" those with the money and the information system in high gear/volume get their message out first. We see it all the time in the national scene. We cringe if we see it within our collective family. "

 It has always been true since literacy began:  the pen is mightier than the sword.  The corrollary:  "those with the most gold rule both."

 In the political world, as in the religious world, it is no longer moral power but the power of the purse that controls the press as well as popular sentiment.  With fewer people reading, and relying on "sound bites" for their faux news, it is no wonder that the press "dumbs down" to the lowest common denominator and loudest voices, a la Rush or Glen.  Should we be surprised?

 In Adventist circles, the press is, and has always been dominated by the most conservative positions.  "Seldom is heard a discouraging word" and when it occasionally gains an audience, it is either censored or banished by other means.  When questions are no longer considered, and all are expected to breathe the same air, mouth the same mantras, then the heights of "Know Nothing"  has been achieved. 

Change is always feared by those in power.  Control becomes less effective when the members realize that God gave them minds to question, discuss and (horrors!) they may not all agree.  If we can live together with disparate theologies (when there can never be certainty of a particular position) then we will have reached religious maturation.  We have not arrived there yet. 

Herbert, you forgot to mention the number one fake crisis, global warming, now called "climate change" (as if the climate were not always changing) evidently to make it a faith impervious to actual data.  The "science" of global warming is risible nonsense; it has been concocted solely to give the knowledge class another excuse to try to run everything, collectivist economics for its own sake having have been so utterly discredited.  The idea is to have soviet-style central planning, this time not for the proletariat but for the "environment," or worse yet, "to save the earth."  You certainly have to admire the perverse genius of it:  There is absolutely no aspect of modern human life that cannot be regulated on the basis of man-made "global warming." 

Herb - I'm cringing right now, mostly because you've qoted Sowell so extensively.  Sowell's credentials as a professor shouldn't hide the fact that his mouth is largely fueled by money, publicity, and politics, and the combustion that occurs when combining his flapping gums and mass media is never used to propel the nation forward, but rather to burn it down to the ground.  Sowell accuses "statists" *cringe* of creating crises to control the population.  I accuse Sowell of creating towering social fallacies by using economic realities as building blocks.  Simply put, he's a hack and a tool who, despite being dressed up in an ivy league degree suit and and ivy league professor hat, is still just the organ grinder monkey of the Far Right, dancing for peanuts and pocket change on America's forgotten street corner. 

It's human nature to make predictions, yes.  I remember a certain group of people predicting the imminent return of Jesus Christ, assigning a date to it, and sitting out in open fields, singing hymns and waiting, in vain, to rise up into the heavens.  Erlich and his work may have looked almost this foolish, but he has still managed to parlay his work into a successful professorship and career, much like our church forefathers managed create something rather successful out of our Great Disappointment. 

Mind you, Erlich's and the UN's starvation prediction may have been affected by China's One Child program, instituted in 1979 - when a billion people are only allowed 1 child per house hold, it changes things.  Also, China's thriving underground and aboveground economy is largely attributed to an embrace (both tacitly and officially) of industry, which in 1975 could never have been predicted.

And now we return to Sowell.  He's accused Planned Parenthood of having a causal relationship with an increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease.  The reality is that the Sexual Revolution was already in full swing by the time Planned Parenthood arrived on the scene.  STD rates, which had skyrocketed after the return of 16,000,000 US Soldiers from European and Asian brothels following WWII, were, yes, declining by 1950.  Planned Parenthood fought againsts a tidal wave of societal change that included the freedom of the automobile, the sexualization of TV, Music, and Movies, the advent of the dual-income family - all things that actually hastened the awakening of pre-teen and teenage sexuality, gave them explicit sexual knowledge, and the freedom to act on it.  Sowell's accusation that Planned Parenthood caused increased teen pregnancy rates and STD rates is inane, right-wing political bluster, and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.  You can't simply discard all the other sociological factors that are in play, and assign blame to planned parenthood.  That's either stupid, which considering his background, Sowell probably isn't, or intentionally ignorant.  You pick. 

Of course, we know that Sowell's misappropriated sex facts and oversimplified sex conclusions are merely a slightly more interesting introduction into his less interesting, but still misappropriated economic facts and oversimplified economic conclusions. 

The parallel you seem to be drawing, Herb, is that Sowell's political wisdom should be applied to our church politics.  But Sowell is as destructive an American figure as you'll find, every bit as cartoonish and boorish as Al Sharpton or Rush Limbaugh.  He mocks social progressives as fools who don't value traditions, with the beautifully scripted quote you provided, while ignoring that America's wonderful traditions include slavery, Jim Crow, and lynchings.  He's benefitted from such social progressives as Dr MLK and JFK, and instead of trying to further their work, he mocks it on Fox News.  I hope the peanuts and pocket change are worth it, Mr. Sowell. 

Herb, you've given yet another spotlight to the intentionally divisive rhetoric of Mr. Sowell.  As amazing as the dancing monkey performance may be, I see little applicable knowledge that can be gained by watching the show.  Perhaps you can quote Rush Limbaugh next time - it actually would be a step up. 

PS, Mr Sowell's advocacy of legalizing illicit drugs might be fueled by an insatiable personal thirst, which would actually explain some of his bizarre behavior and irrational thoughts. 

From David:

There is absolutely no aspect of modern human life that cannot be regulated on the basis of man-made "global warming." 

Many times, I have lamented my lack of scientific expertise.  With regard to Climate Change or Global Warming, I literally have no idea if cars or factories or landfills are affecting the world on a global scale.  I've seen the blanket of smog that envelops Loma Linda, CA.  I've been told of the grime that coats everything from your hair to your tounge after a day out and about in Beijing, China.  I've seen the mountains of trash piled on the streets of New York, the discards of 10,000,000 people, waiting to be hauled away to someone else's backyard. 

Can we continue on this same path for any length of time?  I don't know, but I sure don't think so.  What if there were no cautionary tale of Global Warming?  Would our wasteful nature then be OK?

If I adopt the lifestyle of the Greenies, what's the worst thing that will happen?  I will have spent a little less money on Gas.  I will have recycled some paper, and saved a tree or two.  Is this ceding too much control to the hippie tree huggers?  My wife is much more into the "green" lifestyle than I, but I haven't been hurt, other than a being little annoyed that we have 2 trash cans now, one for waste, and one for recycling.  I get scolded when I put a can in the wrong bin.  But I can say, since she doesn't read this stuff, that I don't mind it so much.  I'm even a little proud that I'm doing what I can to reduce waste and recycle.  My actions might not be based on sound science (I think recycling is still an energy-negative process) but it is based on the sound principle of "Waste not, Want not." 

Is there a Global crisis?  I do know that all over the globe, people are struggling with pollution, overstuffed landfill space, and water shortages and contamination, and that there has been an increase in environment-related health issues, like various cancers and disorders like MS and Alzheimers.  I don't know who is kookier;  the people who are guilty of overstating the imminent danger, or the people who not only dismiss it outright, but see the shadow of Stalin lurking in the passenger seat of every Toyota Prius. 

The USA as the new USSR or Nazi Germany?  Now there's a FAKE crisis I can laugh at.

If is funny to see the people who simply reply with ad homin remarks such as those above about Thomas Sowel. Or like Elaine that think that Radio talk shows are just sound bites. If they can't deal with the facts they attack the other side with nothing substantial, just assert their bias. The Population Bomb was completely wrong but maybe it was China's abortion policy that saved China...Just ignore how wrong they were for Europe and North America. Maybe China took the one child policy because they believed the Population Bomb. In any case with men out numbering women in China 3 to 1 we can be pretty sure that they will be limiting their population in a significant way in the future.

Then there is the bait and switch technique where the CO2 restrictions are equated with smog and garbage pollution. Why not deal with the real pollution then instead of the CO2 so called pollution (the food of plants). Because the politics that is why. Cap and trade would never be considered ok if it was dumping arsenic in the water. It is a sad commentary upon our society that people are so easily persuaded by foolish propaganda.

Ron, by "ad homin" I'm assuming you mean ad hominem, which is a fancy way of saying that I attacked the guy to prove his points wrong, while failing to address his actual arguments. 

Actually I dealt with the facts of Sowell's intentionally moronic arguments - I spent a significant amount of time explaining that the tidal wave of the Sexual Revolution was responsible for the upswing in teen pregnancy rates and STD rates, not planned parenthood.  Sowell intentionally dismisses massive waves of the latter-half of the 20th Century's social change (sexualization of mass media, i.e. TV, Music, Movies, & Magazines, less supervision at home because of the advent of the dual income family, the rise of the automobile and the freedom it gave kids, a surge of girls in co-ed universities, the list goes on and on and on.  And Sowell assigns blame to Planned Parenthood.  Why does he intentionally cast aside all the relevent social factors and blame Planned Parenthood?  Because PP is a Right-Wing target, and Sowell is a Right-Wing attack dog. 

I felt that an "ad homin"[sic] attack was necessary to counter the inverse ad hominem argument from Herb, which listed Sowell's extensive curiculum vitae which distracts from the fact that Sowell is a Right-Wing tool who habitually discards relevant facts and intentionally oversimplifies social issues in an effort to better lick the boots of his masters at Fox News. 

Sowell's argument that government social programs cause poverty is also stupid, suffers from the same intentional ignorance as his sex arguments, and shares the same root cause:  the Right Wing is anti-welfare, so Sowell has assigned welfare programs blame for poverty.  Ruff-Ruff.  Dance monkey, Dance.

I apologize for ignoring how wrong Erlich and the UN were regarding starvation in Europe - but I don't recall Europe even being mentioned in Herb's post.  Next time, I'll better remember to address topics he didn't bring up. 

