drtennis’s whereIstand Blog

The politically correct answer would be a resounding no. The kids are going to have sex anyway. Isn’t it better to instruct them in how to protect themselves if hormonal urges make it difficult to abstain? 
It sounds reasonable, but let’s take a closer look. If we combine abstinence and protection in an educational program, aren’t we sending mixed and confusing messages? Also, are we not selling our children short, when we assume that raging hormones are more powerful than their determination to make the right choice?
The benefits of abstinence are well known. It doesn’t take a lot of education to descibe them. Avoidance of the risks of becoming pregnant, or contracting sexually transmitted diseases.Some of these are incurable, while others inhibit the possibility of having children later on.
Here, the protection people say they have the solution. It is the use of condoms. However, the unmentioned secret is that condoms are not completely effective. Estimates range from 80% to 90%. In addition, some STDs are passed on whether or not a condom is used.
Finally, one seldom mentioned benefit of abstinence is psychological.Sex is much more than physical, particularly for females. While it may be old fashioned for a girl to want to save herself for a future husband, it may make a lot of sense from a mental hralth viewpoint.
I am not sure how to answer the question at issue. Much depends on the content of the education and how it is presented. One thing for sure, we need to be completely truthful with kids or we lose.

                         Dick Brooks.

whereIstand Tags

• Is abstinence-only sex education effective?

Yes, if it so decides, but only in government buildings. Where private property is concerned, the owner should have the right to decide smoking or non-smoking areas.
Is the public aware of the dangers of smoking? They should be. For half a century, there have been warning labels on cigarette packs. There is some hypocrisy involved. Cigarettes are heavily taxed and the government wants this source of revenue. Unfortunately, the higher the tax, the more incentive for bootlegging.
How about banning smoking altogether? For an answer, we only need look at the problems caused by over a decade of Alcohol Prohibition.
Is second hand smoke injurious? Not yet proven. Is the smell obnoxious? Yes, but private businesses are aware of this and take steps not to annoy customers.
In the final analysis, we live in a world of many dangers. The government cannot protect us against all, particularly when we make bad choices.  The role of government should be to help keep people well informed.
I vote no on the question at issue.

                                     Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Should the government impose smoking bans?

The answer is yes, provided that the new system overall would be superior to what we now have. Our current eystem, to be sure, has a number of serious flaws.Most of these could be corrected within the system itself, were it not for political pressures.
Prior to opting to implement a single payer system, we should seriously consider some intrinsic problems inherent in the concept.
First, how would the plan be administered? If we look at the Medicare mess, we might conclude that medical administration, by the government, will inevitably lead to waste, fraud and abuse.
Second, how do we set the premiums? Bear in mind that everyone is eligible, including the chronically ill. Will the consequent higher overall premium levels discourage healthy people from participating?
Third, will payments to health providers be sufficient to attract them to the program? Again, looking at Medicare, many doctors will not accept Medicare patients because the reimbursements do not cover their expenses.
Fourth, how long will patients have to wait to be treated?Currently, in the US, major operations can be scheduled within a few weeks. In the UK, for example, similar surgeries may be delayed for several months, even with life-threatening conditions.
Finally, what we should expect is less red tape and more healing success in any new program.
Itis said that the devil is in the details. Until we can examine a complete plan, I think we should retain an honest skepticism.

                                                                 Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Should the U.S. implement a single-payer health care system?

This is a loaded question. The question that might have been posed is, "why is it important to define when life begins"? The answer is that it has a bearing on the issues of abortion and infanticide.
Abortion is basically legal at any point during the period of gestation.That battle is over, and pro-choicers were victorious. However, if we define the beginning of life as some time other than viability or birth, the pro-choice position becomes vulnerable. And this could lead ultimately, for example, to the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, a cornerstone of pro-choice philosophy.
The right-to-life viewpoint, is that life begins at conception, that is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Logically, if the subsequent process is unimpeded, a human being results, 9 months later.
If this is true, the pro-choicers have a problem. It is then more difficult for them to call the developing embryo a blob of tissue, a product of conception, a fetus, a zygote, etc. That is, anything but a baby.
A picture is worth 1000 words. The latest ultra-sound equipment can show a tiny but recognizable little person, that can move its limbs inside the womb.
The pro-choice and pro-life camps will continue to argue, often stridently. Each has an agenda, thus making objective discussion most difficult. It is interesting that all pro-choicers have already been born.
After reviewing all of the evidece and arguments, I conclude that, indeed, life does begin at conception.

