HEALTH INSURANCE BILLERS REFUSE TO GO QUIETLY

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA ON BEHALF OF ALL PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE BILLING PROFESSIONALS NATIONWIDE

Dear President Obama,

For months now, my colleagues and I have watched you with trepidation. We watched as you and your Democratic majority in Congress rammed through a health care reform bill that threatens to upend Americans' control over their lives. Although Scott Brown's amazing Senate victory in Massachusetts promises hope for the future, we nonetheless feel it necessary to voice our concerns as Americans and health care professionals.

During your State of the Union Address last night, you vowed to continue the fight to reform health care in America. You said that millions of Americans remain uninsured. You declared that "private health insurance companies" reap "massive" profits while "common people" struggle to pay inflated bills. You claimed that privately-administered health insurance is the reason why America fell into a "health care crisis." You even suggested that America must move closer toward government-run health care to curb the influence of insurance companies and lobbyists.

Mr. President, you are gravely mistaken. Government is never the answer. Only private enterprise can deliver quality goods and services to Americans at reasonable prices. Only vigorous competition between rival economic interests can ensure the innovation Americans expect from any industry. Just because the health care industry deals in human illness does not make it different from any other business enterprise. People who work in health care need incentives like anyone else. If government starts meddling in health care, doctors might not earn what they deserve. Inventors might not enjoy the protection they need to profitably guard their discoveries. And every day Americans will certainly lose the cherished freedom to choose where to seek health care. As Americans committed to liberty, we find this appalling.

But health care reform will not just destroy liberty. Health care reform will also destroy jobs. Mr. President, our American health care system works because it runs like a well-oiled business machine. Like any good business, the American health care system has great accountants. Everyone pays what they owe; no expense ever falls through the cracks. This encourages both responsibility and financial discipline. Americans know that they must pay for everything they receive in a hospital or at a doctor's visit. That encourages them to be judicious in seeking medical care, as well as to make prudent economic decisions when addressing their health care needs. Health care is a consumer product in America. And stringent health care billing practices are the reason why American health care is so good.

Health care reform will curtail private health care opportunities. If the government intervenes to pay medical bills, there will be little need for private health care insurance billing professionals. If government suddenly steps in and says: "This man has diabetes. We are handling his care and paying the bill," that man will not receive a private bill. Consequently, there will be little need for hospitals and insurance companies to employ hundreds of accountants, actuaries and typists to draft thousand-page itemized bills for every patient. Yet thousand-page itemized bills are precisely the things that make the American health care system so wonderful. Thousand-page itemized bills make the health care world go around in America. If health care reform succeeds, thousand-page itemized bills will become unnecessary. And so will the millions of American workers who make them possible.

We are Private Health Insurance Billing Professionals. We refuse to allow President Obama to destroy our jobs. We refuse to allow Obama-Care to eradicate our livelihoods. We refuse to stop itemizing charges for 5g of hospital pudding on 4/3/08 ($459.90), 30cc of Titrium Chloride on 4/4/08 ($1,983.08), one night, hospital room (standard special rate) on 4/4/08 ($7,000), and lower rhomboidal surgery plus anesthesia on 4/5/08 ($497,632.26). We went to school to do what we do. Billing is not easy. Yet it is essential to run any business, including the American health care business.

Mr. President, screw your health reform. As professional health billers, we say now: "Hell no, we won't go." If health reform means giving up our Excel® spreadsheets and expense logging software, we say: "Hell to the naw-naw, mah niz-aw."

Leave us alone. We are productive American workers. We stay up for days at a time tabulating hospital meal costs, hospital linen charges, surgery costs, financing charges for doctor visits and outpatient anesthesiology service payment schedules. We even tack on progressive interest rates for all this shit. We do not have an easy job. But we receive good wages and we pay good taxes. We support families on the wages we receive from sending angry collection letters to penniless amputees. We send children to school on the cash we receive for mailing book-sized bills to destitute underinsured cancer victims. And our taxes help keep this Nation strong. How dare you introduce reform that threatens our jobs?

Mr. President, you must not reform health care because reform impacts private health insurance billing professionals. American life is all about paying bills. Some even say that the meaning of life in this country is making timely monthly payments on this, that and the other thing. If you attack health insurance billing, you attack the very meaning of life in America. Where would Americans be if they no longer had to fret over insurmountable medical bills? What reason would they have to live? Health care bills dominate American lives. If your "reform efforts" sweep them away, you will open a tragic void in every American's life.

