Health Coverage

It seems that whenever you talk with a typical person, they will gladly tell you that they are for better 'health care' in the United States. They point to the Socialist European countries, like Germany, France and the Netherlands and comment on what excellent 'health care' they have. Indeed, Democratic candidates in the United States (and some Republican ones as well) win votes by promising better 'health care' to constituents.

But this represents a misunderstanding of basic terms. What these people mean is that they will get better Health Coverage for their constituents. Germany and France have some of the best Health Coverage in the world; Health Care is a different story. Health Coverage implies how many people are insured, or can financially afford to receive medical treatment; whereas Health Care is the actual service being provided by Doctors, Nurses and Hospitals. Improved Health Care means a improved quality of the services provided by Doctors, improved Health Coverage means more people have access to the services, regardless of the quality.

While socialist nations can clearly boast of the greatest Health Coverage in the world, as a direct result they also posses some of the worst Health Care amongst all the industrialized nations. The counrty with the best Health Care in the world is the counrty that spends the most time training its Doctors. The country with the best Health Care in the world is the counrty that only lets qualified individuals provide medical services. The country with the best Health Care is the country where, in the vast majority of cases, Doctors get the diagnoses and surgeries right the first time. And most importantly the country with the best Health Care is the country that can provid Health Services on demand to those who need them most, when they need them the most. The country with the best Health Care in the world is the United States.

Sure they have better Health Coverage in Canada, but they also have to wait 12 weeks just to get an MRI. Sure German Physicians have cheaper costs than American Physicians, but their surgeons haven't had 12 years of intensive, pre-job training. And sure France can get all of their citizens to the Doctor, but it takes them so long that thousands died of a heat stroke a few years back, just because they had to wait to get in a hospital when they really needed (fairly basic) treatment. (American Hospitals would have been sued out of buisness if that had happened here.)

So the bottom line is this: Quality Health Care is much more important than Health Coverage because quite frankly, without good Care, Coverage means nothing.

Supreme Court

I have to be honest. I was dissappointed when George W Bush nominated John Roberts to be the next Chief Justice. Not that I don't like Roberts; but I would have loved to have seen Chief Justice Scalia. Don't you just like the ring that has to it? I mean, a man with the full confidence of Ronald Reagan, and who has proven, over the years, to understand the law as it was meant to be, would clearly make an excellent leader for the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, I am excited about Roberts' selection, and I am happy to see that he will soon be confirmed, minus the typical hoopla that the Democratic Party likes to create for these types of situations. I think that he will be an excellent Cheif Justice for many years to come. In fact, I expect him to be straight from the William Rehnquist mold. For starters, there is the fact that he clerked for Rehnquist, and thus, perhaps much of his Judicial Philsophy will have been influenced by the late Chief Justice. Also, his work for the preservation of States Rights' during the Reagan Administration is worthy of note. This is perhaps one of the most important indications that he will run a court similar to that of his predecessor.

As for the many allegations against him, none seem to really have any validity. Many seem to think he will revert back to 1950's style anti - Civil Rights notions. However, the only way this would happen is if he turns out to be a Liberal Justice. If you are still naive enough to think that Republicans are the racist Party, you may not get that joke. As for N.O.W and other liberal organizations that are afraid he will overturn Roe vs. Wade, I sincerely hope that their worst fears come true.

Intrestingly enough, a few on the Right are concerned that Roberts will be the next David Souter. (Ann Coulter being one of the most noteworthy) After more than enough suprises on SCOTUS and other Court nominees, their concerns are not to be overloked. However, I believe it is in the interest of these few to trust President Bush's judgement, more so than that of his father, and to realize that this is an incredibly intelligent man with a great respect for the law and an understanding of its History. It is highly unlikely that he will become another Souter.

The bottom line for me is this: I expect good things out of C.J. John Roberts and expect to see him as a respectable legal prescence for many years to come.

Two Issues from Katrina

Now that the process of rebuilding has begun in New Orleans, two of the most prevalent things in the media are the massive price tag of the Congressional rebuilding effort and of course, the effect it has had on President Bush's poll numbers. To me they are really two separate issues so I will deal with them as such.

First, to rebuild the City of New Orleans the Bush Administration has proposed $200 billion worth of total aid, in the form of a whole variety of things. To be perfectly honest this amount is not only too much, but too soon. Quickly following the disaster House Speaker Dennis Hastert caught a lot of flack for saying that "it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars rebuilding a city that’s seven feet underwater," but there is value in his comments. While certainly it would be almost impossible to not rebuild New Orleans, as it is a city steeped in history and the residence of some 1.2 million people, it is plausible to ask if the entire city is indeed safe for human living.

Should we really let people live in all parts of the city? Are there places, further below sea level than others, that simply are to high-risk to live in? These are answers that I don't have (and that apparently no one does) but that need to be answered before we just send people back in to rebuild. We have to make sure that where those New Oleanders are living is a safe place for them to live, one that can be protected by the levees and other means. And we especially need to answer these sorts of questions BEFORE we spend $200 billion.

As for the actual amount, I do not claim to be the one who knows if this is truly an appropriate amount of cash to overcome the tragedy on the Gulf Coast. Although I must say, by the looks of it, the sum appears to be quite large and excessive. Prior to Katrina, the most costly Hurricane was Andrew, which devastated Southeastern Florida in 1992. That cost $25 billion. Certainly Katrina will be much more than that, perhaps even two or three times as much; but surely not 8 times as much. In fact, at landfall, Andrew was a stronger Hurricane (cat. 5 vs cat. 4) and it hit a more densely populated area. While New Orleans was much more vulnerable, it seems clear to me that Katrina should not cost an astronomical amount more than Andrew did.

