week, Biden pointed out that an Obama presidency would trigger a international crisis. Obama dismissed this by calling it a political flourish.

His wife, who has gone from microphone to microphone to speak publicly on Obama’s behalf, is off limits - we can’t even examine her own words - but Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s Myspace page is can be picked apart just as Joe the Plumber’s financial history.

Obama’s pastor, mentor, and former campaign advisor, Jeremiah Wright, has within a matter of weeks been guarded, defended, had excuses created for him, received Obama’s renewed pledge of loyalty, and roundly thrown under the bus all within a matter of weeks.

Obama’s collaberator, the domestic terrorist William Ayers, “just lived in his neighborhood,” but we may learn conclusivly that Ayer’s was the ghost writer for Obama’s book, “Dreams of My Father.” We already know Ayer’s saw something in Obama he liked enough to help him kick of his political career.

The list goes on.

I ask the reader - can you think of anyone in Obama’s life who has never needed defending?

Don’t be surprised if he cracks $200 million in October, meaning he’ll have raised fully four times as much in the final two months as McCain got from public financing. Just in case you were wondering how he can afford a half-hour commercial in primetime on three of the four major networks.

Thy hypocrisy is stifling. I’ve seen liberals post about what great strategy Obama employed in opting out. Talk about a short memory.

Write this stuff down folks. Put it in a file. Save it to your hard drive. Whatever. It’ll be fun pulling it out in four years after Obama and friends have put this country in the dirt, when America will be desperate to chuck money at and vote for anyone or anything that doesn’t have a “D” by their name.

If, that is, we’re not already a totalitarian socialist state by that time and still have elections.

Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

“People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,” said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. “I don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”

“Yeah, but Eric, what about those poor kids who’s parents really really really can’t afford to buy health care for their kids?”  Well, you could give up eating fast food….or:

Families with children currently enrolled in the universal system are being encouraged to seek more comprehensive Medicaid coverage, which may be available to children in a family of four earning up to $73,000 annually.

What most people fail to realize is the vast majority of America’s uninsured either qualify for assistance already in place or they can easily afford it themselves.

These children also could sign up for the HMSA Children’s Plan, which costs about $55 a month.

$55 - that means dropping the premium cable channels, no more going to the theater (or no more popcorn when you do), no more fast food and dining out, two hours of work per week at a minimum wage job, or maybe it means no more smoking, alcohol, or drugs.

2 hours of work a week will pay for children's health care

Best of all, when someone else coughs up a piddly $55 a month, it means I don’t have to pay for their kids going to the doctor.

Related: Seven things to think about before supporting national health care

I’m very troubled about the prospect of the fairness doctrine which would empower government bureaucrats to police the airwaves ensuring all viewpoints are given equal time. These regulators would, for example, force talk radio stations to match time broadcasting conservative programs with liberal programs or force the hand the programs themselves in making them spout both sides during their show.

Formats like liberal talk radio fail because no one likes them, not because of a lack of laws.

Things like liberal talk radio do not sell

Aside from infringing on free speech and the free market, this would cause problems for many of these businesses because liberal talk radio is a product that simply does not sell well. Air America has to pay stations to run their show.

If we ever find ourselves under a regime that implements this, I have some ideas on how the Fairness Doctrine could truly be fair.

The Fairness Doctrine should work both ways

Make it work both ways. Here’s how:

1. Eliminate the illusion of neutrality. Anyone who broadcasts or writes for the media has to take a side and register their political affiliation or leaning. No more posing as unbiased.

2. If talk radio stations have to take on equal numbers of conservative and liberal programs, every newspaper, network news program, and cable news network would have to have to hire and give equal time to journalists and broadcasters of both sides.

3. Politicians and candidates would have to give equal time too. For every minute a liberal candidate spends getting softball questions from a liberal Dan Rather or Katie Couric, they would in turn have to take questions from someone like Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram.

4. Those who enforce the Fairness Docrtine at every level need to be appointed equally by representatives from both sides of the aisle, regardless who controls Congress. Democrat appointees ensure the left half of the front page of the New York Times is written by Democrat-approved journalists and Republican appointees ensure the right half of the New York Times front page is populated with material by conservative writers.

A consumer-controlled media market is superior to the Fairness Doctrine

Don’t get me wrong, I want things to stay as they are where the market is free and controlled by consumers. But, if we have to go down that other road, politicians shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind those in the media who are sympathetic with them. Liberal dominated media organizations shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind a facade of neutrality.

If the purpose of the Fairness doctrine is ensuring citizens get both sides, the only way to truly do that is force those who want to govern us in front of journalists who will ask them questions they don’t want to answer and follow up by fact checking their answers.

If the Fairness Doctrine forced Obama to sit down with Sean Hannity would Democrats support it?

Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine do not want equal time

Something tells me those who promote the Fairness Doctrine will not like my proposals. They like the idea of neutering those who are most effectively spreading the conservative message, but they most definitely don’t want both sides given equal time across all formats. They don’t want half of the New York Times written by conservatives. They don’t want half of the NBC Nightly News hosted and reported by conservatives.

Let’s just keep things as they are.

Maybe everyone would rather just keep things as they are - which is truly fair - fair because consumers decide what they want and who they want it from. The consumer can lay down a newspaper if she doesn’t like it, change the channel, or switch stations. Broadcasters who produce a product consumers trust and enjoy achieve success.

This is an issue I want to see comments on. Let’s have them.

UPDATE: There is a great new blog about the Fairness Doctrine called “Unfair Doctrine” with excellent content related to this post.

A recent AP article includes reporting on all the above and catalogs what few items in Joe’s private life they apparently believe would be embarrassing - like the fact he owes some back taxes, or that he doesn’t have a journeyman license for plumbing.

Why this treatment? Because Joe’s message is powerful and they need to defang it. Joe is the face of what’s wrong with Obama’s economic policy proposals.

The fact this private citizen expressed himself while the media happened to be recording is enough mandate to go digging through this guy’s private life and present it to the world.

But we can’t talk about Ayers? We can’t try to explore how a radical like Ayers has influenced and informed Obama?  Couric can ask Palin what magazines she reads (and gripe about the answer) but there can’t be a little digging to explore the connections between Obama and Ayers?

Of course the answer to all this is media bias. Plain and simple. Any mention of Ayers is damaging to Obama unless Obama’s camp carefully shapes the questions and answers. So its off limits. But because this everyday man spoke his mind, he isn’t. The AP goes to great lengths trying to connect McCain and his message to any of Joe’s past failings. 

He’s divorced you know.

For too many Americans this is effective. They’ll view it as points taken off McCain’s side of the board when actually it does nothing to McCain’s position which hasn’t changed and won’t change. It will make Joe’s questions for Obama less meaningful and soften the blow in Obama’s answer - spread the wealth around.

The facts remain the same.  Obama is a Marxist - he wants to redistribute wealth, he wants to pit one class of Americans against another, he wants authority to control outcomes rather than protect opportunity.

He’s dangerous and he has the mainstream media’s full support.