I'll weigh in myself on some of these political issues.
While I don't support Obama in the least, politically, I don't have a problem with his not wearing of a flag pin. It's everyone's right to choose how to display or not display his or her patriotism. And yes, people in this country have always been patriotic far more than other countries as long as I've lived here, and I've lived here since I was two. It always surprises me when people in other countries DON'T think their country is the best, so that's the perspective from the other side of things. Why live there when you don't think it's the best, I always wonder (excepting those who live in tyrannical nations and can't get out).
When it comes to displays of patriotism, it's the suppression of the right to wear lapel pins that usually generates the biggest arguments. News anchors and other people in the media were sometimes forced to not wear them, supposedly in a show of impartiality, following the devastation of September 11. This dismays lots of people who remember the days of World War II when newsmen wore Allied uniforms and had no trouble speaking of "We" when reporting on the battlefield. First and foremost, those people are Americans (in American media, of course), owing their ability to accurately report the news without fear of sanction by the government to their country's freedom. In this day and age, that's no longer the case where so many in the media don't think of themselves as Americans anymore, often unable to even utter the word, "terrorist," when talking of those who deliberately set out to kill innocents.
As to why lapel pins are news, I believe that news has become sensationalized. With many more than three outlets in the broadcast news (not just ABC, CBS, and NBC anymore), there is the natural competition that comes out of that. And with the advent of 24-hour a day news, what is there to report on to fill all those hours? So instead of reporting on what's important, the news goes out of the way to tell us sob stories of Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, and other useless fluff. Newspapers are forced to do the same with the rise of the Internet. I rarely go to news sites anymore since you find out more about what's going on in the world from alternative sources.
On the issue of health care, Wendy knows I'm diametrically the opposite of her when it comes to political opinions. I couldn't stand to live in a place where health care is "free." Those who have seen me write of these types of things know that I do not believe that anything is free, especially health care. I noticed the judicious use of the words, "at the point of use." What's the difference between the bill being sent to an insurance company or a bill being sent to the government? To me, none. Any co-pay is trivial compared to the actual cost of services. And if you don't have money nor insurance, you still don't pay anything at the point of use and can't be turned away.
Everybody pays the price, whether it's a bill to the doctor or huge taxes paid to the government. Anyone wonder why the average Swedish citizen pays 2/3 of their income in taxes, income and VAT, and even then, many small townspeople have to drive to major cities to even get to a hospital? The town I visit in southern Sweden on an annual basis (my wife is Swedish) has had its hospital threaten to shut down repeatedly for many years because it can't afford to stay in business. It's common knowledge that when the person who consumes the services doesn't have to foot the bill directly, there is no incentive on either side to minimize costs. That's why single-payer, i.e. socialized medicine, is so costly even when compared to individual insurance-based systems. Many people use services unnecessarily, making it more expensive for those who really need the help. Waiting lists are months or years long. Shielding the consumers from the cost is not the way to make health care affordable and widely available.
I ditto all of Terry's comments. He's right on about the cost of medical malpractice insurance. There are whole counties where there are no OB/GYN's because nobody can afford the malpractice insurance. How many can afford $150,000-250,000 a year in malpractice premiums? That's as much as some people make in five to ten years before taxes. And the only way for doctors to make up the costs is to pass it along to their patients in the form of higher bills. The trial lawyers have cost the economy billions in the health care industry where the smallest scratch earns someone millions. And of course, it's not the hospitals or doctors that really pay. it's the people who get the care in the form of higher bills. Without that, insurance might actually become affordable for everyone. Not all trial lawyers are to blame because many cases justify large award payouts. It's the huge numbers of frivolous lawsuits and abnormally large payouts for just about everything (smoking lawsuits come to mind).
Another thing that's ALWAYS in the way is government. Health care in the US is a trillion dollar business. It's been reported that government regulations, mostly paperwork, cost the medical profession upwards of $200 billion. That's a lot of money that can go towards the care of patients. And people want to trust government with socialized medicine? The same people who have $800 toilet seats and $1,200 stool caps that cost 3 cents to make? Anyone who believes costs will go down with government in charge is sorely mistaken.
Unfortunately the same politicians in this country who advocate single payer health care systems are also in the pockets of the big trial lawyers, John Edwards being the biggest of the trial lawyers who's also a politician. He's famous for his crying in court over the victims he represents, tugging at the heartstrings of the juries and winning millions of dollars for his clients and also playing fast and loose with the facts in order to win. He's one of the biggest problems, not a solution. Those same politicians oppose strongly the proposal of medical savings accounts (MSA). If people like that get their way in health care in this country with single-payer AND unrestricted lawsuits, our health care system will become worse than any third world system, and more costly to boot. There's a reason why Hillary Clinton's health care plans were thrown out in 1994 and why Democrats lost 52 House seats and control of both houses of Congress back then. We saw the byzantine system of bureaucracies she proposed and laughingly rejected it. Doctors had to apply to the government for approval to specialize?!?!? That's just one of the many absurdities, plus other inanities like making fee-for-service illegal, i.e. you can't pay a doctor out of your own pocket but must go through the government.
Back to MSA's, since a large portion of medical costs are unnecessary expenditures for those who aren't that sick, the idea of a medical savings account is that people have a pool of money at their disposal as part of an insurance plan that covers their basic medical expenses. With that annual pool, people can keep whatever they don't use. If they go over, it's still covered but they won't get any money back at the end of the year. So not only do people have an incentive to not go to the doctor for every sniffle but they become very cost conscious and may actually shop around for a different doctor who may not charge as much. Hey, it's competition. Medical facilities not only have to get better in order to compete but they have to charge less for their services. Can anyone actually tell us what their medical services cost today? I certainly can't and I've got the insurance statements that itemize the costs that I've completely ignored because I couldn't care less what the cost is since insurance covers it. If MSA's came into effect, I can guarantee people will know exactly what their costs are. And that can't be a bad thing. it's when people don't know or don't care that costs explode and people complain about why no one can afford insurance.
Those who say that people might not go when they really are sick are those who believe in the cradle-to-grave nanny state where people should have no control over their own lives. Is there no such thing as personal responsibility anymore? People can't be trusted to know when they're really sick? Can people not be trusted to go to their annual or biannual checkups?
The other piece of medical care is catastrophic care. That's something that's out of the control of patients. Any insurance plan that bundles an MSA would also include a catastrophic component. Catastrophic is not the problem in American health care so it's not the driving force behind high cost of medicine. It's my belief that MSA's plus restrictions on frivolous lawsuits can not only make the health care system better but also more affordable for all. Pilot programs for MSA's in various cities around the country have proven fairly successful.
For those who have no income or can't afford insurance, government has so many existing programs that no one can possibly list them all. The law also says that no one can be turned down for medical needs regardless of ability to pay. That's one of the reasons the state of California is near bankruptcy and why many in the public have turned against illegal immigration. All of those illegal immigrants use free medical services because the law grants them that right. It's the rest of the people who do have insurance that are forced to pay for them.