What good will flow from that void? After all, bills keep Americans honest. It keeps them at work. It keeps them responsible. If Americans no longer live to fear bills, they will lose all respect for authority. They will no longer look for employment. They will begin leading debauched, wasteful lives. Only bills maintain order in our society. Think seriously on it, Mr. President. Any effort that reduces the influence of bills on Americans chips away at our country's very core.

And any effort that eliminates bills means that important people don't get paid. When that happens, God help us: I quake to think what a radiologist would do if he knew he would no longer receive $925,000 a year due to "health care reform." Radiologists are not schmucks. As a Nation, we cannot allow radiologists to receive a meager $800,000 a year for their work.

Stop disrespecting professionals. We are private health care billing professionals. We might not be as important as radiologists, but we are nonetheless professionals. We learned how to meticulously track fees and expenses. We even read textbooks, listened to lectures and took exams. We went to school and we learned how to bill like pros. We don't deserve unemployment for our toil and study. No, we deserve a place in the economy. More to the point, we deserve a hallowed place because our efforts keep every American responsible. Our work reminds every American that there are no free lunches in this country. In fact, we remind every American that every little piece of the lunch has a specific price--and they need to pay every penny to avoid financial ruin.

Mr. President, we urge you to scrap health care reform at once. It makes no sense to sacrifice America's commitment to responsible free market principles in order to grant charity hospital stays to a few stinking beggars. More pragmatically, it makes no sense to destroy the private health insurance billing profession. Professions are valuable; government should support them, not destroy them. And our profession is much more significant than most people realize. Without us, no doctor would get paid and no American would fear bills.

For a moment, think about how dangerous our society would be if every American suddenly stopped worrying about bills. It is too terrifying to even consider. That is why you must abandon health care reform once and for all.

Defend private health insurance billers. We remind every American that everything has a price. We keep every American fixed on his duty: Paying prices. The next time you get a thousand-page bill for a two-day hospital stay, thank us. We are actually doing you a favor by maintaining the American economic system as we know it. And you have to admit: It's pretty damn good.

That's because everyone fears bills and works to pay them. You can thank professional billers for that.

Mr. President, forget about reform. Think about jobs and responsibility for once. Enough with the justice rhetoric. Americans don't want hope. They want accurate bills, secure services and competitive prices.

Think about your poll numbers. If you really want to be popular again, drop this foolish health care crusade. Give power back to the private health insurance billers. It is the only way to save America's economic soul.

Yours very sincerely and truly,

Prof. Gabriella F. Trackett-Goode, B.S. (Health Care Billing Systems)

Assistant Professor, Medical Accounting & Billing Science
Amboy Community College, Perth Amboy Twp., N.J.

Consultant, The Bayer Group LLC (a Fortune 100 Company Specializing in Effective Billing Strategies for the Pharmaceutical Industry)

WE CAN SOLVE AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS WITH EDUCATION AND PRIVATE LENDING

ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS FROM GREAT MINDS

By : Dr. T. Everett Branwell, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.O.G., D.V.M., M.B.A., C.P.A., President and Charter Member, Paying Customers United for Quality Health Care; Chairman and CEO, Gastro-Tech Intestinal Scanning Instruments LLC (a Delaware Limited Liability Company); Married; Hospital Cost-Control Consultant; Amateur Dog Breeder.

America hungers for a miraculous solution to the health care mess. For more than a year now, we have watched President Obama struggle to balance the myriad forces bearing upon this issue. For more than a year now, we have seen little improvement: Millions remain uninsured; malpractice lawyers game the system with frivolous suits; surgery still costs an arm and leg (in more ways than one); and health care costs are still driving this country to financial ruin. Although Congress wisely avoided committing America to a wasteful European-style "public option" in its recent health care legislation, the bill leaves many questions unanswered. In a word, it is no solution.

We will not rescue healthcare without solutions that reinforce American virtues. Handouts and subsidies will not get the job done. Neither will government programs that interfere with private decisionmaking. Rather, we must attack the problem directly while cultivating self-reliance and respect for private enterprise. Government can do no job that a private person cannot do better. I trust the American people. And I know that an ambitious American can achieve anything he sets out to accomplish.

