Oh Noes! The Scary Claritan-D!

I'm annoyed. I mean, really, really annoyed. Mainly at the idiots that we call state Representatives and Senators. I'll include Governor Barbour in there just for good measure.

Why am I so annoyed? What has gotten my proverbial panties in a bunch you may ask?

Well, it's like this, both the Mississippi Senate and the Mississippi House has passed a bill designed to restrict psuedoephedrine sells to require a prescription. Which means that now to continue with my daily dosage of Clariton D I will need to spend additional money to go to the doctor's office and get a prescription.

This is insane for a number of reasons, among them, and just right off the top of my head:

1. Medicare Costs & Doctor Rationing
   
2. Lessens Quality of Life
3. Unintended Economic Consequencees

None of those things make me happy, and let's look at the reasons why...

Medicare costs & Doctor Rationing. Remember, this bill will require thousands of people to go visit the doctor. Everyone who takes Claritan-D on a daily basis will need to do so. Then anyone who is allergic to phenylephrine will need to visit the doctor whenever they get sick or get a stuffy nose due to the changing season. Medicare costs associated with all these additional doctor visits will skyrocket. The Medicare/Medicaid program here in Mississippi is already taxed to the breaking point. This bill will add thousands of visits to the system per year, and we already don't have the money in our tax coffers to pay for all of the entitlement services that the State provides.

Then there is also the fact that a doctor can only see so many patients in a given day. When a doctor gets innudated with demands to see him just so people can get another year's worth of Claritan-D, that means that that same doctor has less time to see people who are truly sick.

Quality of Life. The thing is that I need this particular drug for my quality of life. If I don't have it, I'm quickly reduced to a phlegm filled monstrosity that is constantly hacking, snuffling and ultimately I have to go to the doctor for a Z-Pack because the crud in my chest and nose has turned into pneumonia. After the Z-Pack does its thing, I'm okay for two weeks, and then we repeat the process. This is how I lived for the first 18 months that I lived in Mississippi. I had more Z-Packs and shots in the posterior to combat pneumonia infections in those 18 months, than in the entire 30 year span prior to moving.

That stopped once I got myself on a daily Claritan-D regiment.

This is what the government is basically saying that they want me to go back to. It's either that or take hours out of my day to wait around at the doctors office to get them to give me a prescription.

Which leads to the third point I made up there about...

Unintended Economic Consequences. This whole thing is an effort to combat a "meth problem," and truthfully, there are areas in this state that has one. In fact in Jackson in 2009, there were more arrests concerning meth, than any other drug.

The thing is that, this is not going to change one thing, and the reason for that is the Law of Scarcity. This law is based upon two propositions:

1. Man has unlimited or insatiable wants, and
2. Resources that are used to produce goods and services are limited.

I'm not going into some huge lecture on Supply and Demand, as frankly, economics is not my specialty. I took enough courses on it in college to be able to deal with it, and know the fundamentals, but I don't particularly like it. But the basics is that the more scarce a product is, the more and higher the cost to sell. Since the production costs will not necessarily change, that means that there will be a higher profit margin for those still willing to create this particular drug.

Anyways, I want you to think about scarcity.

Think about it and especially in relation to Prohibition (or The Noble Experiment). When the government tried to limit the creation and sale of alcohol, what happened? It went underground, and was still made and sold, but the selling involved bullets, a violent black market, racketeering, corrupted law officials, and of course, high profits. The Mafia made huge profits on liquor until Prohibition was ended, and cheap, legal access to it, stripped them of their profits in that particular venue.

During Prohibition, liquor was SCARCE, therefore it could be sold at a high price despite being cheap to make, therefore it was worthwhile for those willing to break laws to produce it, to produce it.

Which sounds amazingly like the illegal drug trade here in the States today.

But I digress, by making the a single ingredient in the production of meth even more scarce, you're creating an environment, where the creation of meth becomes even more economically viable for those willing to break the law to create it.

Also, consider that pseudoephedrine is technically not a REQUIRED ingredient to meth. It's used because it's a cheap alternative, with a chemical similarity to the "actual ingredient." Additionally, the ingredients that can be used, are wide and varied. It's the reason so many people have taken to make it, the formula can use a host of different items, so long as they are chemically similar, and compatible to the end result.

