Socialism? Surely not.

Okay, my topic today is health care.

And food.

My topics today are health care and food. See, I think we need both for a good quality of life. I know, call me crazy, but I put food above the right to cable TV and I put health care above the right to low cost gasoline. Can I get a "well, duh"?

Okay, my point...
My point is, food, and health care especially, are barely affordable. I think these necessities are important enough that we need to find a way for most Americans to afford them. The problem I run into is, I don't trust a socialist system. So what are the alternatives?

First off, the first moment you begin to talk about this subject, people panic and say, "no, no, don't mess with the current system. Remember you get what you pay for. If we limit how much a doctor can charge, we don't get good doctors." Okay, I have to disagree. How can I disagree? By example, of course. Police and Firefighters are not a "free market" system, but I feel we have very good police officers and excellent firefighters.

Can you imagine if we ran our fire fighters the way we run our health system? Call 911 and tell the operator your house is on fire, and you get, "Your FMO (Fire Mediation Offer) allows you to have a fire in your living room, but we cannot cover a fire in the bathroom. If your fire is in the kitchen, please fill out a form explaining what kind of spices you were using."

No one says we should privatize our firefighters. No one says, "Hey, you get what you pay for", because firefighters are dedicated to helping people. They aren't in it for the money (which is good, since we don't pay our firefighters as much as we pay our doctors).

So, I don't think it's automatically a bad idea to regulate our health care system. But, I can think of a better idea, so, dear readers, don't start panicing.

Here's my idea.

• Have the government support health care and food with government script. For those who make $40,000 or less a year, the government can pay $400 a month for basic (and yes, it would be basic) health insurance. People would have the option to add to that amount to get better health care, but at least the basics would be covered.
• Same with food. For those making less than $40,000 a year, the government would pay $400 a month for a family of four. This would cover basic food and groceries. Families could add to that for extras.
• This would be superiour to the current system by the affect on the market. The current system pays farmers not to grow certain amounts. If a farmer is paid $20,000 not to grow some soybeans, that $20,000 will enter the economy through the farmer. If instead, the $20,000 is given to consumers, the money will pass from consumer to grocery store to distributer and finally to farmer.
• Or you could supplement the farmer. Not pay him/her not to grow food, but match the price of food. If a bushel of corn goes for $5.00, the government would add $5.00 to that bushel for the farmer. So the farmer makes $10.00 per bushel and, therefore, is willing to grow the corn. Retailers don't have to pay more and will, therefore, purchase the corn. And the farmer isn't tempted not to grow the food. So more food is available without affecting the price as much.

But best would be a compliment of both together. The more a family makes, the less they would receive from the government. Because someone making $100,000 a year should be able to afford basic healthcare and food without assistance. Someone making $25,000 should be able to expect help. Why, you ask? Why should people who don't make as much expect supplemental help? Well...

People who work cheap keep the economy going. Those who are rich are able to make money by employing people who don't make much. The rich are reliant on people who will work cheap, therefore, the rich have an obligation to help those who are poor. Why? Because without those who are poor and willing to work cheap, the rich could not have gotten rich. Since their fortunes are being made on the backs of those willing to work, thier fortunes need to be taxes heavily to support those who support the building of that fortune.

Just an idea.

Republican? Democrat? Is there a difference?

Okay, here's the problem with a two party system. Given enough time, you have identical parties with different histories. Sure, each one use to have their own identity. Now, I'm not as sure about that. Disagree? Okay, answer the following question...

Which one is the "big government" party?

Ha, stumped you. No one has claim to that anymore. The "big government" party is which ever party is in charge. The results are the same.

So, you're asking, who do you like for president? Will you vote democrat or republican? Depends on who is running. If it's between Giuliani and Obama, I'll vote Obama. If it's between Clinton and Huckabee, I'll vote Huckabee. The party is irrelevant. On some subjects, I'm extremely conservative. On other subjects, I'm extremely liberal. So saying Huckabee is more conservative then Giuliani, or that Obama is more Left than Clinton is irrelevant. Whichever candidate hits on the correct side of enough of the issues I'm concerned about, I'll vote for that candidate. If Huckabee thinks correctly (that is, agrees with me) on 20 issues that I really don't care much about, but Obama is correct (once again, agrees with me) on three issues I'm passionate about, Obama would get my vote.

Say what you want, I think voting party line went out with "I Like Ike", or at least, should have.

Immigration

Okay, so let's start with a controversial subject. Immigration.