We must start from square one. Health care fails in America primarily because there are not enough doctors. Costs rose to astronomical levels because doctors are in limited supply, yet demand for their services is higher than ever. As any economics student can tell you, that's a recipe for runaway prices. The bottom line is this: You need doctors to provide healthcare; and there aren't enough doctors to provide it to everyone who needs it. Add the facts that Americans live longer, weigh more and exercise less and you soon discover how grave this crisis really is.

In a typical scenario, an American gets sick. He spends days waiting for the right doctor to see him. He cannot work during that time. He worries whether he will recover. In essence, he must be passive; he must wait for the doctor to help him. This is not good for the economy or the Nation. We need more doctors so that sick people can recover faster. If there were a doctor right around the corner, this poor man would receive immediate attention and get back to work sooner.

So how do we create more doctors? Simple: By education. Doctors do not grow on trees; they must be trained. But this is not a drawback; it is an opportunity. Education is good for America. Because doctors depend on education, we can address the health care problem through education. I care about America. I care about education. I care about health care. That is why I have devised a foolproof solution that will harmonize all these things.

We can rescue healthcare in America by requiring all Americans to become doctors. If everyone were a doctor, no one would have to go to the hospital or take time off work. Instead, sick people would be able to care for themselves. If a man breaks his leg, he could set the bone himself, administer anesthesia to himself, keep a detailed treatment log for himself, administer physical therapy to himself, write his own prescriptions and be back on his feet in no time. And he could do all this without depending on others: No wait times, no insurance forms, no missed work. If he encountered a problem in treatment, he could always call on his wife, children or parents, all of whom, too, would have the medical expertise needed to heal him. Put simply, mandatory medical education would render virtually every health care dilemma moot.

We understand that it takes a long time to become a doctor. Many people shy away from careers in medicine because they do not want to stay in school until they are 40 and stay awake for 24 hours several nights a week. But we have seen what happens when our society does not have enough doctors. Our health care system fails because doctors cannot handle all the sick people in an expeditious manner. If everyone becomes a doctor, however, these problems will instantly disappear. Yes, it is a significant investment. But in the end, it will solve the health care mess.

Still, we can only achieve this happy result through a complete educational overhaul. We must finance every American's medical education, and that will cost a lot of money. Yet we must never underestimate the strength of American private enterprise. As long as we provide sufficient incentives to private enterprise in America, we can expect miracles. By the same token, if we leave substantial questions in government hands, we can expect disasters. In that light, we must put our faith in the free market to deliver quality medical education to every American. Just as mandatory medical education will breed self-reliance in the population, so too will private educational financing teach fiscal responsibility to every American.

To realize the dream of universal American medical education, we must require every American to take out private educational loans. At the same time, we must abolish government-backed educational loans in order to maximize private competition in lending. We will not achieve our educational goals by stifling healthy free market activity; banks cannot do their work if they are not free to charge as much interest as they wish on student loans. In that light, we also must insist that every American pay only interest on their student loans in perpetuity. This will allow banks to constantly increase their outstanding balances, thereby increasing their income and maximizing their shareholder revenues. When banks prosper, so does America. Thus, mandatory private financing for mandatory medical education will kill two birds with one stone: It will solve the health care crisis by making everyone a doctor; and it will also reward healthy private banking.

The solution is obvious.

Critics will inevitably counter that America requires employment diversity to survive in the 21st Century. Specifically, they say that doctors are not the only profession that Americans need. According to these critics, Americans need mechanics, lawyers, steelworkers, coffee shop baristas, taxi drivers, cashiers, plumbers, nude dancers, ditch diggers, soldiers, politicians, toilet cleaners, peddlers and stockbrokers, too.

We do not disagree. Our critics do not understand what we mean when we say "universal medical education." We do not mean that everyone must stop their educational pursuits as soon as they become doctors. We simply mean that everyone must at least be a doctor before undertaking another profession. This is the only way that Americans can truly achieve medical self-sufficiency. In other words, once a man becomes a doctor, he is free to learn donutmaking or some other craft. We understand that Americans need donutmakers as much as they need doctors. But under our plan, a medically-educated donutmaker will have the knowledge to care for his own medical problems, rather than depend on someone else if his health fails. We agree that America needs other professions. We simply insist that everyone must at least be a doctor.

