A Rant Without The Raving: “Running Up The Score”

After a fun day of snow and good food in the mountains of Southern California, I returned to my home to an extremely weak television schedule. Looking through the potential options for my viewing pleasure on the DirecTV guide, I determined that there were two programs worth watching: professional wrestling and womens Olympic hockey. After about 30 seconds of intense thought (not really), I determined professional wrestling was going to be a worse background activity for internet surfing than womens hockey. The verdict: the television was set to womens Olympic hockey on CNBC (channel 355).

The game, for the most part, took a distant second place to searching for fishing tackle boxes on eBay and Amazon, planting crops on my Farmville farm, and replying to email. Only until I noticed the score was Canada 7, Slovakia 0, did I actually notice what was actually going on. I then noticed that the game was in the second period. I then noticed minutes later that the score had reached double-digits. I then noticed that there were just over five minutes left in the game and the score did not stop going up. I was more-or-less fine with this because it was a secondary concern of mine (if that at all). I found a fishing tackle box. I planted roses on my Farmville farm. I replied to all my emails.

Things changed, however, when I noticed that there were 15 seconds left in the game and Canada beating Slovakia by a resounding 18-0 scoreline. The score itself was not really the issue. Something every athlete goes through in his or her lifetime is a thorough butt whipping whether it is a hockey rink, baseball field, or basketball court. I used to play Little League baseball when I was a youngster, and in one game, successfully pitched myself into the jam of all jams by giving up 19 runs (without getting any outs). Everyone wins, and everyone loses.

Like I said, this hockey game was different. 15 seconds left in the game. Canada is beating Slovakia 18-0. Canada is still trying to score. That is the problem. Winning is a fantastic feeling. Experiencing triumph with friends, family, and your coaches is a great feeling. There is also that other thing, however, called running up the score.

What exactly is running up the score? In every experience I have had as an athlete or spectator, running up the score means “trying to score more goals or points even if the other team has no possible chance of winning.” That is my definition and I am sticking to it. I am sure (mostly sure) that most people would agree with my definition.

I−like many out there in this big world−like to win. We play poker, video games, board games, and road-trip trivia. Everyone likes to be the winner. I have always agreed with what Vince Lombardi had to say about winning: “If winning isn’t everything, why do they keep score?” This is most certainly true. Most of the things we engage in on a daily basis are merely different types of competition. We race and we argue. We fight. My suit is much nicer than his. My purse is nicer than hers. Competition is certainly not new to anyone. That is okay. It is a part of our lives.

In sport, however, and especially in forum like the Olympics, there is a way to win. There is a way to win with class. With dignity. With honor. We all understand that for every competition that takes place in Vancouver this month, there must be a winner and a loser. That is the nature of things. Beating your opponent senseless and then keeping up the barrage? Just plain ridiculous. In reality, the game was over five minutes into the first period. I am sure the Canadian team knew it was going to coast to victory. The Slovakian team might have known the game was going to be a lost cause before the first drop of the puck, but it surely did not stop them from giving an admirable effort. Nonetheless, there comes a point where each team realizes how the competition is going to turn out.

To my knowledge, the Canadian womens hockey team set every or most of the single-game Olympic records with tonight’s game (most goals by a single player, largest winning margin, etc.). Good for them. They also displayed−at least to me−what kind of individuals they truly are. You can win without simultaneously shoving it down the other team’s throats. You can win with class.

It might have been a background activity; a secondary concern, but I ending up watching Canada absolutely destroy Slovakia on the ice today. Yes, they won the game 18-0, but they lost a whole lot more than they won.

How To Fix Healthcare

One of the Obama administration’s most bloated initiatives, universal healthcare, will also be one of the most disastrous public policies of the last hundred years. Universal healthcare as a policy initiative, if allowed to become a “reality”, will share a number of characteristics with what is now also known as the “Third Rail of American Politics” (Social Security). Social Security is heading towards bankruptcy, is not the same organization today as what it was when it was created by FDR, and is better as a theory than it actually is.

The first problem with universal healthcare will invariable be the enormity of the costs of providing universal healthcare. Funding, obviously, is necessary in order to sustain any program. In 2007, the United States Internal Revenue Service revenue collections totaled $2,691,537,557.000.00. Yes, that is over $2.5 trillion in tax revenue. That is a lot of money, but naturally, we cannot expect the entirety of America’s tax revenue to be spent solely on universal healthcare. We have national defense, the Interstate Highway System, Social Security (yes, that Social Security), and a whole plethora of other spending priorities.  Way back in 2007 during the campaign, the Obama camp estimated that universal healthcare would cost somewhere between $50 and $65 billion a year. That does not seem like a very large amount, especially when you consider the federal government collects over $2.5 trillion a year. Also consider, however, that the Obama administration expects the 2009 budget deficit to be around $1.3 trillion. The deficit is more than half of what the IRS collects from taxpaying Americans every year. Therein lies the problem with universal healthcare: the Obama administration wants to pay for this monolithic program with money that does not exist. Then again, he does have the keys to the Bureau of Printing & Engraving, as well as the United States Mint, so it really is just an issue of printing and producing more money to have more money. As you know, it really is not that simple.