So, are all these other ingredients being tracked and required a doctor's notice to purchase? Why just the one that is most useful to our health? Iodine and salt are also ingredients, why aren't those schedule 1 narcotics? Should we need a note from a licensed painter in order to purchase paint thinner (again, a meth ingredient) or acetone?

We must always remember something, every time the government acts to create new restrictions on us:

Limits on our freedoms, only works on those unwilling to break the law in the first place.

It is the same fundamental reason that "gun control" and airport "security measures" will never work. They are based on the delusion concept that additional laws will keep someone from breaking the law.

And life just does not work that way.

Can I Have The Health Care Bill Please?

I work a lot with documents. It's a really big part of that whole software engineering process. Things like specifications, data dictionaries, white papers, requirements, process improvement plans and the random other plan.

Some of these documents can be huge. I've seen a Systems Engineering Management Plan which took nearly 1,500 pages in MS Word before.

The thing is, that these documents, they're the key to what I'm building at any given moment. They describe functionality, interfaces, and other requirements for the software system. Without those documents....well I'm just floundering in the wind, building my "best guess" as to what the customer/client/boss wants.

In the past, I've discovered that my best guess in such situations are not always ideal. Actually, in such situations I've often built the wrong software; sure it does a task, but it's not the task that the customer wanted taken care of.

I could not imagine even attempting to do my job if the only thing I was given was the table of contents (ToC) and the Executive Summary.

No let me correct that and say that my job would be easier--and the client would get a better, more accurate for their needs, piece of software--without me getting any of these needed and necessary documents, as opposed to me getting just the ToC and the Executive Summary of these documents.

Why then... or maybe that should be HOW CAN... does our Congress think it can pass a bill when the only thing they are debating is effectively the ToC and the Executive Summary?

But that is effectively what is currently happening. The Chairman's Mark of the "America's Healthy Futures Act of 2009," henceforth called ObamaCare, is currently all that exists of the ObamaCare bill.

Basically, it's around 250 pages of descriptions on what our esteemed felons Congressmen believe should go in this law. Additionally, a Chairman's Mark, even if voted upon as good and valid, is not binding during the actual construction of the legislative language.

Think about that... Health Care is currently about 1/6^th of our GDP, and Congress wants us to think that they're looking out for us, when they're arguing about the content of a bill that has not been written, and is currently not scheduled to be written until the arguments are over.

This promises to be a massive disaster on the scale of (if not larger than) the TARP and any other big-government/nanny state legislation that's passed in the past 100 years.

What's worse is that they're playing dating games in order for the GAO to give it a better rating fiscally. The primary aspects of the bill won't start until JULY, 2013 (despite the fact that they're planning on raising taxes/funds beginning April, 2011) and the GAO ranks things based on a ten year plan. This evil thing doesn't even begin (except for stealing money from the citizenry) until a third of the way through the GAO's current reporting period.

No, this Chairman's Mark needs to go away, and if our esteemed leaders want to create a massive new socialist program, then they need to do so in the sunlight, and allow the populace to read the bill so we can tell them exactly where they can shove it.

And I'd like that chance before they pass a bill which would damage my ability to care for the health and welfare of my family.

Government Mandates & You

I was perusing through THOMAS earlier and discovered an interesting proposed bill. Apparently, Congress, in its infinite wisdom has decided that not nearly enough people own cars. In fact, there are some thousands upon thousands of able-bodied adults who do not own a car. So, of course, they have decided that it was time to legislate such a situation.

It's an interesting bill, and has these as the primary focuses:

1. The creation of a regulatory marketplace. All new cars sold will be required by law to be sold through this marketplace. Inclusion in the market place means a bunch of hefty fees are added to the car manufacturers, as well as price caps and bottoms, and an array of "standard" features which are less the what is currently standard on most new cars
2. Any additional features--regardless of their pre-"marketplace" standardization--can only be added as an additional cost to the car
3. Cars that do not meet the price caps/bottoms or feature standards will not be allowed to be sold in the United States or its territories
   
4. Every able-bodied/able-minded adult must own a car
5. Depending on income, the government may buy the car for you
6. If the adult is an illegal alien, they will not be able to get the free car
7. People are not allowed to check to see if an adult is an illegal alien
   
8. The population can keep their current car, only if they
   
   1. Do not change the color of the car
   2. Do not change the car's battery
   3. Do not change the car's tires
      
   4. Do not perform any exterior or interior body work
   Performing any of these tasks requires you to purchase a new car
9. Each new car has a tax associated with it
10. There is a yearly fee, based on income and cost of the car, to own the car
11. Adults who do not own a car, must pay an annual fine
    
12. Failure to pay the fees/taxes/fines will lead to jail time
    

So, what do you think?