We actually encourage Americans to pursue educational goals beyond medicine. After all, when everyone is a doctor, salaries for doctors will inevitably decrease. That will require enterprising Americans to find novel new ways to make money. Once again, private enterprise will light the way: Banks stand ready to provide private loans to any doctor who wishes to learn another trade.

Mandatory medical education is right for America in many ways. It will not only solve the intractable financial problems associated with health care. It will also teach virtue. This country rose to preeminence because Americans are self-sufficient. The health care mess developed because too many Americans were not self-sufficient. But those days will end as soon as every American becomes a doctor. On that day, Americans will treat their own diseases; they will not need anyone else to help them. In our view, this will reinforce the gritty determination that made America great in the first place.

Sickness and injury will no longer signal desperation and worry. To the contrary, a medically-educated American will confront them with defiance. "I have HIV? Pah, I can treat myself for it," he will say. And he won't owe anyone else a dime for things he can handle himself.

We must implement mandatory medical education at once. It is the only way to extricate ourselves from the health care money pit in which we now find ourselves. It is the best possible way to overcome this crisis. It offers nothing but benefits. It fosters respect for education; that's good for America. It teaches self-reliance; that's good for America. It teaches fiscal responsibility; that's good for America. It supports private enterprise; that's good for America. And it does all these things without government interference; and that's definitely good for America.

Americans are individuals. They can do anything as long as they know what they are doing. It's time to harness that spirit to solve health care. It's time to make everyone a doctor.

True, every new doctor will emerge into the world saddled with debt. But that will just be an incentive to work harder and better. Debt is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a very good thing for banks. And when banks prosper, so does America.

Tell your Congressman that you can handle your own medical problems. You can be your own surgeon. You don't need Congress or President Obama to bail you out.

Mandatory medical education. It's the only way. The American way.®

RETHINKING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT : LET'S JUST BLOW THEM UP

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Mr. Henry B. Henker, Esq., Legal Counsel to the Office of the Prosecutor, Austin, Texas (2006- present); Former Commercial Litigator, Henker, Haudegen & Daggett, LLP, a Fortune 250 Law Firm Specializing in Complex Financing Transactions (1994-2006); Contributing Author, Humanity Weekly (1987-present); Charter Donation Manager, UNICEF (1986-1997); Annual Keynote Speaker, The Dignity Association of Eastern Texas (1990-2003); Christian; Humanitarian; Married; Republican.

Capital punishment evokes strong emotions in America. Many Americans believe that States should not execute convicted criminals. Others believe that dangerous felons deserve to die for certain outrageous offenses. Still others believe that capital punishment should be applied on a wider basis against all kinds of criminals, from credit card scammers to double parkers. But no matter where we stand on the issue, capital punishment requires us to grapple with momentous issues involving State power, individual rights, liberty, dignity and history.

No one can really debate that the State has power over life and death. Western law functions on the premise that the sovereign decides who lives and who dies. When the American colonies broke from England in 1776, that sovereign power descended to the States. The States, in turn, yielded some of that power to the new Federal government. Still, the State's power to allow life and proclaim death remained intact. States executed people in 1776 and they execute people today. No one can really contend that the sovereign right to kill lawbreakers is "new." In fact, it is as about traditional a power as you can find in our system. Even our Constitution says that both the States and the Federal government have the power to "deprive life" as long as they afford Due Process of law. See, e.g, U.S. Const. Amendments V; XIV § 1.

Nonetheless, it is silly to think we have not changed as a people since 1776. We have electricity and cars now. We have the internet and movie theaters. We have even changed the way we think about core issues in our democracy. For instance, we allow women to vote now. We freed the slaves in 1863 and we enacted Civil Rights laws in 1964. These things would have been unheard-of in our forefathers' time. Simply put, our society is constantly evolving. In that light, it is only natural that we have begun to think differently about capital punishment, too.

At the outset, we must remember that Americans like to punish criminals. When a criminal commits a shocking offense against public sensibilities, we like to see him suffer. How else would we affirm our commitment to law if we did not harshly punish those who break it? How else would we express our common morality and decency if we did not harshly punish those who act immorally and indecently? Additionally, criminal punishment is revenge, and revenge is natural. When some vagrant kills our spouse, it is only natural to want to kill him, too. In this sense, capital punishment both upholds the law and quenches our natural thirst for revenge. Thankfully, killing criminals also prevents them from killing again. And it sends a message to would-be killers that they, too, will die if they try anything cute.