The Obama administration, however, insists it has a way to pay for universal healthcare. The funding will come from two places: 1) the Bush-era tax cuts for incomes over $250,000 will be left to expire in 2010, thus “loading” government coffers with tax dollars from the wealthy; and 2) raising taxes on inheritances of over $7 million. The first source, those with incomes over $250,000, comes from individuals that more-than-likely already have employer-funded healthcare (medical, dental, etc.). In other words, those making over $250,000 will be paying for a system they will not even use (despite already handing over at least 33% of their paychecks to Uncle Sam). The second source is much simpler to figure out. If your inheritance is over $7 million, get ready to write a bigger check to Uncle Sam. Estate taxes, also affectionately known as the “death tax”, is nothing more than a proposterous scheme that effectively taxes wealth twice (once when the income was earned by the individual that passed away, and a second time by the beneficiary of the inheritance). The problem with the death tax will be discussed at a later date, but the reality is that those that will not use the system will be the ones paying for it.

The United States imposes a progressive tax on taxable income. This is nothing new. In fact, in a way, it does make sense that those that make more should probably pay a little more in taxes. As noted in the April 24, 2009 edition of Simpleton of the Moment, however, a large portion of the American population does not pay taxes, but instead receives tax money when none was paid in. The payments ouf of the United States Treasury to those in the lower tax brackets are justified on the basis that without such payments, it would be impossible for all to enjoy the high standard of living we have here in the United States. By providing individuals in the lower tax brackets with cushy tax refunds (funded by the top 10% of American wage earners), everyone can drive a nice car, live in a respectable home, and seek quality nourishment, as the theory goes, of course.

Therein lies the question: why is healthcare absent from this equation? Those in the lower tax brackets receive money from the Treasury that they do not even pay in. Where is this money going? It naturally is not that simple, but there is a simple explanation as to why the average American, or the 47 million the Obama administration says do not have medical insurance, cannot afford quality healthcare. The problem is not how much the IRS collects in tax revenue. The problem is not even the quality of healthcare. The problem is the administrative side of healthcare, which includes the insurance and legal components that are ultimately responsible for the unjustifiably high cost of an emergency room visit. At some point in the past, the American public equated the technological advances in medicine with the idea that better technology means higher success rates. The technology today in America’s hospitals eclipses many times over what was used decades ago. So with new technology, well, there is less of a chance that John Smith on the operating room table will perish. There is extreme fault in this logic, and it is this logic that is the true culprit in the quest for affordable healthcare.

The idea that every surgery must be successful is–with no better term to describe it–ludicrous. There is a simple reason why those in the profession are called practitioners; they are practicing medicine. It is the practice of medicine, and not the perfection of medicine, that exists. With the belief that every medical procedure will be perfect came the need for malpractice insurance. Why do physician’s have malpractice insurance? When a procedure does not go well, they have to be able to cover the costs of the lawsuit that will invariably follow. That money, naturally (like your car insurance), comes from an insurance company. From being the practice of medicine, the system has evolved into the perfection of medicine, and if it is not, you better get ready to hear from my attorney. We as Americans have even provided the English lexicon with a term befitting of those that seek out such lawsuites: ambulance chasers.

So how do you fix healthcare? Well, the solution does not require an increase in the tax rates for the top 10% of American wage earners. It does not even require any tax increases for any American wage earner. The solution is three-fold:

  1. Eliminate lawsuits. If you cannot sue someone, the attorneys that prey on the system will need to find employment elsewhere. Ultimately, removing attorneys from healthcare will lower the cost of healthcare. At the same time, the waivers we sign before a procedure must be binding.
  2. Streamline healthcare. Require all hospitals, insurance companies, and practitioners to utilize a universal technology platform that will allow for a patient’s records and history to be accessible (and translatable) anywhere in the country (or the world).
  3. Perhaps the most important of the three, require better oversight by state licensing boards. Tolerance for malpractice should be near non-existent, compensation for malpractice should be solely borne by the physician, and physicians should not be allowed to “fund” compensation by increasing the cost of healthcare. If a physician has a repeated history of malpractice (a maximum of three instances), revoke his or her license permanently. That person obviously should be in another line of work.

The Obama administration likes to point out that cutting the budget deficit is a big priority. Tax increases are part of the plan. The problem, however, is not that people do not have enough money to pay for healthcare, but instead, that the cost of healthcare is simply too high. Healthcare, like the budget deficit, can be fixed without increasing taxes. It can be fixed by tackling the issues that actually cause the cost of healthcare to be so high. The Obama administration does not need to raise taxes on anyone to fix a problem that will not be fixed by feeding it more money. As the old adage goes, sometimes “less is more”. This is certainly one of those situations. The linchpin, however, is the American people. As the great Benjamin Franklin once noted, the only guarantees in life are death and taxes. Of those notable things missing from this short list: perfection in medicine.