Here is a radical idea. Let's not keep anyone out who wants to be here. Okay, now wait. Don't panic. Breath. Breath again. Okay, go on...

Now, before I go on... Yes, I do understand that homeland security is important. But I believe this would actually help homeland security, rather than hinder it. How? Oh good, I have your attention.

Here is the way I would set it up (in all my wondrous wisdom)...

1. Anyone who wanted to join the US would be allowed in on a temporary residency.
2. Anyone who remained crime-free and gainfully employed for a specified amount of time would be allowed to apply for citizenship.
3. A citizenship class would be mandatory. But passing a test would not be a requirement. Let's face it. How many people who were born here really understands how the government works? (Quick quiz. How many branches are there in the US government? Can you name them? More important, can you explain them)?

How does this solve anything? Let's take a look...

1. "Anyone who wanted to join would be allowed". Okay, this alone solves illegal immigration, because it would no longer be illegal. No restriction on how many could come and apply for temporary residency. If people have a choice of coming in illegally or coming legally, most will choose legally. But only if there is no hindrance to coming legally.
2. "Anyone who remained crime free". Let's face it. Most people are law abiding. Most people born here are law abiding. Most people who come from other countries and enter here are law abiding. "But isn't being here illegally illegal in and of itself and therefore they are not law abiding?" Okay, that's an interesting point. Let's look at that for a moment...

Most laws have a general moral background. Killing people is wrong. Therefore it is illegal to murder. Stealing from people is wrong, therefore it is illegal to steal. These are criminal acts. There is nothing generally immoral about being here. What do I mean. Take a look...

Murder is immoral. Stealing is immoral. Being here is not immoral. Therefore it is in a different category.

Think about a homeowners association for a condo. They choose to make it against the rules to paint your door blue. There is nothing immoral about having a blue door, although it is against the rules. I put illegal immigration into this category. There is nothing immoral about being here, it is just against the rules. It is a crime only because we have chosen to make it a crime. There isn't a moral code to back it up. Therefore, I don't count it when talking about crime free immigration.

So back to what this would solve.

"gainfully employed for a specific amount of time". Most people who come try and get a job. If there are no restrictions, then there's nothing to stop them. Think about it. Illegal immigrants have trouble getting a job mostly because it is illegal to hire them. If it wasn't illegal, they wouldn't have as much trouble. Staying gainfully employed would be just as easy as for those who were born here. They also wouldn't be limited in the industries they could join. No legal restrictions to keep them from better jobs.

But wouldn't this give more competition for jobs for those who are already here? Yes. So? If people come from Nebraska and get a job in California, the Nebraskans are taking jobs from the Californians. The Nebraskans have not contributed to the tax base in California. The Nebraskans have not contributed to any of the benefits for California, so why should they benefit from it? Why not? There's nothing wrong with a Nebraskan taking a job that a California resident could have had. Competition is good.

I also stated that this would help homeland security. Let's take a look at how...

It is easy for terrorists to hide among those who are here illegally, because those who are here illegally are trying to hide as well. But if you remove the stigma of being here illegally, it becomes more difficult for those who are truly evil to hide among good people. Therefore, it becomes easier to find those who are terrorists (or at least removes a hindrance that exists now).

But isn't it unfair to let off those who have been living here illegally? No. Why? Okay, try this example.

There is a busy street that is really long. So some people chose to jaywalk instead of walking to the corner. Eventually the city realizes that a crosswalk is needed there. Now it is legal to cross there. Is adding the crosswalk letting those who used to jaywalk off? Yes. Who cares? The crosswalk should have been there to start with. And fair, unhindered immigration should have been there to start with.

What about the economy? Wouldn't the extra people using the schools and infrastructure cause a problem on those things? No. Theoretically, unhindered immigration would let in more people, but you would have more people paying taxes. Besides, many of those who would want to be here already are, and those services are already being used. This would simply add an easier way to get tax money for those services.

But wouldn't this put a lot of immigration officers out of a job. No, it would just shift their job. They could start watching for real criminals and actual dangerous individuals, and not guarding against average people who just want to improve their lives.

Okay, go ahead and hate me for my thoughts (but don't hate me because I'm beautiful). (For those of you old enough, that last part was a line from a commercial in the 70s. Not a particularly good one).

Irrational Politics?

Why call it that? I don't know. I just wanted a place to voice my opinion (no matter how unqualified) about politics, or at least political stuff. How irrational is that?