Still, we respect human dignity in America, too. In the past, we used to hang criminals by the neck until dead. In 1676, our English forebears even disemboweled a traitor alive then carved him up in Rhode Island. Until the 19th Century, we even publicly displayed executed criminals until the crows picked them clean. For better or worse, we decided as a society that such execution methods expressed insufficient respect for the criminal's dignity. Although these methods legitimately fulfilled the State's right to punish criminals, we decided that we were too humane to subject our fellow citizens to such horrible pain before death.

As Americans, we believe in dignity and humanity. Although we have no tolerance for criminals, we are progressive people. When we execute people today, we ensure that we use only the most humane methods possible. Lethal injection represents our society's balance between respect for law and respect for a criminal's dignity. In theory, lethal injection simply extinguishes life without inflicting additional pain or terror on the criminal. Once the chemicals flow into the criminal's body, he simply loses consciousness and justice is done.

For decades now, our society has largely accepted lethal injection. Many Americans are comfortable in the knowledge that lethal injection both adequately punishes lawbreakers while maintaining their dignity and ensuring our own humanity. After all, we do not butcher people anymore; we simply "put them to sleep," just like unwanted animals. This is humane. True, it does not make for a very satisfying spectacle. But it adequately strikes a balance between law enforcement and individual dignity.

Or so it seems. Recent research suggests that lethal injection may not be as dignified or humane as we once believed. After all, current protocols for lethal injection involve three discrete drugs: One sedates the criminal, the second paralyzes him and the third terminates heart and pulmonary function. Death does not occur until the third dose. We cannot know whether the prisoner suffers while tranquilized or paralyzed; after all, the paralytic agent renders it impossible for him to speak or move. It is entirely conceivable that he is writhing in horrible agony before paramedics administer the final dose. Furthermore, there are many documented cases in which death does not occur for more than two hours after the initial dose. There are even more cases in which paramedics cannot locate suitable veins for intravenous linkage. Sometimes the intravenous connections are faulty, causing corrosive chemicals to flow under the prisoner's skin, prolonging the procedure. That, in turn, prolongs the agony and anxiety. Put simply, lethal injection may not be as humane and dignified as we like to believe.

But there is a solution to these problems. As a society, we can reaffirm our commitment to law and dignity by simply blowing up convicted criminals with explosives.

Explosives would solve many of the nagging problems associated with lethal injection. By strapping four pounds of C4 plastic explosive to a convicted criminal, we can assure a quick and relatively painless death. Once detonated, the explosives will literally tear the offender apart in a heartbeat. Unlike lethal injection, it will not take hours for the offender to die. In one instant, the prisoner gets blown to pieces: There he is; there he goes. Done. That resolves the deeply problematic issues surrounding unnecessary pain and suffering in the lethal injection procedure. I mean, it can't really hurt to get vaporized, can it? You don't really have to time to reflect on it. It's just: BAM! Game Over. In my view, that reflects admirable concern for the prisoner's dignity and humanity: It is humane to blow people up.

Explosive executions offer many advantages over lethal injection and other methods. There is no way to botch an explosive execution. No one can survive four pounds of C4. And if the detonator fails, nothing happens. A technician can easily replace the detonator and get on with the show. This eliminates the troublesome medical issues relating to lethal injection. After all, doctors would be best suited to ensure that a person dies from lethal injection. Yet doctors' Hippocratic oath prevents them from participating in executions. This increases the likelihood of a botched execution. With explosive executions, however, you don't need doctors. You just need a guy to press a button. That is not very technical, and it certainly does not require 10 years of medical school to get it right. Even a high-school dropout can push a button. Hell, even a dog can.

Despite these advantages, there are some drawbacks to explosive executions. For one, they are messy. No one likes clean-up. Blowing up a person scatters shredded clothing, intestines, bone fragments, burned hair, eyeballs, fingers and charred kneecaps all over the place. Additionally, it scalds the room and deposits blood-crusted soot over a considerable radius. It takes time to clean up such a mess; plus it smells unpleasant. Not only that, but it also can be difficult to assemble the prisoner's remains for burial. It is much easier to bury a prisoner executed by lethal injection. You just unstrap him from the gurney and throw him in a pine box. But not so for a criminal executed by explosives. You need to spend twelve hours scouring through wreckage for burned pieces. That's neither fun nor dignified.