Read On

Table 5. “Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax and State, Fiscal Year 2007.” Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved on April 25, 2009. www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07db05co.xls [Excel spreadsheet].

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “President Emphasizes Discipline in Budgets.” The New York Times, April 25, 2009. www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/us/politics/26address.html.

Politico Staff. “Obama-care 101: The president’s 8 principles.” Politico, February, 26, 2009. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19362.html.

Simpleton of the Moment: President Barack Obama

The Simpleton of the Moment, ubdoubtedly, would have to be President Barack Obama. Since the 2008 campaign, one of the clearest lines from the Obama camp was the necessity to help the middle class. Today, however, we are seeing again that the Obama administration has no problem tossing aside campaign promises in order to continue “changing” America into the socialist dream he believes to be the “hope we can believe in.” You might be asking yourself, “How is Obama turning my country into a socialist playground?” Failing to live up to campaign promises does not necessarily constitute flagrant support for a socialist agenda. The campaign promise, which was to lower taxes for the middle class (or the 95% of the population Obama “wants” to help out), is set to expire next year about the same time Bush’s tax cuts expire. Obama’s Democratic choir in Congress will let the $400 tax credit expire in order to fund what will become the biggest white elephant since Jimmy Carter: universal healthcare.

Universal healthcare is a nice concept. Everyone, so the theory goes, will have access to quality healthcare that everyone pays for. You can compare the idea or concept of universal healthcare to the streets we drive on, the airplanes in our Air Force, or the Customs and Border Patrol agents that stand guard at any one of the ports of entry into our great country. A large portion of the population does not pay for those things. Newt Gingrich & Peter Ferrara, in the September 15, 2008 issue of The Weekly Standard, pointed out a number of glaring figures from the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service:

The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service show that the lowest 40 percent of income earners as a group actually receive net payments from the federal income tax system. (They get 3.8 percent of total federal income tax revenues instead of paying any income taxes.) The middle 20 percent of income earners pay 4.4 percent of federal income taxes. Thus the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, pay less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes. (These workers earn 26 percent of national income.)

The data show that the top 1 percent of income earners now pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes, which is almost double their share of the national income. The top 10 percent pay 71 percent of federal income taxes, though they earn just 39 percent of the nation’s pretax income.

These statistics regarding the allocation and source of tax dollars, in relation to the universal healthcare system the Obama administration wants to create, only indicate the unjust burden that will be placed on those that actually pay taxes. Despite the fact that those that will be using federally funded healthcare will not the ones that will actually be funding the system, the bigger issue is the fact that a significant portion of Obama’s socialist agenda will have become reality.

On November 4, 2008, over 69 million people knowingly voted for a candidate that 1) had the most liberal record in the United States Senate, and 2) would willingly and gladly help institute what can only be called a socialist agenda. It would be extremely difficult to find someone in this country that would not like a cut in their taxes. Obama successfully hijacked one of the Republican Party’s most successful campaign issues. Less than four months into his first term, Obama is already starting to renege on one of his campaign’s pivotal selling points.

The hope Obama is selling, which is not something TWD is buying, is nothing more than a magic show. The success of any given magician is based solely on his or her ability to misdirect. Obama has been successful thus far in making people believe he has the answers. It will be interesting to see how long the American public continues to fall for his misdirection. Change we can believe in? Not sure about that, but it is change alright, especially if you enjoy a daily dose of Marxism with your coffee.

Read On

Gingrich, Newt, & Ferrara, Peter. (September 15, 2008). Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary: Obama’s spending programs in disguise. The Weekly Standard, 014(01). www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/533kqlep.asp.

Greetings!

Welcome to The Weekly Dispatch (a big fan of the news, and the world in general). On one fine day in the past, I decided that the best thing to do was to create a website where anyone and everyone could debate and discuss the issues that directly impact, well, all of us. The Weekly Dispatch (aka, “The Result”) is a site that seeks to alter the status quo in a world of shoddy news coverage that exhibits more bias and self-interest than facts. It is for this reason why The Weekly Dispatch will provide the most objective coverage possible on all topics covered, regardless of whether it’s politics, sports, or tech. A more informed society is a healthier society, and there is the hope that an informed society will be able to debate and discuss ideas in a civil and factual manner.

There will be times, however, when someone simply wants to speak their mind. This is natural. These sporadic events will be posted as “A Rant Without The Raving.” Yes, these will−and do−display a healthy dose of bias, but they are simply op-ed pieces. “You just said ‘free from bias’ and now you’re saying ‘yeah, there’s some bias.’ What gives?” you might ask. Well, sometimes you have to stir up the pot to get people to talk about the issues out there. This is also natural. But do not worry. They are sporadic for a reason.

Readers are encouraged to comment on stories, but please do so in the same manner in which the articles were written. Refrain from personal attacks on character (and any expletives for that matter). If you disagree, do not just disagree, but explain why you disagree with appropriate citations. Bring your facts to the proverbial round table of discussion.

Thank you for visiting. You can subscribe to the RSS feed from any page by clicking on the orange “Subscribe” button.

Read on!

–Houston Laney