Does this sound like a fair law? Is it reasonable?

After all, those poor folks who don't have a car right this moment, why the government will buy them one! Imagine all the helpfulness that that could provide. Solid, reliable transportation for the masses.

Of course, all those folks who live in places like NYC--where it's unreasonable for them to own a vehicle--why they have to pay extra to offset the cost, or they could go to jail for failure to pay their taxes.

Can you imagine this? Can you imagine what this would do to our nation and economy?


If you've read this, and thought it perfectly reasonable. Replace the car with a bike. Or a house. Or a candy bar. If it still sounds reasonable, well, you're a hopeless socialist. Go on home.

For the rest of us, why does this sound unreasonable while doing the exact thing with Health Care sound reasonable?

Frankly, it doesn't. The description of the law, is more or less how that last Health Care bill was written. There were hefty fines and/or jail time if you did not buy the government health insurance. There was a single line detailing that no illegal aliens would receive benefits, while at the same time the law stated that no one would be able to check on the legal residence state of the individual in question. And of course, there was the fact that people would be able to keep their insurance--provided that they never needed it to change.

This is the change that Obama is trying to bring us. Pretty bitter medicine, eh?

Betraying Liberals

I just read an article on MSNBC which made me laugh and shake my head in alternating forms. Apparently, the Liberal customer base of Whole Foods is in an uproar over an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the CEO (one John Mackey) of said company wrote concerning Health Care Reform.

In it he described his company's stance on Health Care. Basically, his company provides the following:

• A "High-Deductible" Health Insurance Plan (a $2,500 deductible)
  
• Company paid premiums
• $1,800 into a Health Savings Account (HSA) they call "Personal Wellness Accounts."
  

Frankly, I think that's an awesome set of health care benefits.

But, anyways, in Mr. Mackey's op-ed he wrote how he thinks that the government has no place in offering "public-option" health care plans, and that it would be better off, if Health Care reform involved:

• Lower legal issues for creation/adoption of High-Deductible/HSA combinations
• Equalize tax issues between Employer Provided and Individually Purchased Health Insurance (employer provide is 100% tax-deductible, individually purchased is not)
• Repel state laws preventing across-state-lines insurance competition
• Repel government mandates on required coverage options
• Tort reform
• Make Health-Care costs more transparent, so that a consumer can purchase health care based on valid decision making processes
• Enact Medicare reform
• Make tax-deductible donations to (non-government run) funds who assist those unable to afford health insurance & are not covered by current "government options."

Frankly, I found the piece well-thought out, well-considered, logical and in general something that I would support if it was what was considered "Health-Care reform." It provides avenues for lowered health care costs, while at the same time keeping the power of our health care decisions out of the government's hands. Additionally, it allows the MARKET to work the way that it is supposed to.

But, of course that means that the Liberals are utterly, and hopelessly against it.

They hate the fact that it's not a government-run plan.

They can't stand the thought of personal responsibility in any facet of the people's lives, so of course they're against it.

What these liberals don't seem to understand is that the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to create health care.

It is so far outside of the limits on power which the framers of our government placed on the federal government that it is almost laughable.

But horrifyingly scary that so many are so accepting of this intrusive power-grab.

In my opinion, the Liberals have not been betrayed. If anything, they should be wondering why Walmart is so accepting of a government-run health care plan, while their food provider of choice is against it.

Here's a reason: it's economics. The labor unions have spent years and millions in advertising in getting Walmart to lower its insurance premiums and expand coverage. These are costs that Walmart either has to absorb in its profit margin or raise prices to cover. And as the one of the largest employers in the world--that's a lot of money going out. So, from their POV, a government plan would be great. I have no doubt that their private insurance would disappear the day after a government plan was introduced.

For some reason, I don't see Whole Foods being quite so quick to trade away the rights of its employee base in order to raise its profit margin a half-point.

Of course these are LOGICAL arguments, and falter in the face of the overwhelming "proof" which is the emotionalism by which most Liberals make their political decisions.

After all, who needs logic, when a feel-good that someone else has to pay for works just as well.?

Obama: Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain....

Sometimes, I really do have to wonder what the Democrats/Lefties are smoking up there in their little world-outside of Reality.

The White House has published a new report that claims that to "fix" the economy requires a revamping of our health care system. Their justification? The fact that Health Care, which currently accounts for ~18% of our GDP is estimated to grow to be around 30-34% of our GDP in THIRTY years. Yes, thirty, 3-0.

What, the report is not telling you is that the taxes to pay for the another expansion of Government abilities and capabilities, would crush our economy with 5.

Let's look at the two biggest tax items which are in the works to "pay" for health care by Government Mandate. The first is the "beverage" tax. What this is, is a tax on any drink you drink. Everything from sweet tea, to coke to beer to wine falls under the purview of this tax, dedicated to drive a majority of the food/dining industry out of business.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

The next tax is the VAT, or the Value Added Tax. This works similar to a National Sales Tax, except it is on EVERY transaction (while sales taxes are typically applied only to transactions where no resale is involved). And while this does have potential, they're talking about adding it to the top of our already complex Income Tax system. This will ensure that our already weakened retail industry falters further.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

And that's just the issues involved on the TAX side of things that health care reform will cause. Then there's also the simple fact that health care as we know it will cease to exist. After all, once Bureaucrats get in charge of making health decisions for you what you want, or think you need, will be irrelevant.

We'll see more cases, like the recent one where someone is being forced to undergo chemotherapy at a Judge's orders, despite the fact that he does not want to.

In every area of our lives that bureaucrats exist, we see petty tyrants doing things to harm the very people who they are supposed to be helping.

• In California, the "Land Use" bureaucrats tried to force a couple who were holding a Bible study with a few friends (~15) in their home to get an major use permit
• Some Veterans are turned away from VA hospitals because clerks are unable to fill out the DD214 forms correctly
• The Dutch have a plan to force "Unfit Mothers" to take contraception, and if you get pregnant while on the contraceptives, they will take your child\

Here in the U.S., Liberals love looking at our neighbors to the East and seeing all these grand, and wonderful plans they have in action. They see the social systems in place in France, Britain, Germany and Sweden, and they salivate and say "This is good."

But they never stop and actually LOOK at these things. They don't pay attention to the fact that Britain, France and Germany are all limiting access to health care. They're rationing doctors and medicines and diagnostic treatments.

In 1996, Michael D. Tanner wrote an article entitled "A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine" for the CATO Institute. In it he explains how Medicare fails. How the properties of a very elementary rule forces programs like this to fail.

That rule: If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it.

This is a simple truism. I have free cell phone minutes to my wife, therefore I call her routinely just to chat and hear her voice. Before "family plans" and free mobile-to-mobile minutes, I would only call to provide relevant information--things I needed for her to know.

These problems, the access issues, the poor service, the general... crappiness of medicare, are proof that the government should not be involved in health care for the people. The fact that they can't even get Veteran health care right--and there's a lot less of them, than on either Medicare or private insurance--is proof that they should not be doing this.

But above and beyond that, this is something outside of the bounds of what our Founding Fathers expected us to do with this country. They would be appalled at the thought that we have invested so much power into the hands of so few.

Need proof, then we but have to look to the words of one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, who in the Federalist No. 45 wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

and during a speech at the Virginia constitutional convention in December of 1829 said:

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.

Our Government was not designed to hold this power, and it should not, for it puts too much power over ourselves, our bodies and our health, into the hands of just a few bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats whose sole purpose will be the gaining of more power and prestige for themselves.

A scary thought, where the health of my family is concerned.

Clinton's Las Vegas Trip

The main-stream media is abuzz. The holy grail has been found! Yes, I'm talking about Mrs. Clinton hiding out there in the dessert. It's almost been obscene, as ever since last Thursday story after story of her supposed triumphant debate has flickered across myRSS Reader.

It would be sickening, if not so scary.

Yet, not even the reports that the MSM planted questions for her at the debate could work me up enough to write a rant. At least until I stumbled across MSNBC's latest rave review of her campaign.

HRC: TCB in Vegas. A Conversion Story

A less than surprising (in light of MSNBC's admitted shift Left) endorsement of the Clinton campaign, which starts off with these sentences:

She came, she saw--and she conquered.

After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Now, this is a MSNBC "blog" so it's perfectly reasonable that its author has a pronounced bias, but since it is on a MSM website, one still expects... well journalistic integrity? That post just reeks of "Hey, look at me! I'm an HRC fanboi!" Now I can admit to be a Ron Paulite, and I know that my Constitionalistic leanings influence my writings, and that I'll have a tendency to support anyone who pushes a platform which I like. But, I never claimed to be a news site. This here is a place for me to rant and rave about things without driving my beloved wife batty.

Slightly different venue.

All that aside, that's not what caused me to frown and think up a rant. Rather it was this quote (as Mrs. Clinton discussed the Thursday night debate):

I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't.

In effect, she's bragging about socialism; big government.

It still boggles the mind that anyone would willingly take a handout from the government through the welfare and other social programs, which FDR (the guy that put the initial systems into place) said would destroy this country if they weren't revoked.

I can admit, I hate social welfare programs. They are evil things, and in effect are enforced charity. It is the government, taking money from me to give to someone it deems worthy by some arcane stricture. A modern-day Robin Hood if you will. While Robin Hood is often classified as a folk hero, let us not forget that he was fighting against the high taxes and social ills which big government impose upon us. If eitherObama or Clinton manage to make it into office, this is the future we have to look forward to. Yet another attack against the capitalistic, small-government dream which our Founding Fathers held dear.

Presidential candidates should not be bragging about expanding the Federal government's powers. Frankly, I'm of the mind that attempts to expand Federal powers beyond that which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be considered treason. Especially, if that Presidential candidate was already an office holder in the Federal government which forced them to take an oath of office to protect said Constitution (such as bothObama and Clinton did when they became Senators). Let's look at that shall we?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Makes sense. It means that they promised to SUPPORT and DEFEND the Constitution. So, tell me again, how does a Federal Welfare System (or Education System for that matter) support the Constitution? There is no article, section or clause which grants the Federal government that particular right or ability, and as we all should know by now, any right not specifically given the Federal government is reserved for the States and the citizenry.

Just one of the many, many reasons why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

John Edwards wants to drive your company out of business...

Sometimes, I have to seriously wonder what on earth liberals are thinking. Why are fundamental concepts such as the fact that governments shouldn't be paying for certain things so hard for them to understand?

The latest lunacy, comes from a Fox News story posted yesterday (July 29, 07):

CANTERBURY, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says negotiating with insurers and pharmaceutical companies is not the best way to overhaul the health care system.

senator said Sunday.Those groups will not give up their power voluntarily, the former North Carolina

"I've been fighting these people my whole life and have beaten them my whole life," said Edwards, a former trial lawyer. "I think the time to talk to them is after you've beaten them."

Edwards has proposed requiring employers to provide insurance or contribute to the coverage of every worker. The government would pay for insurance for lower income people and subsidize what other families pay.

He also would cap the amount insurance companies can charge for profit or overhead at 15 percent and would pay for the $90 to $120 billion a year plan by repealing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year.

"How long are we going to let insurance companies and drug companies run this country?" he said.

So, his idea is to FORCE small businesses to pay for health insurance, and then for government to pick up the slack.

Which translates into: he wants those people who have good jobs that provide insurance and a decent wage, to pay for those folks who for whatever reason don't.

Ah, socialism. How often you're found on the lips of a liberal.

Frankly, I don't want any of my money to HAVE to go to other people, filtered through government coffers or not. If I volunteer my money, and send a check off to whichever charity that's one thing. For the government to take money from my paycheck for the express purpose of giving it to someone else is the height of evil.

It is theft no matter how you look at it. This Robin Hood syndrome which liberals seem to be inflicted with needs to be gone. Leave my money alone.

If I want to help someone, I'll help them. It's not up to John Edwards to decide who gets my charity.