                                             Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• When does life begin?

Now we enter a minefield. The emotional issues include abortion and euthanasia, and creation versus evolution. Let’s try, briefly, to look at some facts dispassionately.
First, our Declaration of Independance mentions that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
An atheist would have to conclude that theFounding Fathers got it all wrong. Ther is no Creator, per se, only sperm and eggs.
Try to tell a Marine that life is not precious. His credo is never to leave a fallen comrade on the battlefield. How about the NY firefighters who rushed into the towers while others were rushing out. Or Mother Teresa, who said not to abort the fetus. Just carry to term and give me the baby.
Toward the end of life, heroic measures are taken to preserve the person, even for a little while more.
The opposition says that life is only precious if it is viable and healthy. We should abort babies if they are discovered to be deformed, in utero. If they lived, they would not have a productive life, and would be a great burden on the parents. At the other end of life, pull the plug when the patient is being kept alive by artificial means.
These are profound considerations, and should not be treated lightly or emotionally.
Finally, there is the life of Helen Keller, blind and deaf at birth. Was her life precious? Against all odds, she accomplished much. Is our dichotomy of life a matter of nobility versus utility?
I say life is fundamentally precious and worth living.

                                              Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Is life fundamentally precious?

The initial reaction is to wonder if it would be Constitutional. But that is perhaps an old-fashioned consideration, since we are told by progressives that our Constitution is a living and evolving document. Look at the Massachusetts program as a model.
Assuming then, that health insurance should be required, how do we design it.
An interesting model can be found in the automobile insurance field. In the last 50 years, drivers have been required to show evidence of financial responsibility in order to be licensed to drive. Those people, who have been declined by private insurers, can still purchase insurance under an Assigned Risk Preogram.
Similar concepts could apply in health insurance. The question of enforcement then arises. Automobile drivers need insurance in order to be licensed. How do we provide this mandate in health insurance?
The assigned risk concept would work in health insurance, since many people have pre-existing conditions. Insurers do not want to provide coverage where there is 100% chance of claims.
Another advantage of keeping health insurance in the private sector, is that it keeps it mostly free of political influence. Also, when has the government been able to run any program economically and efficiently?
Finally, think of the potential expense savings for hospitals, when the emergency room is no longer used in lieu of insurance.
I vote a qualified yes to the question.

                                            Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Should adults be required by law to purchase health insurance?

It is very difficult to give a categorical answer to this question. The main reason is that there are diametrically opposed viewponts, and these are primarily skewed toward radically different points of view, socialism and capitalism.
So, without having visited Cuba since the Castro revolution, I will try to give brief overviews, from each point of view.
First, is it effective? It claims to be the best system in Latin America. The main reason is that half the money earned by the state, including tourism, is allegedly invested in healthcare. Special drugs have been produced in Cuba, to treat such diseases as meningitis, hepatitis B, and cancerous tumors. Patients travel there from other countries.
Further, there are health professionals in every neighborhood, and bedside visits are common..
Cuban medicine features a holistic approach and emphasis on prevention. Alternative medicine, including herbs and magnets, is regularly practiced. As a result of all of this, it is alleged that the average life expectancy is 80 years!
Now the contrary view. While Michael Moore extols the greatness of the Cuban system in his movie "Sicko", many people do not believe him because of his reputation as a radical propagandist, with a bias against the U.S. 
While it is true that Cuba has pumped a lot of money into health equipment and facilities, there is doubt that the amount is anywhere near 50% of income. Moreover, since the Soviet Union discontinued its subsidy of $5 billion annually, Cuba is scrambling to break even.
One of the biggest criticisms, concerns the 2 tier level of healthcare. The political elite, military officers, and favored tourists get red carpet treatment. All the rest of the citizens get bare bones attention. Reason, the former group pays cash, which the government sorely needs.
Briefly, some of the other deficiencies faced by the Cubans include:
   —lack of fuel and meat, although the people are reasonably healthy
   —long waits in hospitals
   —younger people dislike supporting aging population
   —lack of chlorinated water
   —poor nutrition
   —deteriorating housing
   —generally unsanitary environment
   —shortage of even aspirin and basic anti-biotics
The U.S. system has many defects. However, I am skeptical of the Cuban system, even though there are aspects that we should consider. In my opinion, the jury is still out as to whether Cuba’s healthcare is effective, in toto.

