About Me

Name: David C. Innes
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Common Sense on Health Care

John Stossel has been listening in on my conversations. Or we have both been consulting with the same common sense on health care.

Why has health insurance become such a big issue for everyone? Paying for it is hugely expensive...and that is the "discount" price. The health insurance company pays the rest. And the situation is getting worse all the time.

At some point it became clear to me that at least a large part of the answer to this problem lay in the word "insurance." You buy insurance to protect you against the unlikely possibility, but nonetheless the possibility, of a ruinous disaster. If your house were to burn down, if you were to wreck your new car, or if you were to require extensive treatment for a serious and debilitating illness, you would be ruined financially. But though these things are unlikely to happen, and because everyone faces and fears the same possibility, everyone pays a small amount into what becomes a large pool and agrees to compensate any contributor who might find himself in one of these unhappy circumstances. We call this "insurance." It's a prudent way of managing risk communally.

It is of essence of insurance, however, that it pertains to risk and rarity. Your home insurance does not cover leaky faucets, lawn care, or even replacing your shingles. These are common and predictable expenses. Roofs are even expensive, but you know that they last only 20 years so you save accordingly. So too, your car insurance does not cover gas, oil changes and scheduled maintenance visits. You don't buy insurance for clothing and groceries. Even though these are necessities, it is the responsibility of neither your employer nor the government to provide you with insurance to cover these things. You pay for all of these expenses out of your regular income. It is why you have income. If you have difficulty in paying for one or a number of these these things, you have to prioritize, budget more wisely, generate more income, and so on.

So why do we treat medical insurance differently? We demand that it cover not only reconstructive surgery and cancer treatment, but also vaccinations, check ups, eye glasses and dental fillings. And people get angry if these things are not covered. One's employer is considered evil for providing "lousy" health coverage that does not cover these minor benefits. But what should be minor expenses have become quite expensive precisely because everyone is paying for them through insurance instead directly of out of their own pockets.

Stossel does a great of job of explaining this:
Almost daily, we're bombarded with apocalyptic warnings about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. ...America's health care problem is not that some people lack insurance -- it's that 250 million Americans do have it. ...

Insurance is a lousy way to pay for things. Your premiums go not only to pay for medical care but also for fraud, paper-work and insurance-company employee salaries. This is bad for you and bad for doctors.

Read his brief column, "A Move in the Wrong Direction," which reflects on Hillary Clinton's proposed new national health care plan.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberty Winning in Islamic Libel War

For anyone who does not know, City Journal was the think tank behind Mayor Giuliani's revitalization of New York City (perhaps "reconquest" is just as apt a word) in the 1990s. Peggy Noonan still calls it "the best magazine in America."

Judith Miller has a story in the recent issue following up on an issue I addressed in two previous posts, Troubling Saudi Arms Deal and Follow-up on Saudi Terror Funding. Well-funded Islamic organizations and individuals have found it more prudent in the West to silence their critics with libels suits than with violence. If nothing else, the victims pay your expenses. (And you can't beat that!) Recent cases, however, at least in this country, have been discouraging that sort of legal brutality.

  • In 2006, Yale University Press published a book on Hamas by Matthew Levitt of the Institute for Near East Policy. KinderUSA, an Islamic charity, and its board chairman, Laila Al-Marayati, brought a libel suit against Levitt and Yale UP in California state court for linking them with the terrorist organization. In June, Levitt charged his accusers with bringing a SLAPP suit (strategic litigation against public participation), i.e. a suit designed not seriously to recover damages, but simply to intimidate. They won. KinderUSA backed off.
  • In May, the Islamic Society of Boston dropped a suit against the Boston Herald and others for claiming that they had been passing funds to terrorist organizations. In the course of the trial, it came to light that the ISB had in fact given money to two groups on the government's list of terrorist organizations.
  • Earlier this year, six Muslim imams who had been removed from a flight for reportedly suspicious behavior sued US Airways, the Minneapolis airport and several passengers who had reported them. In August, they dropped their suit after Congress passed a law, sponsored by my Congressman, Rep. Peter King (R-LI), protecting such civic spirited tips from intimidating lawsuits. Plaintiffs must prove that the finger pointers lied or they must pay all court and legal fees.
That sounds like a series of victories for domestic Tranquility, the common defence, the general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty. Were KinderUSA or the Islamic Society of Boston falsely accused? I am not in a position to judge with certainty, though I certainly have my inclinations on the matter. Either way, the remedy is not to shut down all public inquiry and discussion on the matter -- which has been the effect of plaintiff-friendly libel laws in Britain. Rather, aggrieved parties should defend the truth by challenging and refuting their accusers in public debate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Justice Not Seasoned with Mercy in Iran

Source: Rod Dreher – Crunchy Con

This is a striking photo. It has haunted me since I saw it two days ago. These are two allegedly homosexual teenaged boys being hanged in Iran. I am left wondering what the nature and extent of their transgression was. Were they caught in an ill-considered moment of curiosity and moral weakness? Did haunting menaces escape from the basement of their hearts at a time that turned suddenly and terribly public?

They could not have been open and flagrant homosexuals. There is obviously no allowance for open self-disclosure of that sort in the Islamic Republic. Iran does not have a homosexual activist network that identifies young people who betray aberrant tendencies, misleads them with foolish counsel, and emboldens them in shameless behavior.

Perhaps that is all that Ahmadinejad meant when he said, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon, I don't know who told you we had it." They do not have homosexuals of the sort that we have. They do not have "gays." Homosexual is an orientation of the heart sexually. Gay is a lifestyle. Not all homosexuals are gay. Or perhaps he was just telling a Big Lie.

All the same, the reason I think that this photo caught people's attention is not horror over the fact that Iran hangs criminals, nor even that they hang homosexuals. It is the tender age of these convicts that takes us aback and shocks our western moral sensibilities. Surely these boys were not hardened in their ways. Surely they were just confused, or perhaps themselves victims of some gross indecency. Surely all that they needed was some gracious and discreet intervention which, along with rigid Middle Eastern social conventions, should be sufficient to prevent the slide of Iranian society into the swamp of Western moral dissolution. Hanging in this case seems particularly brutal, unnecessary and...ungracious.

For one who is supposedly merciful, it seems that Mohammed's God is not anything of the sort when his religion takes charge politically, at least in Iran...and Afghanistan, and Iraq's Anbar province.

Praise God that his message of salvation in Christ is one of grace, and that he is making his people gracious because he is making them like Christ. “In Christ we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight…” (Ephesians 1:7-8).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »