MERCY

Although the Health Care Debate in the United States has been presumably dead for several years, I recently stumbled upon a brief discussion on the subject.

Anyway, this short discussion did nothing more than remind me of my old position:

I believe that, similar to Fire and Police protection, Health Care should be provided for the public by the public. Leaving something so critical to the wellbeing of the citizens of this country in the hands of a for-profit system, would seem to be counter productive.

The point of running a for-profit business is to make money (turn a profit) and in order to do this, it only makes sense that the least possible services are offered for the maximum possible price. As someone who appreciates profitable businesses, I can't argue with this logic.

However, as a person who depends upon health care providers to continue living a comfortable life, I do not appreciate the idea that my well-being may be weighed against some company's ability to make money off my enrollment. Additionally, as a person who cares greatly about the wellbeing of more than a handful of other people (i.e. friends, family, ect), I don't appreciate the idea of their health being weighed against profits either.

I'm sure the same could be said if we were to employ Fire-Fighters in the same way. I wouldn't want the safety of anyone being held against the profitability of a Fire Department.

-Great Example of the capability of Government Health Care

Regardless, when it comes to the subject of keeping costs down, which is always a good thing, the United States spent approximately $2.5 trillion dollars on Health Care in 2010. During that same year TriCare operated on an annual budget of $48.5 million dollars. (reference) (Reference)

What is interesting about these numbers is that the United States was comprised of 308 million people in 2010 while TriCare had 9.5 million enrollees. (reference). Population considered, the average health care expenditures (per person) in the United States total approximately $8,097 and the TriCare expenditure (per enrollee) is $5,105.

With all of the above being stated, I believe that a publicly run health care system would provide the best care for the most people. I also believe that, were we to operate on the TriCare system, we would be saving almost one trillion dollars in annual health care expenditures.

Wind power on land

Wind power on the water.

Being that traveling humans have been taking advantage of the worlds powerful wind currents for millennia, I am of the opinion that electricity hungary humans could also take advantage of these same powers.

Freedom

Voting 99.9% legitimate

When I wash my hands using the soap besides my kitchen sink, the label clearly states that it kills 99.9% of all germs (Reference).

Personally I find this comforting, unnecessary maybe, but comforting all the same.

When I hear the results for public elections in the United States, especially national elections, I understand that these results are 99.9% accurate.

• In 2008 more than 120 million people cast ballots for the November election (reference). Even with an aggressive agenda of stopping voter fraud, the Justice Department was unable to charge more than 200 people (reference).

Even if we were to subtract 10million votes from the 2008 election, we would still need to find 120,000 cases of voter fraud to equate to .1% of the total ballots cast. With all of that said, I feel pretty confident when I hear the final results, naturally barring exceptionally close races were recounts are warranted.

Now, on the subject of voters being required to provide a photo ID in order to cast a ballot, I feel that this is a completely unnecessary measure.

I believe that it would be a nearly impossible task to eliminate 100% of all voter fraud, much the same as it would be impossible to eliminate 100% of any such discrepancy (i.e. germs on hands).

There are some cases of ballot fraud, but requiring citizens to provide a government issued photo ID at the ballot box is not going to fix this problem. Remember, there are far more cases of false ID in the United States than there are of ballot fraud (reference).

For me it comes down to an issue of individual liberties and government control.

I agree that it is a relatively minor task, that I provide photo identification at the ballot box. Honestly, I already have two government furnished photo IDs.

However, it is an unnecessary request and equates to just another government requirement.

In reality this requirement, or anything of the sort, stands to accomplish two things:

1. Place an additional barrier between citizens and the ballot box
2. Add another item to an already long list of government requirements.

Again, if we are already looking at a statistically insignificant amount of wrongfully cast ballots, what good does this sort of requirement stand to accomplish?

Gasoline Prices

Now, before I present the bulk of this particular post for public viewing, I would like to clarify a few things:

1. I greatly appreciate nature and the ability to enjoy a wide variety of environments. I personally feel that the continued existence of the myriad ecosystems on this planet presents some quantifiable value [be it emotional, monetary or otherwise].
2. Although I still drive a car, fly in airplanes and ride on ships, all of which contribute to global pollution in some manner or another, I feel that we should be looking for long-term solutions to our current dependence on petroleum as the primary source of power.

Maybe the above makes me an environmentalist, I'm not quite sure, but that was never my intent.

Anyway, to the point.

I have often been confronted with the question: "Who is to blame for high gasoline prices?"

To which the general response is: "Liberal environmentalists."

Now, as a person who buys plenty of gasoline and might be considered some sort of an environmentalist, I take issue with this rapid assumption.

The following constitutes my response to the continued [and mistaken] belief that 'liberal environmental policy' has severely impacted gasoline prices through the theory of supply & demand:

The United States produces approximately 9.1million barrels of oil per day while it consumes approximately 18.7 million barrels per day. reference

The remaining 9.6 million barrels are imported from a variety of countries (chiefly Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela). reference

• In regards to domestic supply, we might be able to marginally increase our supply through relaxed regulation, but this figure would not significantly affect the sum-total of our supply. Proposed ANWR drilling would net approximately .7million barrels per day. reference

• In regards to foreign supply, we exercise a great deal of influence over our primary importers. We do this through acting as the largest single customer in some cases (reference reference reference) and through strong military ties in other cases (reference reference) -sometimes it's even both-

With the faulty argument being that, hash environmental policy reduces domestic supply, thus forcing the Untied States to procure imported oil. It is important to consider that domestic supply is relatively constant (regulations or not) and foreign supply is relatively secure.

Now, the question remaining:

If environmentalist regulations aren't causing the high gasoline prices, what is?

To that I say, rampant speculation along with enterprising oil executives.

In defense of this proposition I present the facts that in 2008 (a time of reduced demand) major petroleum companies produced less product while earning record profits (reference reference reference).

I'll be the first to acknowledge that, as a rule, corporate charters generally demand that companies do what is best for the shareholders. I'll also be the first to admit that petroleum companies often operate on very low profit margins.

However, I will point out recent dramatic consumer price increases were not correlated with any 'liberal policy' and had little to do with actually supply or demand (domestic, foreign or otherwise).

The only logical explanation for any price increase at at time of reduced demand (in a recession no-less) is that the large petroleum companies were capitalizing on the gullible American public in an attempt to look-out for their shareholders, which is also completely logical.

-end rant

Eight for 2012

Of late I have found myself engaged in several interesting debates.

Generally, when I start talking to someone [through which ever mode of communication] I spend time to carefully research my points and respond to any counter-points. Upon the conclusion of any such debate I am usually left with a bunch of information that goes as far as a folder on my desktop. Now, I don't have any particular complaints about this pattern, however I started thinking that I might be better served to catalogue these discussions someplace.

This being my blog, would seem to be the perfect place.

That said, I plan to enter any such debates [of note] into this here so that they may serve as one of my marginally sound theories.