Explosive executions also require different witness accommodations than those appropriate for lethal injections. It would be both impracticable and dangerous to allow witnesses to watch an explosive execution from the room next door. To effectively and safely blow up a criminal, witnesses would have to watch remotely, perhaps by closed-circuit television. Additionally, the execution chamber would have to be significantly larger than chambers used to conduct lethal injections. Detonating explosives requires space; and many prisons do not have much extra space on hand. In that light, States would have to either build large new exploding chambers or conduct explosive executions outdoors. The first alternative would be quite expensive. The second would be somehow inappropriate. And both would deny witnesses the chance to get close to the execution scene. For better or worse, witnesses traditionally enjoy looking their tormentors in the eye before they die. That will not be possible in explosive executions.

We acknowledge these drawbacks to explosive executions. On balance, however, we conclude that explosives reflect a much better way to execute criminals than lethal injection. Although it will cost money to construct new exploding chambers, we believe it will prove a valuable investment given their ultimate benefits. And although witnesses have an interest in watching criminals suffer up close, we must remember that capital punishment is about the prisoner and the State: Witnesses are secondary. In a word, explosive executions fulfill both the prisoner's interest in a quick, painless death and the State's interest in punishing crime. Blowing criminals up is simply the most efficacious manner currently available. The fact that explosive executions are dignified and humane only increases their appeal for State governments nationwide.

We also acknowledge that victims and their families have an interest in securing justice for their pain. We understand that victims and their families want to see their tormentors suffer in the same way they suffered. We understand that victims and their families might worry that blowing up a criminal might be "going too easy" on them. After all, if a murderer slowly flayed a child to death with a scalpel, it might seem unfair to reward him with an instantaneous, explosive end.

We know how much victims matter. But we suggest that blowing up a criminal is quite satisfying, even if it is quick. True, victims and their families will have to watch the criminal explode by television. But it is amazing what modern-day camera techniques can show. Victims and their families not only get to hear the big BANG of the initial blast, but will also be able to watch slow motion instant replays of the criminal exploding from various angles. They will also receive complimentary Blu-Ray discs featuring all footage associated with the execution, including commentary, production notes and a musical score.

Considering these advantages, we believe that explosive executions will please victims and their families, despite their limited duration. On the whole, then, explosive executions will please everyone: The State, the victims and the prisoner.

It is an easy choice. We must start blowing up criminals immediately.

MORALITY FIRST : MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IS DISGUSTING AND MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS

By : Dr. G. Strong Wacker, M.D., M.P.H.; Commissioner, The National Board for Family Health (1998-present); Physician (Urological Reconstruction & Urethral Science); Member, The Morality First League for Equal Protection Under Law (1993-present); Theater-Goer; Amateur Florist & Gardener; Senior Coordinator, Zac Efron Fan Club (San Francisco Branch)(2006-present).

In 2004, President George W. Bush made a concerted effort to ban gay marriage. Although Congress did not amend the Constitution to forever prohibit men from marrying men, he made his point. In fact, Americans cared so much about the marriage issue that they reelected him President that very year. Put simply, Americans know that male homosexuality is morally wrong. Bush won reelection because he publicly declared that no male would ever make vows to another male.

But stopping gay marriage did not end the debate. George W. Bush may have saved the country from gay marriage, but he did not save the country from male homosexuality. We believe that we must prohibit all male homosexuality, not just homosexual marriage. It is not enough to stop two men from combining their finances to cheat the Internal Revenue Service. Nor is it enough to stop two men from exchanging rings and swearing fidelity to each other. No, we must go further. As a society, we must say what we all feel: “Male homosexuality is disgusting and must be stopped at all costs, no matter who dies.”

As a society, we have a right to stop disgusting behavior. Our deepest moral impulses empower us to outlaw disgusting things, including public defecation, slovenliness and grime. When behavior arouses our disgust, we have a right to suppress it. When behavior smells bad, we must punish it. After all, it is disgusting. It makes us pinch our noses, recoil and cry out: “Yuck!” No one deserves to live around foul odors and disgusting behaviors. Indeed, bad smells and immorality form the basis for all our criminal law. Male homosexuality, like public defecation, slovenliness, fraud and theft, is both disgusting and immoral. We just don’t like it. We must remove its stink from our midst, just as our earliest ancestors removed decaying carcasses from their settlements.

