"HOW MUCH IS A HUMAN LIFE WORTH?"

Ever watch the movie by Michael Moore entitled "Sicko"? If not, you should definitely make plans to do so! It is a documentary about the status of the U.S. healthcare system. You may be a conservative, liberal or any other political persuasion–it does not really matter. Your personal thoughts about Michael Moore are also really irrelevant. The movie, although personally slanted from Michael Moore’s viewpoint, has some very important thoughts for us all to consider especially in light of the ongoing debate in this country regarding the need for universal healthcare. You will witness the debate in the upcoming Presidential campaign.

Universal healthcare is really only a question as to whether you believe that all citizens should be entitled to appropriate healthcare services regardless of the individual’s economic status? There is no other question as to if you support it. It is that simple. Then the only remaining question is how to we as a country implement the program to insure that all have equal access. There are those for universal healthcare and those against it. Let me make a guess that those against it will be those who already have adequate healthcare insurance. If you are one of those who believe that I have it so who cares about those who do not, then just imagine a sudden change in circumstances where you suddenly lose your health insurance. Would you then have a change in opinion?

Our current medical system is a major multi-billion dollar for-profit business. There is constant conflict between insurance companies, health maintenance organizations and medical providers and those in need of medical care. And let us not forget the drug companies, who need to make a profit in the manufacture and sale of prescription medicines. If you cannot afford the cost then you just do not get the medicine you need for your illness. It is amazing that the same drugs manufcatured in the same place cost so much more here than in Canada and other countries!

A few weeks ago, the problem with health care in our nation was illustrated by a very unfortunate example. Natalee Sarkisian, who was 17 years old, died in a California hospital after a long battle with leukemia. She needed a liver transplant which her physicians had determined could save her life. However, she never got the transplant. The ironic part of the story is that she was not one of the millions of Americans without health insurance. Natalee in fact was insured by Cigna Health Care Insurance. Unfortunately CIGNA had denied coverage for the transplant claiming it fell into the category of experimental surgery. After hundreds of protestors demonstrated outside CIGNA headquarters, the company reversed its position and declared that it had decided to cover the liver transplant. Unfortunately for Natalee it was too late and she died! A young 17 year old girl is now dead because her life depended on whether or not she could afford to pay the cost of necessary health care.

Ever wonder how much a human life is worth? Ever wonder why there is so much opposition to universal healthcare in this nation? Ever wonder how you would feel if suddenly you lost your healthcare coverage? It is a national disgrace for any American to die or suffer because they cannot afford appropriate healthcare. Access to healthcare should never be based on your economic status. It should be a right of every citizen. Maybe we should quit debating the issue and do something about it! Enough is enough! Just remember that you too could find yourself in the same position as poor Natalee Sarkisan one day.

Just my thoughts for you to simply think about this week!

All of these laws grew out of the attacks of "9/11".  The war on terrorism has given rise to these laws which trek very close to stepping on some of our highly valued civil rights.  Now, I am not a card carrying member of the ACLU, so just calm down some.  But all Americans should be concerned enough to understand the nature of these laws and what authorities they grant to law enforcement agencies like the FBI. 

Following the recent declassification of the "Hoover 1200 Arrest" document, Americans should be very scared.  The former FBI chief once drew up a list containing 12,000 Americans whom were suspected of being potential subversives against the United States Government.  Thankfully, the president of the United States never saw fit to implement the proposal but it would have allowed the FBI to move throughout the country arresting Americans and detaining them without giving them the right to petition the courts regarding their arrests.  Now, if that does not scare you, maybe you should just go to the mall and do some shopping.

The FISA is a national security protection device but could become the ugly duckling if placed in the wrong hands.  Laws are made by man and these same laws can be abused.  Yes, Americans want protection, however, we need to be very cautious about the laws that we create.  Those same laws could someday reach into the security of your own home and rip a love one out, perhaps never to be seen again.

PS...believe it or not, telephone companies have cut off certain FBI wiretaps around the country because the FBI field office supervisors likely forgot to pay their bills.  Funny how that works; just like you and me, if we don't pay, they shut off our phones too!  If the FBI cannot remember to pay their phone bills each month, how effective are they in conducting FISA requirements?  A Justice Department audit blamed the lost phone connections on the FBI's laxness in quality control of the funding they use in undercover operations.  In one specific office, the unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled an estimated $66,000.  Amazing stuff; how incompetent does it get!   Hoover would be spinning in his grave. Just something we need to think about in earnest!

"THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS?"

The old slogan that the "end never justifies the means" is definitely live and well today.  In our earnest and sincere motivativation to protect ourselves from further threats from the Islamic terrorists, some of our political leaders have decided that the "end does justify the means" in the war on terrorism.  The use of torture and the sacrifice of certain civil liberties are considered by some to be proper sacrifices in order to protect the security of America.  To others, our basic principles as a people and a free society are too valuable to sacrifice and become a unnecessary measure in our strategy to protect and defend ourselves.

This week there was an interesting discussion on the The OReilley Factor show on Fox News between OReilly and a constitutional law professor.  The issue was the use of torture against terrorists to interrogate them to obtain vital information.  Torture, which is lately been called enhanced interrogation techniques, is viewed by some as a necessary means to achieve a desireable end.  The argument used is always the same, which often makes me laugh if it was not so important.  It goes something like this:  So we have a very important terrorist who has critical information which could save the lives of hundreds of Americans, but the terrorist refuses to talk.  Are you telling me that you are willing to let hundreds of Americans be killed rather than use whatever measures are required in order to make the terrorist talk?  It is one of those statements or questions which is designed to make you look strong and patriotic or weak and anti-American!  It will continue to be used in this sad debate to justify the use of torture and the compromise of other civil liberties in order to supposedly save and protect America lives.  OReilly of course took the "John Wayne" approach in the debate declaring that nothing would stand in his way of protecting his fellow citizens from the terrorist threat.  The professor, who was a constitutional law expert, acknowledged the concerns but took the position that our constitution and principles as a nation were not bargining chips in our efforts to protect ourselves. 

Everytime I hear this same debate I am again reminded of the famous President Roosevelt comment at the beginning of World War II right after the attack on Pearl Harbor:  "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"!  Since the attack of September 11th, there has been a continuous trend of building fear in this country amongst our citizens by the Bush Administration.  Let us never forget September 11th, but let us never allow September 11th to be used as the rationale by some to change who we are and what we stand for as Americans.  The end never justifies the means.  Let us not let some falsely use patriotism as an excuse to change the character of this great country.  We as a people have faced and survived many experiences in our history as a nation.  I have no doubt that the same national character which existed then will continue to be our main strength to combat this newest threat to our nation.  

On January 3, 2007 President Bush rightfully called on Congress to cut the number and cost of earmarks by at least half. To establish a benchmark for accurately measuring the President's goal, OMB requested agencies provide data on the earmarks for FY 2005. The FY 2005 earmarks database for appropriations establishes this benchmark and is consistent with the Administration's effort to bring greater transparency to how taxpayers' money is spent.  Yes, despite all the current administration's poor decisions, I have to strongly agree with their efforts to better control this problem.  Of course, this is business as usual in our democratic system.  The members of congress are expected to bring federal tax dollars back home for "pet" projects that put people back to work, whether they actually need to or not.

Earmarks or pork in legislation have been a point of contention for  years. Critics argue that the ability to earmark Federal funds should not be part of the legislative appropriations process. Tax money should be applied by federal agencies according to objective findings of need and carefully constructed requests rather than being earmarked arbitrarily by elected officials. Supporters of earmarks however, feel that elected officials are better able to prioritize funding needs in their own districts and states and that it is more democratic for these officials to make discreet funding decisions than unelected representatives of the federal government.  However, many critics counter that elected representatives have too much of a vested interest in their own districts and do not have the Nation's interests as a whole in mind when making these decisions with taxpayer money.

Recently, Congress's year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains almost 9,000 earmarks. Almost 2,700 of them representing $13.2 billion have been identified as "Pork Projects".  In the past, there were 13,997 "Pork Projects" for a total of $27.3 billion in 2005, and 9,963 projects for a total of $29 billion in 2006. 

Will this maddness ever end?  Will there ever be a corporate way of thinking, where we all consider the needs of the country over self interest in our districts?  I really doubt it.  It is shameful.  However, the self interests of the members of congress combined with the overwhelming interests of Washington lobbyists is just to much to overcome.

There is no Santa Claus in the politics of Washington; even though Presidential candidate Ron Paul appears to bring some new thoughts to the process.