As for bait and switch, I believe David mentioned Global Warming in general, without even mentioning Cap and Trade.  I mentioned Smog and Landfills - both of which are undeniably related to global warming.  Smog is composed of fog and industrial and automobile pollutants - it's visible, tangible evidence of the presence of gasses that are said to be responsible for climate change.  Landfills are significant contributors of methane and carbon dioxide, two "greenhouse gasses" that are thought by some to contribute to global warming.  Where is the bait, and where is the switch?  Have you resorted to ad homin attacks on me?

Ron, whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change, it is undeniable that human beings are having an impact on the environment in hundreds of ways.  We're pushing hundreds of species of animals and plants to the brink and over the brink of extinction.  We've leveled mountains and cleared forests through logging and mining efforts.  We've destroyed entire ecosystems through irresponsible expansion.  This may or may not matter to some of us Adventists, but many would argue that we have a moral obligation to practice good stewardship, and take better care of the earth and it's inhabitants.  Hardly anyone would argue that God created a myriad of complex ecosystems so that we could destroy them and place their inhabitants in zoo exhibits.

In any case, Herb's point was simply that we as church members inexplicably create theological crises, and expend precious resources, effort, and goodwill arguing about how to solve them.  And that we should stop doing it.  This, I can agree with.  Giving Sowell ink, I can't agree with. 

Exactly, Elaine - such idiocy is even worse when it is dressed up as some sort of academic expert witness, which is Sowell's modus operandi. 

Statefarm, I don't know if you understand how distasteful, how obnoxious, your writing is:   Thomas Sowell is an, "organ grinder monkey of the Far Right, dancing for peanuts and pocket change on America's forgotten street corner."  Dude, be careful; Thomas Sowell is black, and you can get in trouble describing a black person as a monkey, however racially un-bigoted you might be in your heart. 

"licking the boots of his master at Fox News." Not only is that extemely distasteful rhetoric, it is also ridiculous. Thomas Sowell earned a Ph.D. in economics and had already published mulitple books, and was famous more than a decade before Fox News began broadcasting in the U.S. in 1996.  I read some of his books in the mid 1980s.  If Fox News disappeared tomorrow, it would not diminish Sowell's fame and importance one whit. 

"Mr Sowell's advocacy of legalizing illicit drugs might be fueled by an insatiable personal thirst, which would actually explain some of his bizarre behavior and irrational thoughts."  Again, that's just a baselss calumny that reflects much more poorly on you than on Professor Sowell.  De-criminalizing currently illegal drugs has been advocated by many people on both sides of the political spectrum.  The basic argument for that position was made when prohibition of alcohol was repealed, to wit, you can't stop it, so you might as well legalize and tax it, and get organized crime out of it.  To imply that one would have to be a druggie to agree with that position is silly.

As you know, I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, but you need to stay try to keep it reasonably civil, especially when talking about named individuals. 

David - I can assure you that every one of my words is measured.  As a person of color who shares Mr. Sowell's African ancestry, I fully understand the impact of each and every statement I made.  I stand beside them all.  If Mr Sowell would like to accuse me of bigotry and racism, he's free to do so.  I'll answer any and all of his charges.  In the meantime, don't assume that you have an iota of a clue as to what might offend black people.  If Mr. Sowell and I walked down Crenshaw, only one of us would get to the end of the block, and it wouldn't be Mr. Sowell. 

The fact is that Mr. Sowell has been more insulting, demeaning, and destructive to the progress of American race relations in general and black Americans specifically than I could ever hope to be.  He either suffers from Negro Stockholm Syndrome, or he is just plain old willing to sell his bretheren down the river for fame and fortune. 

Call it what you want - my response to the introduction of Mr. Sowell's "research" (which I enjoyed harpooning and lampooning) to this conversation is and will be visceral and vicious.  Mr. Sowell's "research" findings are a thousand times more insulting and offensive than my descriptions of him will ever be, no matter how sharp and fine a point I grind on my pen.  Bringing Sowell and his farsical factology into this conversation is no more appropriate than my response.

Actually, Ron, why don't you take the time to answer my remarks regarding the idiocy of Mr. Sowell's assertion that Planned Parenthood caused an increase in teen pregnancy and STD rates?  Or that government social programs cause poverty?

We're way off of Herb's original post - that we create controversy, and expend energy, goodwill, and resources fighting amongst ourselves.  Moreover, I think we're proving his point. 

But at this point my curiosity is peaked.  You've accused me of ad homin[sic] attacks, even though I've directly addressed the content of Mr. Sowell's arguments, twice.  It seems you can neither spell nor grasp the meaning of ad hominem.  Would you care to address my remarks, specifically the ones crediting the Sexual Revolution, not Planned Parenthood, with causing the uptick in teen pregnancy and STD rates?  Would you care to address my accusation that Sowell is guilty of intentional oversimplification of social problems, and that he intentionally ignores mountains of relevant data, mainly in order to pander to his conservative audience?  Or that Sowell's politically-motivated, intentional ignorance makes him a poor foundation for Herb to use to build a rational argument?

Statefarm, that you are black goes quite a ways toward explaining the unfathomable malice you have toward Thomas Sowell: black liberals (and the liberal establishment in general) seem to have a special hatred for black conservatives, and have a special mission to try to marginalize them and characterize them as "house negroes" "uncle Toms" etc.   I well remember the treatment of Clarence Thomas, when he was nominated for the high court, which he described as a high tech lynching.  I personally think that blacks, just like other races, are capable of being liberal or conservative without it indicating any psychological syndrome.

Regarding this specific issue, I can't tell from Herb's piece what study or even what book is being referenced.  I suspect that Sowell is well aware of the complex nature of human society and the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.  I suspect that he is too sophisticated to draw a straight-line correlation between sex education and such outcomes as teen pregnancy and venereal disease, especially against the background of the sexual revolution of the late sixties-early seventies (of which "sex education" was itself a feature). 

I think Sowell is on much firmer ground drawing a correlation between the war on poverty and the bad poverty outcomes.  The war on poverty, particularly AFDC, caused the destruction of the black family, which greatly worsened poverty outcomes among blacks.  This theme is explored in depth by George Gilder in "Wealth and Poverty."

Like David and Ron, I cringed when I read Statefarmsteve's vicious attack on Thomas Sowell.  Nothing posted on educatetruth could be more judgmental, intolerant, narrow-minded, and bigoted.  Since Statefarmsteve has in the past unfairly implied that I was racist for opining that poverty in America is primarily a problem of values rather than resources, I was stunned by his use of such offensive imagery.  My shock and dismay has nothing to do with political values or beliefs.  Nothing so malign would ever come out of the conservative commentators who Statefarmsteve loathes.  Are there any conservative Black thinkers that you do not hate for "selling out" Statefarmsteve?  I know you despise Walter Williams, who is a brilliant economist.  How about Shelby Steele, Star Parker, Larry Elder? Would you deny them the same freedom to think and have individual opinions that you insist be respected in the case of Left wing professors at La Sierra. 

Thomas Sowell's writings demonstrate that he is extremely articulate and wise. He, along with many other observers of contemporary culture, trenchantly observes that postmodern values and the welfare state have profoundly impacted the breakdown of culture and family values.  I wonder which, if any of his columns or books you have actually read,  Statefarmsteve.  He certainly understands that there are other factors responsible for teen pregnancy besides Planned Parenthood, not the least of which is the welfare state. Do you know anything about the godmother and patron saint of Planned parenthood - Margaret Sanger?  She was an enthusiastic supporter of euthanasia and abortion, as well as being a racist.  That you characterize as idiocy the recognition of obvious truths - such as, Planned Parenthood supports an agenda which undermines personal responsibility and traditional family values - reflects more on your religious views than reality.  As Larry Elder likes to observe: "Facts to a liberal are like kryptonite to superman." 

When you call Thomas Sowell an idiot for his views, you are also calling tens of millions who agree with him idiots - and it just makes you sound like the angry, raving lunatic fringe that you purport to abhor, Statefarmsteve.  And I know from your writing that you are capable of more civilized, mature discourse.  

Manufactured crises are certainly not the sole province of the right or the left. But it is remarkable how the same type of fearmongering for which the Bush administration was mercilessly attacked has now become the mantra of the Left, invoked to justify bigger government, higher taxes, and more control over our lives. Fearmongering certainly was used to justify the war in Iraq.  But fear has been the constant drumbeat since the current administration took office - fear of climate change, fear of economic collapse, fear of corporations, fear of inadequate medical care, fear of conservative talk show hosts, fear of taking a stand against evil despots and terrorists, fear of tea party and town hall protesters.

Obviously 9/11 was a crisis; the financial collapse a year ago was a crisis.  But most crises are manufactured so that, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, you can get people to do what they otherwise would not do.  Sometimes perception of a crisis can get people to stand up and take responsibility for themselves; sometimes people band together in crises, becoming a supportive, caring community.  Jesus used crisis to draw people into relationships of love, forgiveness, and repentance, and dependence on God.  These are all good things.

But the insidious and incessant trumpeting of crisis today by politicians does not encourage self-reliance, voluntary communalism, or dependence on God.  It's ultimate goal is not to implement temporary measures to get us through the crisis, but to create a sense of infrastructural crisis which requires permanent institutional changes - changes which will make government bigger and the individual smaller - changes which will replace private property rights, personal freedom, and personal responsibility with a nanny state on which everyone is dependent, and one where everyone works for the greater good.  It's a nice fantasy.  It just doesn't work; never has and never will.  