We don’t like male homosexuality for many reasons. First, the idea of two men groping and fondling each other makes us uncomfortable. It is just not right. It looks disgusting, too. If it appeals to you, there is something very, very badly wrong with you. Second, male homosexuality presents a public health hazard. Homosexuals are disease-ridden, promiscuous, dissolute, lustful infiltrators who spread pestilence and death through our communities. Third, male homosexuals defraud our society by wasting their reproductive capacity on furtive pleasures. Rather than commit themselves to fatherhood and childrearing, they abandon themselves to aesthetic preening, perverted flirtation and “fun.” This costs our community live births and future citizens. Fourth, male homosexuality harms children. Homosexuals ritually rape children every day; if we care about our children, we must act to stop the homosexual menace. Fifth, homosexuals have untold political influence. According to United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “[Those] who engage in homosexual conduct tend to…have high disposable income [and] they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 645-646 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Put simply, homosexuals are devious, dangerous, disgusting, harmful to children, insolent, irresponsible, wasteful and seditious. We must act now, before it is too late. Our children and our sensibilities demand swift action.

Tradition justifies our effort to stamp out homosexuality. Justice Scalia is a brilliant jurist. We take heart in his legal pronouncements concerning the homosexual menace. He has written at length about government’s traditional right not only to criminalize homosexuality, but also about society’s basic right to hate homosexuals as part of our “moral heritage:” “[] I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 644 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Justice Scalia correctly equates homosexuality with murder, polygamy and cruelty. He knows what he is talking about; he went to Harvard Law School and he has served on the United States Supreme Court since 1986. According to Justice Scalia, homosexuality is just as morally wrong as killing your neighbor or torturing a dog. As a society, we have a right to condemn such abominable outrages. We have always had a right to condemn murder, just as we have always had a right to condemn male homosexuality.

In many ways, male homosexuality is more despicable than murder. After all, some murders offend us less than others. For example, we do not condemn a man who kills his wife’s lover in a jealous rage as much as we condemn a man who carefully plots his wife’s death with equanimous efficiency. Murder does not always arouse our deepest disgust; sometimes we even look with sympathy on the killer. Male homosexuality, on the other hand, is irretrievably disgusting. Nothing mitigates anal sex between two men; it is categorically disgusting. It is so revolting that no reasonable person could ever forgive it or look upon it with sympathy. The mere idea of two naked men kissing is simply nauseating. Murder does not always arouse such deep, rancid disgust. In that light, male homosexuality deserves our strongest condemnation.

Female homosexuality, on the other hand, presents a different question. Lesbians are beautiful to behold. I feel no disgust whatsoever when I think about two naked women caressing one another. In fact, I would very much like to join in any amorous adventures between two beautiful women. Unlike male homosexuals, lesbians pose no public health hazard. They do not spread pestilence and death. They do not rape children, nor do they have unlimited resources with which to overthrow the government. They do not waste their reproductive potential; lesbians can always get pregnant at some later date.

Put simply, lesbians are neither immoral nor disgusting. On the contrary, they are beautiful, especially when they allow men like me to join them in erotic contact. I speak for every American when I say that lesbian sex is neither dangerous nor unhealthy, provided that the lesbians in question are good-looking and would allow me to join in. I would not mind looking at two hot lesbians having sex; indeed, thinking about it arouses me to some extent. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not immoral.

I am certain that Justice Scalia would agree with me about lesbians. There is nothing in our moral tradition that recoils from lesbian sex. Our moral tradition recoils from ugly penises and anuses, not appealing breasts and vaginas. Males smell. Females do not. I would not mind looking at lesbian sex. For that reason, lesbianism presents no danger to society or our children. Lesbianism is not immoral.

Only male homosexuality is immoral. It is both dangerous and unhealthy. I would not want to look at it. We have a traditional right to hate it. For these reasons, we must stand fast against male homosexuals. We must heed Justice Scalia’s advice. We must defend against their disproportionate political influence. If we relax our stance toward male homosexuals for even a moment, they will take over Congress and legalize child rape. If we relax our stance toward male homosexuals for just one moment, they could infect our entire society with venereal diseases, canker sores, rickets, scabies, herpes, cooties and parasites. If we care about morality, health and reproduction, we must sound the alarm on male homosexuality. Stopping gay marriage is not enough. That is why we, the Morality First League for Equal Protection Under Law, are committed to stopping all homosexual immorality, no matter who dies. Tradition supports us. Justice Scalia supports us. Male homosexuals are no better than murderers, polygamists and animal torturers. Plus they smell and I would not want to watch them have sex.

