State of the Union

Well, it's been a long while since I espoused my unsolicited thoughts out to the public via the magic of the Internet, so I thought another installment was appropriate. Certainly, there is no shortage of interesting fodder for me to delve into. Here it goes.

President Obama -

A few things need to be cleared up about our President.

White people do not [overwhelmingly] hate President Obama, but sadly, black people do seem to overwhelmingly love him. I say "sadly" because I believe the sentiment is often based more on rhetoric and [yes] race, instead of results, and perceived ability and sincerity as it should be. White people elected him President in the first place, so I feel the argument that there is mass hatred within white circles towards him to be patently ridiculous. There will always be extremists on both sides of the political fence, but they represent a relative small portion of the populace yet they get entirely too much attention. As for me, I admire our President as a man, but have not seen anything too spectacular from him yet as a President. As a master orator, he built up a considerable amount of hype during his campaign [even for a politician] and now I need to see some results. I don't doubt that they are forthcoming, and I am also aware and realistic about how much any one man can accomplish on his own. Accordingly, one of the main jobs of any President is to garner support amongst disparate groups and make things happen. President Obama appears to be doing just that with healthcare reform, which is the subject of my next rant.

Healthcare Reform -

This is a hot topic, so it's a good thing I don't generally care what people might think about my positions. After all, I'm just a guy with a blog. I'm not running for any office. Humor aside, [yes, that was my best attempt at humor] here are some of my thoughts on the subject.

I think we can all agree that healthcare in America needs some work. Costs are out of control and even those with "good insurance" can find the red tape burdensome and end up receiving what amounts to poor care. Cheap and easy access to an MD is not the same as good healthcare. That's good insurance coverage, but the actual quality of the care is a completely separate issue. To achieve good care we need to make sure our MD's are qualified and not over-burdened with restrictions on what they can and cannot do. They should also not be pressured or enticed to prescribe certain medications over others that may be chemically identical yet more affordable. Finally, they should have reasonable patient loads and work schedules.

I don't believe the government has a legitimate role in any of this. Private industry should be allowed to do what it does best, spur competition. As we now appear to be on the brink of some major changes in our healthcare system, it concerns me that our government wants to basically broker coverage for millions of Americans. Government need only apply reasonable competitive regulation to the healthcare industry, just as it would with any other industry. There will always be some folks who simply cannot afford or obtain the coverage they need. But this is the case with any valuable resource, and it is the role of charitable institutions, clergy, family etc to address this, not the government. It is important to remember that every dollar the government gives to one person must be forcibly taken from another. There are situations where this is necessary, but it should be minimized at all costs since it can [if taken too far] kill the incentive for hard work and creativity that have historically fueled the American way of life. I recently spent some time reviewing our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe our founding fathers would be appalled by the current over-reaching policies of our government.

The Media-

This is perhaps a little light compared to the above material, but what has happened to the mainstream media? First there were serious network news broadcasts. Then came the gossip magazines, which eventually found their way onto the screen as well. Finally, there came the national and International news behemoths such as CNN. But today, even though all three of these categories ostensibly exist, their content is virtually indistinguishable. We tune in to ABC's World News Tonight only to be updated on the latest exploits of Bradd and Angelina alongside the current events in the Middle East. What has happened? Well, there are only so many sets of eyeballs in America, and most of them have a limited amount of time they can devote to TV altogether, let alone a generally dull news broadcast. The onset of Cable TV has created far too many choices for the marketplace. If this dissolution of the market were not enough, there is also the looming threat of the almighty Internet.

Despite what you may think, all television [except that which is publicly funded] is about ratings. To the execs, a news broadcast is no different than a sitcom. It has to put butts in seats and eyeballs on screens, so that advertisers will continue to purchase time on the station. Knowing this, TV execs have learned that their shows must "pop" to grab the interest of the fleeting American attention span. And so, just as actual sports has given way to the abomination euphemistically known as "sports-entertainment," so the serious newscasts of yesteryear have taken on the characteristics of their tabloid underlings. What we now have is a system that delivers what they think people will want to know about, not necessarily what they believe to be important for people to know about.

As always, I have much more to say, but I think this should suffice for one installment. Please keep in mind that these are only my opinions. An opinion, by definition, cannot be wrong, although it can be ill-informed and thus unworthy of serious consideration. I try to assemble a good general understanding of the issues I discuss so that [agree or disagree] your time will not have been wasted here. Thanks for reading. I welcome your comments.