Few people - certainly not politicians - stop to wonder if their solutions to crises are not simply creating greater crises.  Right now, 40% of all federal government revenues go to pay interest on the national debt.  That interest rate is at an all time low of 3.5%.  If that interest was at the 15% level of the Carter administration, more than 100% of Federal revenues would be necessary to pay only interest on the national debt.  Medicare and social security have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded future obligations.  But we musn't think about those cruel realities.  That would be right-wing fearmongering.  So our enlightened class busy themselves pretending that the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic is of paramount importance.  If there are idiots, it is those who claim that driving our economy off the cliff will save the country and the world.

Only by plugging into God's reality can we relate to real and manufactured crises in ways that will draw us closer to Him rather than the rocky shoals toward which the Siren calls of power-seeking Babel builders seduce us. 

Martin - You've directly stated the point that I've hinted at throughout my rants.  Herb spent 450 words singing the praises of the work of a divisive, politically-driven hate monger, and 50 words hinting at how Sowell's work applies to the church family.  Of course, I understand the cringe-worthy nature of my words - the question I wished to raise, was, "Did Herb understand the cringe-worthy nature of his?"  Did I intentionally overstate my case to make my point?  Perhaps. 

Herb might as well have written a paen to Rush Limbaugh, then said our church should model itself after the wisdom of Rush and his Dittoheads - at least it would have been clear that Herb is suggesting that Radical Right Wing wisdom could cure the ills of the church.  Instead, he used Sowell, who tries to obscure his Right Wing Nut Nature behind his Harvard degree and Stanford employment. 

Nathan - I apologize for making you and others cringe because of my hyperbole.  The intent was to make invoke a strong response, but I may have gone overboard.  I'm fully aware of the fact that Dr Sowell is good at what he does - he's articulate and sharp-witted.  I just disagree with most of his ideas and the manner in which he gets his point across.  Being disagreeable in turn, particularly to the degree at which I did, is perhaps inexcusable, and for that I apologize.

Karl Rove was once the master of using fear to control the American People.  However, his administration was a perfect example of what happens once your lies are uncovered and the puppet strings are exposed:  you lose the next contest in a landslide.  In this case, his party's guy, a long-time Senator, a decorated war hero who gave years of his life and a significant portion of his bodily health in a dank Hanoi prison for his country, loses the Presidency to a black guy with no administrative experience whose campaign posters featured a name remarkably similar to that of America's most wanted terrorist mastermind.

Today, I fear that many of the fears percolating in America are very real.  As you outlined in your post, we're teetering on the brink of financial disaster as a nation, and many of our citizens have already fallen over the edge.  Corporate America in general, and Health Insurance Corporations specifically, generate more anger than fear, as they swallow 35% of our healthcare dollars in administrative costs, which cover things like $800mm in CEO compensation at UnitedHealth, and a $67,000/hr wage for another Health Insurance CEO.  These payscales, partly fueled by tax dollars, starkly contrast with dwindling coverage and intentional wrongful denial of legitimate claims (for which United is facing a $1.3bb fine, along with a huge lawsuit.)

The last several "fears" you mentioned I'm not so sure of.  Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh draw more contempt than fear, and are viewed as voices in the wilderness by most of America.  Most Americans understand that Limbaugh has a shtick that he runs in order to get paid, that the majority of his content is silly, and that he's really simply a bigoted, drug-addled jerk who doesn't mind being a jerk as long as he gets paid.  Beck is the same - here's a favorite link that highlights Beck's current and former position on the healthcare debate: 

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/08/14/jon-stewart-owns-glenn-beck-on-healthcare-hypocrisy/

Fear of tea partiers and town hall protesters?  Toting large caliber rifles and handguns into town hall meetings may rightfully invoke some trepidation...

Nathan, you state that "Sometimes perception of a crisis can get people to stand up and take responsibility for themselves; sometimes people band together in crises, becoming a supportive, caring community."  In America, if you're educated and rich, it's easy to stand up alone and take personal responsibility.  It's easy to band together with other wealthy people and lament the drop in your brokerage account, and wring your collective hands over having to scale back to a 5-series BMW from your 7-series BMW.  It's harder to band together with others who need your strengths and resources to be the pillars of the supportive, caring community you mentioned.

You can often tell a lot about a cause by examining those who oppose it.  The current hot topic, healthcare reform, finds its opposition fueled and funded by the healthcare insurance industry.  Insurance Companies (and this isn't fear mongering) have a single responsibility - to return shareholder value.  They have no responsibility to the sick, no responsibility to the country.  They have too much control over the delivery of healthcare, too much control over too many of the dollars that flow through healthcare, and nothing at all vested in the actual proper delivery of healthcare or the actual health of their customers. 

Where is the balance between community and individualism?  What responsibility do we have to our fellow man?  Who can administrate the goodwill required to assist the most needy?    There is a variety of answers.  Unfortunately, in our two-party political system, power see-saws back and forth from one extreme to the other, and the middle-ground, common sense approaches are left out of the process.  People like Sowell, as brilliant as he may be, and Limbaugh, and Maddow and Olberman contribute to the polarity of our nation.  It's how they make their money.  And in Limbaugh's case, he has 400 million reasons to incite anger.  We should know that he's yanking our puppet strings - the question is, Why do we continue to allow him to do it? 

Are we headed down a dark path?  Possibly.  The old saying that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" came about for good reason.  Universal Healthcare may yet lead us into the valley of the shadow of fiscal death.  But where were the mourners when we were escalating a trillion dollar war in Iraq?  Where were the fiscal watchdogs when Cheney's buddies at Halliburton and Blackwater were garnering multi-billion dollar contracts to better kill people in the Middle East?  Their barking was strangely silent when Henry Paulson awarded a $60billion slice of a trillion dollar taxpayer money pie in a roundabout way to his former work buddies at Goldman Sachs.  They were sleeping while the national debt tripled under the Bush Administration. 

If we financially tank as a nation, I'll be more apt to blame an overzealous trillion dollar campaign in Iraq and a foolish trillion dollar bailout than I would healthcare reform.  Healthcare reform will save more lives than would ever be lost if our domestic anti-terror policy and our pre-emptive war policy remained unchanged from pre-9/11 policy.  It will save more lives than AIG, Goldman Sachs, or Bear Stearns ever will.  For that, I'm willing to risk raising the deficit - after all, we saw it skyrocket over the last 8 years for less compelling reasons. 

StatefarmSteve,  No one could have said it better!  The rush to expend thousands of men and women and billions of dollars on two wars, was rushed through like a jet plane.

Yet, when the President decides that taking care of our own citizens at home deserves some of the pie, it is debated as if it were life and death (which it has been for so many).  The idea that providing health care at a reasonable cost to everyone is a given in most of the world's first world countries.  Only in the U.S. should it be a "private" enterprise, and each man on his own.  In many states, one insurance company covers more than 80% of the population.  Anyone is his right mind knows that such coverage is a virtual monopoly without competition. 

Why are the insurance lobbies fighting so desperately now if not to save their business profits?  At the last minute they engage in a counterattack trying their best to  undermine any alternative.  If our governmental services operated through private industry we would have the problems seen with Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, and the private companies being outsourced by the military.

Yes, there may be corruption in Medicare, particularly with some service providers, but nothing compared to the corruption in the private insurers who drop coverage for the slightest reason and "cherry-pick" only the healthiest.  I've know people who were refused coverage, at any price, because of a once-diagnosed hypertension, easily controlled by medication.  Anyone reaching the age of 60, before Medicare, is almost guaranteed to have some preexisting condition, preventing becoming insured.

What about all the unemployed who will shortly lose coverage?  If they start flooding the ER, we will see bills triple or quadruple what preventive care would be.  In many countries, mandatory yearly check-ups must be done, as preventive medicine is so much less costly than later diagnosis and treatment. 

It's all in the U.S. value system:  wars are readily "bought" and paid later; taking care of its own citizens to be more productive through better healthcare is seen as a private problem, the government should have not interest in insuring.  If we cave in to the insurance companies, we can expect to see huge increases shortly.  I'm not a prophet, but I would put good money on it.

Fine points and observations, Elaine and Steve.  We can certainly debate concepts and principles of health care reform. But the truth is, the devil is in the details.  And no one, including our congressmen, know, or want us to know, what those details are.  Does it matter?  Congress just defeated a proposal to post bills on the internet 72 hours before they are voted on.  Why?

85% of Americans say they are happy with their health care.  The poorest Americans have medicaid and medicare.  That leaves two groups - illegal immigrants, and those who make too much money to qualify for medicaid and prefer not to buy insurance when they are healthy.  Obama and the Democrats say they don't plan to cover illegal immigrants under proposed reforms.  The uninsured still can go into any emergency department or community based clinics run by institutions like Loma Linda, where they pay based on ability - which usually means free care.  So saying millions of Americans are uninsured is quite a different matter from saying they do not have access to good health care.  "The poor" is a shibboleth used by the Left to justify more and more government intrusion. 

The fact of the matter is that there is no health care crisis in America.  Life expectancy in America has risen from 67 in 1950 to 78 today, despite unhealthier lifestyles, far greater per capita deaths from murders and accidents, more neonatal deaths due to teen pregnancies and drugs, and high immigration rates from countries with lower life expectancies.  If there were truly a health care crisis, why do all of the proposed plans delay implementation of actual reform until 2013? 

Many people like the idea of free health care, myself included.  I like the idea of free groceries too.  But the overwhelming majority of those polled are not utilizing the health care system when the polls are taken.  Ask people if they are against war, and you'll probably get close to 100% who say yes.  But in the spring of 2003, when virtually every country in the world believed that Iraq had and was actively developing WMDs, 70% of Americans supported the war, including Left wing Democrats, who risibly protest that they were duped.  If the Left actually told the truth about their goals for rationing and price controls, I suspect that far more than 70% of Americans would oppose any version of their plan.