Now, the second issue: Bush's poll numbers. CNN.com reported that on September 10th Bush's approval rating dipped to a new low of 39%. This simply makes me laugh. First of all, they don't matter AT ALL, because Bush is not going to be reelected, and in all likelihood will retire after he leaves the White House. Clearly he has a responsibility to the country as President, but he is not doing anything illegal, or anything worthy of a rebellion. Furthermore, just because some Conservative Congressmen disagree with Bush on this issue doesn't mean they will hold hands with Ted Kennedy all the way to an impeachment trial.

Second, if you really trust poll numbers then I can perhaps negotiate a deal to sell you a mountain house in the Florida Keys. Seriously, polls typically include about a five percent more Democrats than Republicans. Furthermore, they don't tend to be accurate. At the end of October 2004, a few days prior to the election Bush's approval rating, and the expected percent of votes he would get in the election, was 45%. In case you missed it that number was off by 6%.

Third, while many Conservatives disagree with Bush on this issue of rebuilding New Orleans, that doesn't mean they don't like him overall. I disagree with Bush on this issue, and on others, such as immigration, but I still think that between his handling of the War on Terror and his efforts to create a remarkable economy, he has been a good President. Mark you he is no Reagan or Lincoln, but still not bad. Indeed, come to think of it, during his first term, Lincoln's approval rate wasn't so great either, half the country hated him so much they seceded from the Union ;-)

Diplomacy at Mis-work

In light of the new 'agreement' with North Korea, the New York Times has taken to criticizing the Bush Administration for not being diplomatic and resorting to "name-calling" and other "confrontational tactics" in past negotiations with North Korea. They presume the President will be shocked that "Diplomacy..[works] after all." But perhaps the most telling line is when they become almost nostalgic that the Bush administration "has rediscovered the safeguards and rewards of peaceful international diplomacy in general and this vital treaty in particular."

First and foremost, I will believe the 'treaty' when I see it in action. Not when they say they've disarmed or not when UN inspectors say they have disarmed; when American Military experts are allowed into North Korea and give the okay, that is when I will believe what is coming out of Pyongyang. In fact they have already requested an Atomic Energy Reactor. I assume they want to use this for 'energy reasons' just like Iran. So before the New York Times gives Condi Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill accolades for "serious negotiation" lets see what we 'seriously' get from it.

As for Bush's past "confrontational tactics," let's just say Serious Dictators never listen to 'Serious Diplomacy'. In fact, I distinctly remember serious attempts at diplomacy in 1938, treaties, in fact, that resulted in "Peace in [thier] Time." (Not to mention one of the Greatest Fools ever to be British PM.) Besides, scare tactics work more often than not; and we're looking for results here, not a good grade in International Manners class.

Furthurmore, its not like President Bush doesn't try diplomacy, he did on more than one occasion with Saddam, he just doesn't try it absurdly. When diplomacy accomplishes the proper end, it is the best and preferred option. However, this is often not the case, and President Bush has, quite frankly, exhibited a very good understanding of this, as he seems to know when to give up on dimplomacy and resort to Force.

To be perfectly frank, "the importance of international agreements" is absolutely none if there is no force or threat in place to back them up. And thats what We're here for. That what Bush, or more specifically The United States, does in this world: We keep the peace. Bush's beefing up of National Security and War on Terror are not his "discounting" of International Treaties, they're his strengthening of them. Fighting for Peace and stability is not a new drill in this great Country.
So in the future, after this current North Korea agreement falls through, when Bush resorts to 'threatening' tactics, remember, he's doing it for the Good of the whole World.

Seriously

Enough from Mayor Nagin

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the American public has heard a lot from New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. Most of it has been complaining from the steps of City Hall, or affirming on TV that President Bush and F.E.M.A screwed his city (Isn't it odd that he has so much time to make those apperances when half of his city is underwater). Most recently, he has decided to let folks back into New Orleans, even when the Federal Authorities told him that it was not safe. Fourtunately, the potential arrival of Tropical Storm Rita has convinced him otherwise.

But isn't it time he shut up? Or that someone else shut him up? Since Hurricane Warnings were issued for the Gulf Coast, the Mayor has done absolutely NOTHING commendable. He has been the very antithesis of a leader. He neglected entirely his cities evacuation plan. He failed to cooperate and communicate with Federal and State officials. He allowed lawlessness to run rampant in his City without seeming to care that much. And now he has, albeit briefly, tried to place his citizens back in harms way against the recommendations of the Federal Authorities.

Quite simply, Mayor Nagin needs to go on vacation. That new home he just bought in Dallas would be a good start. Or maybe somewhere in that $10 billion in aid we can find a few $1,000 to help him take his family to Colorado. Then, while Nagin is on a 'excused leave of absence' we can find someone much more compotent and acceptable to be his temporary replacement. Maybe Jeb Bush, who has proven time and time again his ability to handle these situations, can double as Florida Gov and New Orleans Mayor. Hell for that matter, anyone with appropriate leadership skills would be great, or for that matter, just anyone more competent than Nagin would be a good start.

And I'm not saying this to be racist, or unfair; clearly there is more than enough blame to go around, much could be levied at Gov. Blanco for example. But the honest to God truth is that New Orleans, more so than any other area, needs a compotent and admirable leader RIGHT NOW, and Nagin has not, or cannot it seems, provide such leadership. And the losers in this situation are of course the innocent victims who live in New Orleans. They actually dealt with this storm and didn't get the help they needed, and still aren't. A new Mayor only makes thier lives better.

So maybe its time that Bush does intervene in an extreme way. Maybe he should do what Nagin has been howling at him to do since Mike Brown 'failed' as F.E.M.A director; and that is to put competent people in charge of the recovery effort. And the President can start right at the top, with Mayor Nagin. At least then something good will be coming out of New Orleans City Hall.