On Health Care Reform...

While I firmly believe that every individual should have access to some sort of health care, I certainly do not (nor will I ever) vest my faith in the governmental prescription of such.


On a fundamental level, there is an inherent contradiction in passing a federal health care bill. There exists no provision of the Constitution calling for the required coverage of its citizenry. Therefore, the passage of the Health Care Reform Bill violates the very document those "yes-voters" vowed to uphold.

Many of those in favor of this bill lay their political priorities on a moral basis. Morality certainly has a place in society, but unfortunately, federal legislature is not one. And furthermore, isn't the forced imposition of morality, by nature, immoral? Maybe it is our duty as human beings to provide care for those unable to provide care for themselves; however, coercing charity is certainly comparable to ignoring the needy all together.

On another level, many believe passing health care reform represents that government now cares. Let me be clear: government officials do not care about anything beyond being re-elected. To support health care is one thing. Of course everyone should be guaranteed access to health care. Health insurance is an entirely different discussion.

Insurance, by definition, measures risk. It is a bet that both party and insurer contractually enter, each understanding that a loss for one equals a gain for another. An insurance company bets that, for example, you will remain healthy, while you bet that you will fall ill. If you fall ill, you win and the insurance company loses. Your bet has paid off, and by preempting your illness, you have successfully measured the risk against becoming sick.

Lets look at this from another angle: life insurance. When purchasing life insurance, you bet that you will die before your premiums have paid for the face amount. The insurance company, on the other hand, looks at your medical records and enters the contract based on the bet that you will live longer (and therefore pay more) than your policy's face value. The principles of all insurance contracts are the same; in any arena, purchasing insurance is a choice, both on part of the insurer and the insured.

Say, then, that the House was voting on the passage of life insurance reforms. Would they have reached the same conclusion - that life insurance is a right, and not a privilege? Doubtful, especially considering that life insurance cannot be confused with something as precious as health care.

The health insurance industry is now being held sway to the federal government. Those in Washington can now interfere in the private sector, dictating that health insurance companies must provide care to all - regardless of preexisting conditions and changes in occupation.

If government cared about its citizens, it would instead focus on actual health care reform.

And finally, even if you disagree with what I above argued, you cannot contest the fact that government simply cannot pay for this bill. With already soaring (and constantly increasing) deficit spending, another trillion dollar bill is simply irresponsible. To anyone in favor of such reforms, remember that it is our pockets that will be suffering in the end.

If there is any bright side to the passage of the reform bill, then I only look to the words of my father when he so poignantly stated that spending a trillion dollars on (attempting) to help people is better than spending a trillion dollars on killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fair enough, but if you ask me, eliminating both sources of such spending is the best solution to maintaining freedom in America.

Censorship, By Any Other Name...

Lady Gaga's newest music video for her most recent #1 single, "Telephone" has brought an interesting array of attention to the issue surrounding what many believe to be the fine line between art and the Constitutionally obscene.

While the video is certainly intended for mature audiences only, it still baffles me that people believe they would do society a service by banning the video all together. Take a look at this interview from Fox News:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kud17cXaajo

Sandy Rios, of the Culture Campaign, goes as far as to say that this type of provocative entertainment is "poison for the minds of our kids."

First, it is necessary to point out that the video had multiple warnings against the "violent" nature of the short, even forcing it to air in the late night TV slot. This was an obvious effort by the E! network to avoid backlash as demonstrated by harsh words of Sandy Rios.

Second, regardless of whether or not people want their children to be exposed to the messages inherent in the video, banning it altogether would violate the First Amendment provision of the U.S. Constitution allowing for the freedom of speech. Lady Gaga, as an artist, has every right to express herself, no matter how gory or provocative her ideas may be.

Third, the idea of access is an important concept to consider. When early jurisprudence on obscenity began emerging, the Court determined that there were three tiers as defined under the Miller Test to evaluate whether or not a work held Constitutional protection:

1. "Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
2. "Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;
3. "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (413 U.S. 15, 1973).

The music video violates none of these provisions - it is not pornography, by any means, and so there is no Constitutional basis for any of Rios's claims. And to this end, the video is not forced unto anyone's TV or computer screens; it must be sought out, so viewing it is a personal choice and not in the face of the American populace.

I find it a travesty in American politics when people like Sandy Rios appear on national television advocating for the censorship of the artistic expression of a pop-icon. While she may personally find Lady Gaga's style and method of expression offensive, she is certainly out of line when implying (through her call to outlaw the video) that her personal opinion should be valued above anyone else's. Perhaps instead of worrying about her children's exposure to the harsh realities of freedom of expression, she could devote that energy to a worthwhile cause, like fighting hunger in Africa.