You can't conceptualize policy in the abstract and claim the moral high ground.  Conservatives are not against quality health care for everyone any more than they are against wealth for everyone.  They simply recognize that the gap between the real and the ideal does not necessarily constitute a crisis.  They also realize that some cures are worse than the disease.  Patients and their doctors know that for most medical procedures there is a cost/benefit that must be considered.  Informed consent rather than demogoguery is needed to evaluate the risks and benefits. The fearmongerers on the Left have no interest in realistically looking at alternatives to their big government solutions or the realities of rationing, unless those alternatives will deepen the ostensible crisis and motivate people to yield more freedom and demand more "soak-the-rich", big-government solutions.

There are many alternatives to obscene corporate executive salaries for insurance companies besides govenment-run healthcare (By comparison with other industries, health insurance companies aren't particularly profitable - 3% per year.).  How about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines?  How about allowing insurance companies to market insurance plans that cover only hospitalization or catastrophic costs?  Government regulations prohibit true competition in the healthcare insurance industry. Third party payors always increase rather than reduce costs.  Prices for Lasik surgery, rarely covered by insurance, have actually fallen considerably in the past decade.  Why? Because consumers take personal responsibility.  They shop around and take their business to surgeons who offer the highest quality at the cheapest price.  The same is true of other elective procedures, such as cosmetic surgery. 

If I have an infection, it doesn't mean I need radical surgery.  The complaints that Statefarmsteve and Elaine have about our medical care system require careful evaluation and diagnosis - not knee-jerk calls for organ transplants.  They want to use saws and hatchets where a scalpel is needed. 

When government provides or pays for a service it always ends up costing way more than initial estimates. When medicare was first set up in 1965 its projected annual cost was 12 billion in 1990 dollars.  The actual cost in 1990? - 98 Billion.  Average hospital stays skyrocketed immediately from 3 days to 8 days.   When congress tried to rein in costs, everybody tried to game the system by treating to reimbursement criteria rather than need.  Doctors and hospitals had to charge more to private insurers to maintain quality of care and offset federal and state price controls.   Government programs and regulations are the problem, not the solution, when it comes to health care, and most other services that can be rendered by the private sector in a  competitive environment.   

SDA Christians,  who see our health care as the "right arm of the message", should be particularly concerned about collectivist solutions to health care which will leave our principles and missional priorities at the mercy of government regulators, with whom we will most surely be even more unequally yoked than we are at present.  For us as Adventists, the true crisis would be nationalized health care.  Would we risk our institutional survival for our principles, or would we, as we did in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, make the necessary compromises with the State in order to assure our survival? 

"SDA Christians,  who see our health care as the "right arm of the message"

 That "arm" is pretty heavily filled with money.  Have you checked lately what the CEOs of the Adventist Health Systems takes in annual income each year?  The CEO of Adventist Health Sunbelt received over a million dollars a year several years ago.  This was more than the incomes of the CEOs of John Hopkins and Mayo's combined!  Should Adventists be proud of that fact when it's been widely posted on the internet?

 As for 85% of Americans having healthcare, does that include the more than half a million who are now currently unemployed?  And those who are working either half-time or with reduced salaries?  Yes, every individual showing up at the ER must be cared for:  it's a federal law.  Bush used that to show that no one is denied care.  Been to an ER lately?  A few hours can run up a bill of $5,000 and guess who pays?  WE ALL DO! 

 Not sure where you're getting the 3% profit for insurance companies, care to give us a link?  What about their 15-20% administrative costs compared to Medicare's 3%.  Profit makes the difference.  Does anyone believe that the millions the health insurance companies expend on lobbying and advertising is because they are genuinely interested in people's health?  Could it possibly be because they fear the loss of income?  Who do you believe actually pays for those expenses if not the customers?  The Tooth Fairy?

 "When medicare was first set up in 1965 its projected annual cost was 12 billion in 1990 dollars.  The actual cost in 1990? - 98 Billion.  Average hospital stays skyrocketed immediately from 3 days to 8 days."

 And what was the average income in 1965?  In the mid-40's new mothers were in hospital 10 days following delivery.  Now, they are fortunate to stay overnight.  What was medical and hospital practice like in 1965?  Think of multitude of changes, beneficial to everyone:  better lab analyses; better diagnostic tests and procedures; life-saving surgery that would have been fatal then.  My father died at 59 with congestive heart failure, suffering his first of several heart attacks at 49.  An identical patient today would be offered heart surgery, stents, medication, or many methods to extend life for 30 or more years.  Is it worth it?  It is if it you or your loved one.  Life expectancy at the turn of the 20th century was only 49 years.  Today, babies born may live to see the century mark.  Medical care and lifestyle changes learned through studies have benefited us all.

 What did a new car cost in 1965, or a new house, or most any commodity compared to today's prices?  I'm thankful for the benefit of medical science and what it offers, and because I have Medicare, I would love to see everyone have the similar assurance that one sickness or accident might no bankrupt them.  For anyone against government medical care, are they willing to forego Medicare when age 65 is reached?  Why should the government give Medicare Advantage a 12% subsidy that competes directly with Medicare? 

Studies have shown that the greatest contributing factor in bankruptcy today is medical bills.  This nation that can fund two wars without a blink, can surely be able to see that every citizen has the healthcare he needs.

So Elaine, is it your position that it's okay for SDA health care to be swallowed up or controlled by the government?  How do you see the Church being free to carry out its mission and incorporate its values into a government run health care system?

I take it you feel that the solution for excessive compensation in any industry is government control - and that will improve quality and lower prices?  Any historical precedent for such faith?  Medicare is on the verge of bankruptcy.  I've got news for you. Under the proposed Obamacare plans, medicare benefits will be cut drastically.  You properly extoll the multitude of changes in health care, beneficial to everyone.  For which of those improvements do we thank the government?  Obama has expressed the view that the postal service is the poster boy for how government can run health care!  How scary is that?  Does he know anything about the USPS? He thinks surgeons perform unnecessary amputations for $40,000!  What might he say if he didn't have a teleprompter? You want to put these people, who have never run a candy store or had to meet a payroll, in charge of health care???  Does reality ever intrude on Leftist fantasies?

You ask what average income was in 1965.  It sure hasn't gone up eightfold in real dollars, like the cost of medicare.  The reason medicare and medicaid are so expensive is that the end user does not have to worry about cost.  It is a law of human behavior and common sense that when the government subsidizes something or pays for it, the demand goes up and costs increase.  Then the government, which has created the rules, demonizes those who take advantage of the rules, blaming them instead of its own policies for costs and inefficiencies.  What follows?  Rationing, long waits, and diminished quality of care.  

By the way, Elaine, where are all the doctors and health professionals going to come from to provide care for the tens of millions who you and Statefarmsteve think are presently without health care...plus the increased demands from all of us who can suddenly get the best health care in the world for free?

Elaine, if you were head over heels in debt, paying 40% of all your income for interest, and planning to better your life by charging your profligacy to the credit cards of your hard-working, financially responsible neighbor, would you say that you were wealthy enough to pay for the health care of others in your neighborhood who do not take responsibility for their own health care?  If you knew a family that spent 40% of every dollar on interest payments, and was addicted to spending, would you entrust your money and financial future to that family? This country most assuredly cannot afford to saddle future generations with an avalanche of unrepayable debt to support good ideas and get politicians re-elected.  Having chosen guns and welfare, we must live with those choices, which, by the way, also include enormous government subsidies for health care for the poor.  If Obama and the Democrats want to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and disband the military, that would certainly make your health care utopia a more feasible possibility.  They have the power to do just that, but they do not want to make hard choices.  You must deal with the world as it is, Elaine - not the world as you wish it to be.  And in the world as it is, universal health care is not only a bad idea; it is an idea we cannot afford to experiment with.

Hi Nathan - all sound points, but I'm thinking of instituting a couple of new personal rules.  I won't debate the merits or shortcomings of healthcare based on cost with people that can't establish that they took the same "we can't afford it" stance with regard to the trillion dollar Iraq war and the trillion dollar bailout.  I won't mourn the possible increase in the national debt with anyone who can't show me that they were crying "Foul" while the Bush Administration tripled the national debt during its tenure. 

It's so easy to hide behind a veil of fiscal responsibility that magically appeared in the last 12 months, a veil that was conspicuously absent for the better part of the last decade.  All of a sudden, when we're not bombing the snot out of people or providing bonus bucks to billionaire Wall Street executives, the Republicans find their inner Scrooge.  This sudden explosion of righteous indignation smacks of insincerity, and I'd mock it more, but I'm guilty, too.  I want to save, save, save until the new Ping G15 driver comes out, and suddenly $300 isn't that big a deal if it disappears from our savings account.  Who cares if it's the $300 that we put in there because I talked my wife out of a new handbag? 

I can't stomach the analogies of spending my neighbor's money to cover someone else's healthcare cost, when someone sure as heckfire spent that same neighbor's money to carpet-bomb Baghdad, buy more tanks, bullets, and hand grenades, and ensure that the landscaping of Goldman and Sach's houses in the Hamptons would be in full bloom come springtime.  Just thinking about it has induced me to vomit in my mouth a little. 

And then when a different President of the same United States wants to spend money to help sick Americans get better, you guys throw tea parties and demand town hall meeting where you attend armed to the teeth? 

Puh-Leez.  Please explain the sudden wallet conscious behavior.  At this point, I'm just completely unable to grasp where it's coming from, and why it is impeding changes that would actually positively impact Americans' lives. 