                                     Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Is Cuba’s healthcare system effective?

Sounds wonderful on the surface, who could possibly be against such a humanitarian idea? On closer examination, some seriousproblems appear.
First of all, where in the Constitution is the government given the right to intercede in the contractual relationship between employer and employee? It is doubtful that such a mandate would stand up under a court challenge by an employer, although stranger things have happened. Examples, the eminent domain case in Connecticutt. Also the government’s power to set a minimum wage.
Next, assuming the legel problem can be overcome or circumvented, where do we set the minimum number of employees before the requirement would kick in? Very likely, at 10 employees or 25 employees. We need to realize that most businesses in the U.S. would not be affected since they employ fewer than 10/25 full-time workers.
Also, an employer can arrange hiring so as to remain under the minimum for eligibility. As the company grows, and the minimum is approached, new hires can be on a part-time basis. Or better still, the employer can out-source work instead of hiring. Or assign the work on a contract basis. Note the unintended consequence of a good intention, resulting in fewer ffull-time jobs.
Another strategem would be to set up additional companies, each of which would have fewer than the minimum number of full-time employees.
In the final analysis, an employee has the right  to leave an employer, whose benefit package may not be attractive.
The question, therefore, may seem to embody a noble gesture, but in the real world it is a bad idea.

                                               Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Should employers be required to offer health insurance to full-time employees?

Theoretically, a system could be designed to pay for itself, thus avoiding the necessity of a tax increase. I say theoretically, because it would not be politically feasible.
Here’s why. If premiums were differentiated to recognize the potential for claims, such as pre-existing conditions, those people would scream bloody murder. And the politicians would cave.
They would then probably go to a one premium fits all design. Then the folks in good health would complain, because their premiums would be higher than justified, so as to cover the cost of those in lousy health.
The politicians, always eager to please the voters, could lower the premiums to compete with free market levels, and have the shortfall added to the national debt.
Other factors working against a goveernment universal healthcare program are the inefficiency of the big bureaucracy required, the overuse and abuse of facilities because of an attitude of "free entitlement", the political football of deductible and co-pay levels, and the challenge of providing a high quality of health care.
Yes, I believe a tax increae or national debt increase would be inevitable. I would be wrong if you can convince me that government bureaucrats can do a better job than private enterprise.

                                 Dick Brooks

whereIstand Tags

• Would a universal healthcare system require a tax increase?

The question does not tell us– change to what.. I assume that it means more liberal rather than more stringent.
Before attempting to answer, it might be advisable to examine a brief overview of Medicaid eligibility requirements.First, the various states set their own guidelines with regard to maximum income and resources. Eligibility basically is determined by an applicant’s age, disability [if any], income and resources and assets.
In the calculation of income, certain sources are not counted. These include SSI, food stamps, foster care, etc.
In the calculation of resouces, included are cash, checking and savings accounts, stocks and bonds, life insurance, vehicles, etc. Not counted are the person’s home and one vehicle.
The purpose of Medicaid is to provide health coverage for those not able to afford Medicare. Therefore, if Congress is to examine anything, it should be to determine if some folks, who cannot afford Medicare, also do not qualify for Medicaid. If there is a gap for a sizeable number of people, then this is an area for changing eligibility guidelines for Medicaid. By the same token, Congres should have some assurance that they are not opening a loophole for potential abuse.

                                 Dick Brooks 

whereIstand Tags

• Should Congress change the eligibility guidelines for Medicaid?