" You want to put these people, who have never run a candy store or had to meet a payroll, in charge of health care???"

It is clerks, not physicians who presently decline payment for treament or procedures that physicians have given. Has anyone seen where "candy store" people will be in charge of healthcare?  The insurance companies are now in charge of declining and denying insurance coverage. 

Unless you are now receiving Medicare coverage, or expect to in the future, it will be government run.  Should someone who is so critical of government involvement in health care reject, or accept Medicare when the 65th birthday is reached?  Ditto for Social Security.

statefarmsteve says:

Actually, Ron, why don't you take the time to answer my remarks regarding the idiocy of Mr. Sowell's assertion that Planned Parenthood caused an increase in teen pregnancy and STD rates?  Or that government social programs cause poverty?

--

Because you don’t give any evidence that you have read Sowell, you offer no evidence you merely accuse: “Sowell accuses "statists" *cringe* of creating crises to control the population.  I accuse Sowell of creating towering social fallacies by using economic realities as building blocks.  Simply put, he's a hack and a tool who, despite being dressed up in an ivy league degree suit and and ivy league professor hat, is still just the organ grinder monkey of the Far Right, dancing for peanuts and pocket change on America's forgotten street corner. “

Why would anyone argue with a clearly biased and irresponsible rant? Should I simply assume that you are accurate…when your overall accuracy on political issues is well under 30%. Your demonstration of the evidence for your views is well under 30%. You said: “And now we return to Sowell.  He's accused Planned Parenthood of having a causal relationship with an increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease.  The reality is that the Sexual Revolution was already in full swing by the time Planned Parenthood arrived on the scene.”

Is that true, was the Sexual Revolution really in full swing in 1942 during World War 2? No of course not:

--

The organization has its roots in Brooklyn, New York where Margaret Sanger opened the country's first birth control clinic. Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921,^[4] which changed its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. in 1942. Since then, it has grown to about 880 clinic locations in the United States, with a total budget of approximately US$1 billion, and provides an array of services to over three million people.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

--

Obviously we see why you choose ad hominem attacks.

Statefarmsteve,

Most people, when they are about to indulge in a fallacious line of reasoning, don't telegraph or boast of their intentions.  Thank you for warning us that you plan to adopt the tu quoque fallacy as a personal rule, by attacking those who disagree with you for presumed hypocrisy, rather than responding to the merits of their arguments.  By your reasoning, you would defend the behavior of the spendthrift Bush Republicans who argued that, since Democrats spent like drunken sailors, they surely couldn't object to Republicans throwing a bit of pork to their districts once they got in power.  Puerile and irresponsible are the words that come to mind when one says, "I was against the behavior that got us driving toward the edge of this cliff, so now that I have the wheel and the gas pedal, don't ask me to consider the consequences of speeding up as we continue toward the cliff at 90 miles an hour."  Isn't that essentially your argument, Statefarmsteve?  

Few politicians who want to run health care have any life or work experience to give them an understanding of what it is like to run a business that must be profitable in order to survive - that must produce a quality product at a competitive price.  You wouldn't trust them with your retirement account, your checkbook, or your business.  But you sure want to trust them when they've got their hands in other people's pockets. 

The good-hearted, naive American people are frogs to the scorpion that is the political Left in America.  Remember in the fable, the scorpion asked the frog for a ride across the river.  "I can't trust you," protested the frog. "You'll sting me on the way, and I'll drown." "Why would I do that?" responded the scorpion. "If I sting you, we  both drown; don't worry, you can trust me."  So they proceeded across the river, scorpion riding on the frog's back.  Halfway across, the scorpion stung the frog.  As they were both going down, the betrayed frog cried out, "Why did you sting me? Now we'll both drown."  The scorpion's explanation: "Because I am a scorpion; it's my nature."  So it is with the elitist Left in America. The bloodbaths of the 20th Century did not dim their natural proclivity for collectivism, which inevitably destroys incentive, private property, wealth and liberty.  It does not matter to them whether their ideas actually work, or whether they contravene human nature and common sense.  All that matters is the moral preening and power to be gained by encouraging the poorest and least educated to wallow in envy and resentment, canonized by their Leftist overlords as helpless victims of success and wealth gained at their expense. 

I don't believe that Obama cares one whit about improving health care in America.  What he cares about is ideology - radically changing the institutions of America to look like the utopia envisioned by his communist mentor and father figure "Uncle Frank" (Marshall), and confidants like Bill Ayers, Father Phleger, and Jeremiah Wright.  When asked during the campaign by Chris Wallace why he would want to raise capital gains taxes, when studies showed that lowering capital gains taxes actually increased government revenue, Obama tellingly responded, "It doesn't matter; it's not fair."  The Left sees justice as fairness as equality a la John Rawls.  It doesn't matter if everyone is impoverished and diminished in the process.  The enlightened diktats of the Left will erase greed, competition and envy from humanity.  Like gods, they will write the laws of communal sentiment and selfless service upon the blank slates of human hearts and minds that have   been corrupted by religion and traditional culture.  It may take generations, and it may take a few more bloodbaths to purge the reactionary, defiant spirits, hopelessly addicted to the intoxicating poisons of individualism and self-reliance.  But history is on their side, because they are writing it.  And they won't stop until they get it, regardless of the facts, which really don't exist at all if they are not reported in the N.Y. Times, where history begins anew each day.  All that matters is keeping the feeling of crisis alive, and demonizing those who question its reality or the proposed solutions of the Left.

Believe me Statefarmsteve, I was a vocal opponent of the profligate spending during the Bush administration (40% increase in federal spending), as were Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators whom you despise.  And I supported neither the Bailout nor the Stimulus boondoggle.  What do you know about me that would lead you to believe that my wallet-consciousness is sudden or out of character?  Obviously nothing.  I am a strong fiscal conservative who believes Bush and the Republicans arrogantly abused power and squandered the trust that got them elected.  I also happen to believe in the Constitution, which gives to the federal government exclusive responsibility for military matters and war, but gives no authority whatsoever for the federal government to run health care.  Do 70% of Americans support a government run health care system, as they did the Iraq war?  Or does a majority only matter when it agrees with you?  Our founding fathers perspicuously observed that free, prosperous institutions could not long survive if majorities could vote to transfer money from the pockets of their fellow citizens to their own.  The Left views as moral imperatives the very policies that will pave "The Road to Serfdom", and turn our country into a Third World banana republic.

Well, enough lamentation... Does anyone want to offer a perspective on how Elaine and Statefarmsteve's answers to the healthcare "crisis" will preserve or strengthen Adventist healthcare institutions?  I'd love to hear it, because it seems to me that federal control of health care would be a disaster, if not a terminal event, for Adventist health care as we know it.   If so, should the Church take a position on the issue?

Ron - please see the following link:

http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter16section3.rhtml

It discusses the birth of the American Sexual Revolution in the 1920's.  Funny enough, it's from an SAT prep site, something high school students should know in order to perform well on the college entrance exam.  This time period is often referred to as the "Roaring 20's," with the birth of the "flapper" and women's suffrage coming to the forefront.  (I scored better than 30% on my college entrance exam.  Did you?)  Both the American Sexual Revolution and Planned Parenthood germinated in the 20's, but didn't "arrive" until decades later. 

By the 1940's, there was a marked change in American Sexuality.  Reliable, mass produced, readily available birth control had hit the streets, and sex was transitioning away from primariliy a reproductive function to pleasure.  The sheer numbers of young men running off to war sparked a surge in sexual activity, both prior to running off to war, and while they were away in foreign lands.  Kinsey's first book on sexuality was published. 

In the 1960's, America saw both the Sexual Revolution and Planned Parenthood rise to previously unforseen prominence - in other words, both movements had "arrived."  (In the English language, "arrived" often refers to achieving a certain level of success.  Babies and Flights "arrive" too, but clearly in a different context, literally and linguistically.)  Planned Parenthood experienced unprecedented success, winning US Supreme Court Cases legalizing contraception (which in some states was illegal even for married couples), and seeing the President take up their family planning cause. 

Ron - do a little deeper research than you will find on Wikipedia, which is not exactly a root source of information, nor a scholarly reviewed publication.  My 11 year-old daughter doesn't even use Wiki for her 6th grade research projects, because she understands its limitations.

What evidence would you like that I've read Sowell?  Would you like a copy of my library card?  Or should I write reports on each of his books and all of his columns and turn them in to you by Friday?

I didn't ask you to answer my attacks on Sowell himself.  You may not agree with my description of him, and I understand that - it's a little extreme to say the least.  I asked you to respond to my contradiction of the Sowell quotes provided by Herb that accuse Planned Parenthood of causing teen pregnancies and STD rates to increase.  And you respond with Wikipedia, something a sixth-grader wouldn't respond with?  Come on, you can do better than that...

 From Nathan:

Most people, when they are about to indulge in a fallacious line of reasoning, don't telegraph or boast of their intentions.  Thank you for warning us that you plan to adopt the tu quoque fallacy as a personal rule, by attacking those who disagree with you for presumed hypocrisy, rather than responding to the merits of their arguments.

Ahhh, Nathan, but you already know that I'm not "most people."  

During my lifetime every Republican President has increased the national debt and every Democratic President reduced it.  Obama is the first Democratic President in my lifetime that has engaged in deficit spending, and in light of the mess we're in, I'm willing to cut him some slack - at least as much as was cut Reagan and the Bushes.  For my own edification, could you please let me know who the last great fiscal conservative republican was that led the country? 

Nathan, I'm not calling you out specifically with regard to "sudden fiscal responsibility syndrome."  The fact remains that there were no republican-led tea parties or armed-to-the-teeth town hall meetings, or Bush-as-Hitler pictures during the Bush years.  If you will post links (I was unable to find any) to commentary from Rush or Beck or Hannity that protest the Bush spending (there was some minor clatter regarding the bailouts, but none during the ramping up of the Iraq conflict that I've found) I'd love to check them out.  If you have any posts or commentary or correspondence that you wrote during the Bush years protesting his spending proclivities, I'd love to see them, too, just for kicks.  I believe you were anti-Bush spending, but like your guy Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."

You may define my position as tu quoque, but I'd define it as choosing to not engage in conversation with people that prove themselves to be hypocrites.  Hypocrisy is the greatest form of intentional dishonesty, and there's no point in engaging in debate with people to whom truth is irrelevant. 

I don't believe that you are intentionally dishonest, Nathan.  Could you clarify where in the proposed legislation or in my (or Elaine's, for that matter) posts you find language pertaining to a government takeover of healthcare?  For some reason, it seems that you are overstating the government's role in the proposed legislation, as well as overstating the changes I've advocated - to the point of suggesting that if healthcare reform passes, it will end the existence Adventist Healthcare. 

Ah the beloved dodge. That is why I included your phrase "full swing" because full swing is the 60's. But of course you ignore your own words to parse your meaning. Instead going to the "germination" which of course can be placed where ever one wants to,

Most people and most historians refer to the flull fledged sexual revolution as beginning in the 1960's not with Freud, So why would not Sowell use the common reference point.  Of course since Sanger started her birth control organization in 1921 you would still be wrong.

But I am sure you are used to being wrong...you just never admit it.

Now we know your method of interpretation so let us see the quote, and the reference for which you make your accusation against Sowell. you complained about Herb not giving quotes yet neither have you. So let's hear the evidence and see if you are being accurate at all.

Ron - reading is FUNdamental.  Although I'm typing at full speed, I'm encouraging you to read slowly...

While the birth of the organization that would become Planned Parenthood took place in the 1920's (another fairly commonly known factoid), the name "Planned Parenthood" was adopted in the 1940's.  By any measure, Planned Parenthood "arrived" on the American national scene during the sexual revolution of the 1960's, when it first scored major US Supreme Court victories in cases regarding the legalization of contraception, and the White House aligned its public position with Planned Parenthood on family planning. 

I don't think I ever mentioned Freud or connected him to our conversation in any way...  Where did he come from? 

At any rate, what was wrong with my statement, other than your understanding of it?  Had I stated that Planned Parenthood began during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's, I could see where I was wrong.  However, I clearly was talking about the arrival of the organization on the national scene, in conjunction with the arrival of the Sexual Revolution (which also began long before 1960, but also "arrived", meaning it was in full swing, by the late 1950's and 60's.)

The clock didn't strike 12 a.m., January 1, 1960, with 12 chimes awakening the libidos of Americans across the country.  Nor did those same 12 chimes miraculously bring Planned Parenthood into existence.  I didn't intend to imply that this occurred, and I certainly didn't expect to confuse you with my choice of words.  However, I'm not going to "dumb down" my posts just so you can keep up, and I don't think I'll continue holding your hand and guiding you through English language concepts.  It's just too time consuming and seems like wasted effort.

Alright Ron - Here's your reference.  Sowell, Thomas The Vision of the Annointed, beginning at the bottom of page 15, continuing through page 21. 

You may read the passage for yourself (I'm assuming you own a copy) or you may make do with my summary:  A false sexual crisis was created by by Planned Parenthood, and their solution, "Sex Education" caused a massive spike in pregnancy, STD's, and abortions.  Thus proving how dumb liberals are. 

Sowell's oversimplification of the causes and consequences of the Sexual Revolution are typical - as are the false conclusions he draws in order to pander to Right wing Conservatives. 

There are dozens of examples.  In a Jewish World Review column, dated June 7, 2001, he takes on environmentalists, like Rachel Carson, who led the charge to ban DDT.  He accuses her of causing the death of millions of children across the globe, when the DDT ban was not only not global, but most countries continued and still to this day continue to use the chemical to fight the spread of malaria.  But it's funner to take a free, unchallenged, though completely untrue shot at the political left.

These types of assertions, which hang on to truth by the thinnest of threads, and whose bulk consists of outright lies, are the poorest example of how our church should engage in debate.  But as long as Conservatives are going to hold Sowell up as a shining example of how we should conduct ourselves, I'm going to shine the light of fact, truth, and reason on his writing to expose it as the dung heap that it is. 

Statefarmsteve: Very funny:  "You are not most people."  

I beg to differ with your assertion that hypocrisy is the greatest form of intentional dishonesty.  "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."  Most people rationalize their conduct or think the rules shouldn't apply to them for one reason or another.  Thus Al Gore is apparently not bothered by his lavish carbon footprint, which is big enough to have its own zip code.  Nancy Pelosi and other Dems have no problem ordering carbon spewing 737s to jet around the world in luxury at taxpayer expense.  Michael Moore loves to ride high on the capitalist horse which he would destroy.  Our president spends hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money to take Michelle to NYC for date night while Americans languish in poverty, without adequate health care.  He yuks it up with David Letterman and Jay Leno, and jets to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics while crises beset the country.  He talks about transparency and candor. Yet his administration is the least transparent and open in history. 

I could go on and on, as could you about conservatives'  hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy is deeply embedded in sinful human nature, and is particularly endemic to politics.   I'm sure that both you and I could reasonably be accused of hypocrisy from time to time.  It doesn't mean we are not concerned with the truth.  If Al Gore is a hypocrite about carbon emissions, it may disqualify him as a moral exemplar in that area.  But it does not detract from the merits of his professed values.  It is the facts of science, or lack thereof, that discredit his beliefs about climate change (formerly known, in headier days for the alarmists, as global warming) 

So are you telling me Statefarmsteve, that you do not favor nationalized healthcare or government control of the industry?  Maybe we're not as far apart as I had assumed.  My remarks were indeed premised on the assumption that you and Elaine favor universal health care. I certainly support a government insured safety net for Americans who need health care, but do not have ability to obtain it.  That is a far cry from universally mandated, government subsidized medical care insurance.  I also don't want people to starve.  But that sentiment doesn't lead to a government takeover of farming or the food industry.  Or does it?  If not, why not? 

People who are dependent on the government or their neighbors should not expect no-strings-attached handouts, even if their need is completely legitimate.  And those who do not need the nanny state to provide for themselves and their families should not be subjected to government interference. 

Universal anything, in the context of politics, means government control.  Fascist states, like Italy and Germany,  didn't take over corporations.  But government control of the corporations totally corrupted the corporations and the governments a la Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the motgage industry.  Do you really want to argue a meaningful distinction between "control" and "takeover", or are you against both? 

Not many people have seen anything in writing about propsed health care reforms. Even the concepts are moving targets.  But there can be little doubt that nationalized health care is the ultimate goal of the Left.  Do you dispute that?  If the government controls the purse strings of health care, it is  tantamount to a takeover, and only the penultimate step.  Since we know that is the goal, isn't it valid - no, essential - to address that reality when talking about healthcare reform and the aspirations of those who are pushing the legislative and regulatory agenda?  After all, that's what you do when you attack the educatetruth folks who claim to only be seeking transparency and accountability in the La Sierra biology curriculum.  You and Elaine have been far too out front in extolling the virtues of nationalized health care to pretend that is not your preferred goal.  Remember now...you hate hypocrisy, right?

Statefarm:  The Thomas Sowell column to which you refer is here:  http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060701.asp.  He doesn't say that it was a worldwide ban, but that environmentalists have tried to get it banned in country after country, which is true.  Most of the tropical countries have at least experimented with discontinuing the use of DDT, and typically saw an upsurge in malaria when they did so. 

And save some of your vitriol for Walter Williams.  After all, there are two very prominent black conservatives with economics Ph.Ds (I remember Sowell joking that he and Williams had agreed never to take the same flight).  And Williams sometimes guest-hosts for Rush Limbaugh.  And he's written on the DDT issue, also in Jewish World Review:

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=68.

David - This continues to be a fantastic example of partial truth and intentional ignorance of known facts being used to promote a political agenda.  I hate to even add Walter Williams into the mix, but the article you linked to is so stupid and factually off base that I can't help myself.  He laments the rise of malaria-related deaths in Sri Lanka in the late 60's and blames the end of DDT spraying there on wacky, overzealous environmentalists, ergo putting the blood of innocents on the hands of liberals.  But DDT spraying was suspended in Sri Lanka because it had stopped working, because mosquitoes had developed resistance to the poison.  I think Sri Lankans could have given two squirts about the life or death of American bald eagles, so they surely didn't quit DDT because of Rachel Carson or her friends. 

Williams and Sowell have much in common - both cowtow to the right, and both write extensively on subject matter on which they have no expertise in an effort to better snog the backsides of conservatives.  There are plenty of articles and tons of research by qualified scientists on DDT and its safety and/or dangers.  None of it has been penned by Williams or Sowell. 

Hi Nathan - I've never advocated government takeover of health care.  I don't know if I've ever taken the time on this particular forum to elaborate on my own personal views, but I will here, so please forgive me if I get repetitive.

First, I'd like to acknowledge that there is little doubt that Obama did at one point desire a government run healthcare system, and I'm inclined to believe that he still believes, personally, that this is the best solution to our woes.  I'd also like to acknowledge that the Dems have been woefully retarded on one of the easiest solutions to healthcare dollar shortages - tort reform.  I'm comfortable, as a registered independent, criticizing both sides of the aisle. 

My solutions?  First, Tort Reform.  Second, banish Insurance Companies, too.  They simply eat up too much money in administrative costs, but don't cure any diseases or heal any people.  Using insurance companies to deliver health care is like using a leaky pipe to get water.  You'll get water out of the faucet, but too much leaks out before it gets to where you want it to be.

Medicare runs a 4% administrative cost and pays its CEO $500,000/year.  UnitedHealth, a 35% administrative cost.  I'm not saying medicare is perfect, but it doesn't pay it's CEO $750 million dollars over the last 3 years in cash and stock options.  I know UnitedHealth's CEO won't agree, but in my opinion, that is egregious waste of healthcare money. 

The federal government should obliterate the obstacles that have been intentionally set up with the cooperation of government at the behest of private insurance companies to prevent the creation of a viable public or mutually-owned insurance company.  If the Feds want to fund it with seed money or otherwise help it get started, more power to them. 

Government-controlled purse strings may equal government control, but government control doesn't equal government run.  The Federal government funds many, many programs through extensive federal grants.  I've applied for and received Federal grant money, and assisted in the administration of those programs.  Our organization ran the programs, took responsibility for the results, and reported the results in our reapplications for continued funding.  Heathcare can be funded and run in a very similar way. 

There are many ways to arrive at the very noble goal of increasing access to healthcare to the point that all Americans can obtain proper primary care, prenatal care, and pediatric care.  The goal is not only noble, but it is practical as well, allowing us to save lives and money by early detection of disease, proper prenatal care for mothers and infants, and the end of ER's as Primary Care facilities. 

I have a hard time understanding why the goal itself is so abhorred - the primary objection is that it can't be done, which while it makes more sense than the objection of the Communismization of America, is just a bad, unAmerican argument.  America has achieved greatness by doing things that people said can't be done. 

I think it can, and should be done. 

Government takeover of health insurance companies is a long way from government takeover of healthcare.  If one were to argue otherwise, they would have to believe that health insurance companies are the equivalent of healthcare companies, that an insurance claims handler is as vital to your health as an ICU nurse.  Couldn't we get rid of one without harming the other?

There, I've said my piece, Nathan, and I've exposed my views to criticism.  I sure can dish it out...  Can I take it?  Should be interesting...

Thanks for letting us know the reference. It shows that you must have a severe reading and or interpretation disorder. First here is what you originally said:

--

: “And now we return to Sowell.  He's accused Planned Parenthood of having a causal relationship with an increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease.  The reality is that the Sexual Revolution was already in full swing by the time Planned Parenthood arrived on the scene.”

--

Now let us look at what Sowell actually wrote and we see he is specific as to the time frame he is talking about…the 1960s. No need for you to pretend he is talking about the germination of the sexual revolution in the 1920’s. Here is how the section of the book The Vision of the Anointed begins to which you referred me.

“Sex Education

            Among the many crusades which gathered new steam during the 1960s was the crusade to spread sex education into the public schools and through other channels. Among the first acts of the Office of Economic Opportunity in 1964 was making a grant to Planned Parenthood unit in Texas…”

-Bottom of page 15 http://books.google.com/books?id=ISTtFtcIkKAC&dq=%22thomas+sowell%22+The+Vision+of+the+Annointed&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=FLrXSqO_IZOMtAOuz5WWBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I can’t say I am surprised by your being wrong. Though I did not think it would be so easily demonstrated by the first words of the reference.

There is "sex education" and sex education that is "abstinence only."

One state, Texas, where "abstinence only sex education" was promulgated, has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy.

No mention is made of the influence of television, movies, and more that have embraced "easy sex" as common.  Does anyone believe that Planned Parenthood has caused the rise in teen pregnancy, and that the TV, movies and internet have had no contribution?

Actually, the rates of teen pregnancy has dropped over the last few years.  What reason is given for that?  Also, abortions have decreased.  Unless one objects to contraception, what is the problem with Planned Parenthood?  The much larger work is informing on contraception, not abortions. 

There is "sex education" and sex education that is "abstinence only."

One state, Texas, where "abstinence only sex education" was promulgated, has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy.

No mention is made of the influence of television, movies, and more that have embraced "easy sex" as common.  Does anyone believe that Planned Parenthood has caused the rise in teen pregnancy, and that the TV, movies and internet have had no contribution?

Actually, the rates of teen pregnancy has dropped over the last few years.  What reason is given for that?  Also, abortions have decreased.  Unless one objects to contraception, what is the problem with Planned Parenthood?  The much larger work is informing on contraception, not abortions. 

Ron - you're miraculously dense.  I never said Sowell was referring to the 1920's. 

I've twice now explained myself, to no avail.  For the final time, here is my original post:

And now we return to Sowell.  He's accused Planned Parenthood of having a causal relationship with an increase in teen pregnancy and venereal disease.  The reality is that the Sexual Revolution was already in full swing by the time Planned Parenthood arrived on the scene.  STD rates, which had skyrocketed after the return of 16,000,000 US Soldiers from European and Asian brothels following WWII, were, yes, declining by 1950.  Planned Parenthood fought againsts a tidal wave of societal change that included the freedom of the automobile, the sexualization of TV, Music, and Movies, the advent of the dual-income family - all things that actually hastened the awakening of pre-teen and teenage sexuality, gave them explicit sexual knowledge, and the freedom to act on it.  Sowell's accusation that Planned Parenthood caused increased teen pregnancy rates and STD rates is inane, right-wing political bluster, and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.  You can't simply discard all the other sociological factors that are in play, and assign blame to planned parenthood.  That's either stupid, which considering his background, Sowell probably isn't, or intentionally ignorant.  You pick. 

Now, it's clear that I'm referring to the commonly-held high point of the Sexual Revolution, ca. 1960ish America.  We're talking about Post WWII, the rise of the Automobile, TV - all things that were clearly not present in the 1920's.  I've also reiterated that it's common knowledge that while Planned Parenthood was hatched in the 1920's, that it rose to national prominence (or "arrived on the scene") in the 1960's - when the Sexual Revolution was in full swing. 

He's wrong that Planned Parenthood caused a spike in teen pregnancy and STD rates - Planned Parenthood rose to prominence long after sexual attitudes in America had changed.  There was a tsunami of sociological evolution in motion, and one of the ripples on that wave was Planned Parenthood. 

Ron - you require the patience of Job of your conversation counterparts.  I've long since tired of your frozen molasses-comprehension rate.  This will be my last response to you until you post something containing coherent thought. 

right I am dense, you just said:

--

Ron - please see the following link:

http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/history/chapter16section3.rhtml

It discusses the birth of the American Sexual Revolution in the 1920's.  Funny enough, it's from an SAT prep site, something high school students should know in order to perform well on the college entrance exam.  This time period is often referred to as the "Roaring 20's," with the birth of the "flapper" and women's suffrage coming to the forefront.  (I scored better than 30% on my college entrance exam.  Did you?)  Both the American Sexual Revolution and Planned Parenthood germinated in the 20's, but didn't "arrive" until decades later. 

--

Just some extra info you wanted to share...Why? to back up your assertion that Sowell is an idiot because you don't agree with him. And now it is my denseness because I quote Sowell the reference you used and show you lied about what he said. Well fine, people can now go to the link and see what he really said as opposed to what you said he said. 

--

Ron - you require the patience of Job of your conversation counterparts.  I've long since tired of your frozen molasses-comprehension rate.  This will be my last response to you until you post something containing coherent thought. 

--

Well good I don't think anyone needs your ill informed ad hominem attacks.

For those interested read page 18 where Sowell goes over the statistics and you will see that Statefarm is once again wrong.

Ron, let me try to be better.  I apologize for being insulting and dismissive earlier. 

Ron - am I missing something from your posts?  I have busted my tail in an attempt to clarify my prior statements, yet you continue to accuse me of lying about what Sowell said. 

When I have been wrong, as I was in the nature of my characterization of Sowell as a "monkey" and "dog" I have admitted it and apologized and done my best to correct my mistakes.  I can't back off of my assertion that Sowell produces a political end-product disguised as Ivy-league research.  I can't back off my assertion that Sowell intentionally ignores relevant facts in order to achieve his political goals.  I can't back off of my assertion that Sowell's political bent motivates him to play fast and loose with the facts.  I certainly can't back off the fact that I disagree with Herb's introduction of Sowell and his secular politics into a discussion on how to handle our Church disagreements and politics.  The inevitable, inherent dishonesty of secular politics need not invade church politics, and we certainly shouldn't willfully introduce it into the mix. 

Could you please, please specify the statements regarding Sowell's writings which were lies?  Please, please break it down for me, and show me where I've been a liar.  I've been under the impression that you thought I lied about Sowell referring to the birth of the American sexual revolution of the 1920's (which I didn't mean to imply he did) or the date of the inception of Planned Parenthood (which I didn't mean to muddle with my "arrive" statement.) 

Was it this 1920's/1960's thing?  Or was it this inception of Planned Parenthood thing?  Or have I completely missed the lie you are referring to?  Was it the monkey/dog thing?  That wasn't a "lie" but rather just a jerky statement on my part. 

Help - If I've lied, I'd like a chance to recant.

Well Statefarmsteve, I really agree with a lot of what you say.  No one gets insurance for auto maintenance.   Why should it be a government mandate for health insurance companies to include routine health maintenance in their policies?

You have more expertise in this area than I.  But I don't understand why you're against health insurance for unexpected or catastrophic injury. Do you seriously believe that the government could or would provide health care coverage more efficiently or cheaply than a truly competitive private system? Of course you're right that health insurance is regulated by the government to prevent true competition and to protect the insurance companies, not consumers. But how does that justify more government involvement? Why not simply get insurance companies out of the business of providing the services they insure, and make them get back to simply providing insurance, like auto insurance or other traditional insurance models? 

I can't comment on what is included in Medicare administrative costs versus United Health costs.  I do know Medicare denies a lot of things that private insurance provides, and is on the verge of insolvency, hardly a good business model. I suspect you may be comparing apples and oranges, but will have to look it up.  For one thing, Medicare doesn't have to spend ridiculous sums of money lobbying the government and "bribing" congressmen to regulate for its benefit. I believe more competition, not government regulation, is the answer to wasteful spending in the private sector.  Find me a private business that thrives with wasteful spending, and I will show you a business that spends lots of money lobbying the government to suppress competition and/or expand markets. (Look at Archer Daniels-Midland with biofuels and Al Gore with carbon credits.)  I don't like government subsidies or seed money, because when the government picks winners and losers, it interferes with the ability of a free market to find the most efficient, best quality solutions, and promotes special interest industries eager to exploit and corrupt the political process.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature and extent of the health care problem.  You are correct that the poor don't get the care they should.   But what are the reasons?  Studies from countries with universal health care show that the poor in those countries also get worse health care. Why? Because they tend not to make the effort to get health care unless there is something wrong, particularly if they have to queue up.  It's a problem of values and priorities - not resources.  Millions of poor included among the uninsured are people who are Medicaid eligible, but simply have not gone to the trouble of applying because they don't need it.  Many times in my practice I have seen mothers who did not get prenatal care, but had Medical or were Medical eligible. The same is also true of the unemployed.  Between many wonderfully caring community based clinics run by charities and the government - no questions asked - and Medicaid, most of the uninsured in this country have better access to health care services than do citizens in countries with nationalized health care. 

Under the SCHIP program, the federal government covers children of families whose household income is 3 or 4 times higher than the poverty line.  Why? It's not an issue of poverty. It's an issue of politicians wanting to get their claws around 1/6th of the American economy, using children as a pretext.  They don't even try to pretend it's a problem of poverty, because they know it's so patently untrue.  It's called "a problem of the uninsured", and then it is spun to appear as a problem of poverty.

Lastly, I don't know about tort reform.  I certainly favor it on principle, but I don't know how much it will reduce costs.  I happen to believe that we have been so blessed by medical care and medical technology, and are so lucky to have our level of health and well-being, that lawsuits against the health care profession should be severely restricted.  I believe a plaintiff should have to show outrageous conduct, or at least violation of a clearly defined practice standard, in order to bring a lawsuit for injuries arising out of medical care.  It is just too easy for an expert being paid $500 an hour to Monday-morning-quarterback an adverse outcome from an ivory tower.  I know it would put me out of work, but wouldn't they love to have me teaching constitutional law at La Sierra! Ya think?

Thanks, Statefarmsteve, for affirmatively setting forth your perspectives on the health care "crisis". I know it is much easier to take shots at an argument than to affirmatively advance a position of one's own.  You have done so well. 

Statefarm:  I agree with you that alot of the problem is insurance.  Why are we spending almost 17% of GDP on health care when most of the developed world is spending 8 to 10% and doing some rational rationing of care.  I believe our health care system is (for the insured) substantially better than anyone else's, but it's nowhere near twice as good, yet we pay twice as much.  The reason why is obvious, we have a quasi-market system without market rationing.  No one cares how much anything costs, because they aren't paying for it, and in many cases they aren't even directly paying for the insurance, the government or their employer is.  The best way to reform the current system is simply to outlaw insurance bought by third parties, and to restrict other insurance to high-deductible  policies (at least $20,000 deductible).  That would take the demand-side air out of the balloon, because when people have pay for their own care, they will economize.  They'll force doctors to compete on price, and be price and fee transparent.  This has already happened in traditionally uninsured areas like laser surgery and cosmetic surgery.  In those fields, doctors compete on price, and prices have come down.  We would be back to spending 8% of GDP on health care, and we'd have pretty close to the same quality.   

I would have alot more respect for Obama if he had just made a pitch for single payer, rather than try to support some jerry-rigged nonsense that Leftists hope will eventually get us to single payer.  What the current bills do is much like what they did in Massachusetts: force everyone to buy insurance and kill the pre-existing condition loophole.  That just throws gas on the fire.  The problem is unfettered demand, and the Massachusetts plan just increases demand; premiums have gone up 60% and they still do not have universal coverage- about 6% are still uninsured.  There's got to be rationing, and it can be either market rationing, which means drastically limiting the role of insurance to insurable catastrophic losses, or government rationing, which means long waiting times, as in Canada, Britain, etc. 

I prefer the free market mainly because, if we ever get to single payer, there will never be another election about anything else, and the political culture will move permanently to the left.  Mark Steyn has written beautifully about this:

"The end-game is very obvious. If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority. By “dependent”, I don’t mean merely welfare, although that’s a good illustration of the general principle. In political terms, a welfare check is a twofer: you’re assuring the votes both of the welfare recipient and of the vast bureaucracy required to process his welfare. But extend that principle further, to the point where government intrudes into everything: a vast population is receiving more from government (in the form of health care or education subventions) than it thinks it contributes, while another vast population is managing the ever expanding regulatory regime (a federal energy-efficiency code, a government health bureaucracy) and another vast population remains, nominally, in the private sector but, de facto, dependent on government patronage of one form or another — say, the privately owned franchisee of a government automobile company, or the designated “community assistance” organization for helping poor families understand what programs they’re eligible for. Either way, what you get from government — whether in the form of a government paycheck, a government benefit or a government contract — is a central fact of your life."

"In the normal course of events, the process takes a while. But Obama believes in “the fierce urgency of now”, and fierce it is. That’s where all the poor befuddled sober centrists who can’t understand why the Democrats keep passing incoherent 1,200-page bills every week are missing the point. If “health care” were about health care, the devil would be in the details. But it’s not about health or costs or coverage; it’s about getting over the river and burning the bridge. It doesn’t matter what form of governmentalized health care gets passed as long as it passes. Once it’s in place, it will be “reformed”, endlessly, but it will never be undone."

"So what he [Obama] has to do is create the conditions for embryo government health care, because that's the fastest way to a permanent left of center political culture. That's true in Canada, and that's true in Europe. To guarantee a permanent left of center political culture, you need to get some form of governmentalization of health care through."

Nathan and David - through these discussions, its often easy to see that there is much less disagreement than one would think.  Yes, we come from entirely different perspectives, but essentially, we'd all like to see our country healthy, happy, and prosperous. 

Nathan, tort reform - specifically eliminating frivolous lawsuits - needs to occur not just in healthcare, but in every aspect of American business.  I'm not an advocate of eliminating the tort system, because I understand how the tort system does indeed protect consumers.  However, we need to seriously think about the current environment, which has led us to the new low of www.whocanisue.com.  Even most lawyers despise the existence of this website and its ilk, and if the bar won't police themselves, then somebody has to step in. 

David - I, too, would hate to see government step in to do what private industry has proven, at some point, that it could do well.  Unfortunately, as you mentioned, the health insurance industry is hardly a supply and demand driven business.  It's usually purchased by a third party (the employer), and it thrives on a business model of controlling physician fees and limiting patient access to providers and restricting consumer/patient choice.  In other words, the patient is not the insurance company's customer, meaning they have no reason to serve them well.  The patient is also not the doctor's paying customer, so the doctor only has fiduciary duty to the insurance company, and none to the patient.  The system, as it currently stands, violates almost every single basic premise of Capitalism.  Do me a favor, and point this out to Mark Steyn for me - he's blocked my emails. 

Statefamsteve:  The basic problem is a separation between those who receive the services and those who pay for them.  Since the person who receives is not paying, he has no incentive to economize; no health care equivalent of a Maserati or a Beverly Hills mansion is too good for him (which is why we spend 17% of GDP on health care).  Since the patient need not economize, the insurance company steps in and tries to keep costs down as much as possible (for which it is vilified and hated by everyone).  In a single payer system, the government steps in and economizes as best it can, usually by rationing by long wait times (but somehow this seems to be acceptable, whereas insurance company or HMO rationing is not). 

The answer is to re-introduce market economics to health care.  It works pretty good for food, clothes, housing, transportation, entertainment, etc., and it has worked for plastic surgery and laser surgery.  Other areas, like dental, orthodontics, and optical, which are less often insured, have also kept costs down reaonably well, or at least much better than hospital medicine. 

David - very, very interesting perspective.  The patients do indeed have a tremendous influence over cost - mostly related to how well they care for themselves.  Trying to maintain a healthy weight, eating a well-balanced diet, and exercising regularly would all go a long way to keeping health care costs down. 

Physicians may actually have more influence on costs than patients, though.  Most patients that go to physicians accept exactly whatever surgeries, treatments, tests, therapies, and drugs are prescribed to them.  Patients have very, very little influence (with the exception of ask you doctor if Cialis is right for you...)  Excessive tests are ordered as a part of the defensive practice of medicine, as doctors guard against malpractice suits.  Every patient that goes to ER with a headache gets a CAT scan, even if their symptons and history doesn't indicate a brain bleed or tumor.  Every patient that comes in with a cough gets a chest X-ray, even if they don't present like a TB or Lung CA patient.  Full labs are drawn on every patient that walks in.  Headache patients get neuro consults and high blood pressure patients get cardiology consults.  Fat people don't get lectures on lifestyle, they get Crestor. 

But this odd relationship of PartyA paying premiums, PartyB paying providers, PartyC providing services, and PartyD receiving benefits is bizarre beyond belief, and although I'm not an economist by education or trade, doesn't seem to be the typical capitalist/market driven economy.

This is an extremely interesting direction, David.  Thanks for the stuff to chew on...