We cannot be tolerant when so much is at stake. It may be 2009, but male homosexuals are just as immoral and dangerous today as they were in 1500. In 1500, governments burned male homosexuals because they honestly recognized how dangerous they were. We must not allow “progressivism” to blind us to those dangers. We must merely remember that male homosexuality is disgusting. No matter how fashionable it may be to “understand” male homosexuals, we cannot forget that they engage in smelly, abominable conduct that we have a right to hate. And by “understanding” male homosexuals we play directly into their hands. As Justice Scalia pointed out, they are politically powerful. As soon as we ease the pressure on them, they will overthrow the government and institute Federal policies subsidizing child rape and debauched all-male nude beach parties. Put simply, we must stand firm against this menace. We cannot afford to be tolerant with immoral deviants, especially when—as Justice Scalia told us—they have high disposable income and disproportionate political influence.

In sum, we have a political, moral and medical duty to stamp out male homosexuality because it is disgusting. Thinking about it makes me uncomfortable and nauseous. I would probably vomit if I stumbled across two men having sex. We must implement laws that correspond to our basic moral feelings. We must outlaw male homosexuality because it arouses my disgust, just as public defecation does. Like public defecation, male homosexuality smells and presents noxious public health hazards. If we care about health, morality and our children, we must take every measure necessary to suppress male homosexuality. Tradition demands no less. Our children expect no less. We must act now before homosexual conspirators topple the government and transform the United States into a vast disco Empire led by shirtless go-go dancers.

Yet we must spare lesbians. There is nothing immoral about them. I really like to look at them. I even think about them quite a lot in my spare time.

DOCTORS SPEAK OUT ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

MEDICAL PERSPECTIVES

By : Dr. Herbert G. Butts, M.D. (Gastroenterologist Specializing in Anal Repairs & Sphincter Reconstruction); President, Union of American Physicians for Fiscal Strength, Washington, D.C.; Contributing Editor, The American Medical Journal (Finance & Insurance Section); M.B.A., The Wharton School of Business (Thesis on ‘Margin Management in Health Care’); Top 25 Donor, Radiologists for Unlimited Investment Opportunity Without Taxation (Houston, Texas).

Once again, Congress debates health care reform. Once again, our Nation’s representatives want to squander America’s treasure on wasteful programs intended to provide medical treatment to those who cannot afford private health insurance. They say they want to bring justice and humanity to a system that should care about people, not profits. They say they want to turn a new page in the history of American medicine. They have not really said how they will do this. But one thing is certain: It is going to cost a lot. And when government programs cost a lot, taxes go up. When taxes go up, people with money wind up footing the bill for those who don’t have enough.

As a physician, I welcome Congress’ efforts to reform the health care system. I support any initiative that will bring quality health care to more Americans. But there is a caveat to my support: I will not support any Congressional action that does not guarantee that every doctor will make at least $2,000,000 net annually under the new system. Put simply, doctors are trained professionals. People need us. We know how to fix damaged hearts and sew on severed limbs. We don’t work for free. And we’re not here to help. We’re here to make a living—a really good living. Congress cannot expect us to work our miracles without paying us what we deserve.

Congress must recognize that health care would be meaningless without doctors. Doctors are the only people in our society with the technical knowledge necessary to heal the sick. True, mothers from coast to coast know home remedies for sore throats and colds. But very few mothers know how to anaesthetize their children, draw up detailed charts documenting their health in illegible handwriting, drape them in the customary supine manner, monitor their heart rate then perform precise anal surgery on them with laser equipment. Mothers may be able to cure a mild flu with chicken broth and bed rest. But only we can excise anal cancer polyps or save their children from massive head trauma. No spices, orange peels or herb soups will stop a cerebral hemorrhage. For that, you need a doctor. When the chips are really down, you need us.

Yet many Americans—including dangerous liberal Democrats in Congress—think that we doctors entered our profession because we truly want to relieve suffering. They think we perform anal examinations on 700-pound women because we care about their health. They think we remove ugly intestines because we truly want to save people from cancer. In short, they fatally misjudge our motivations. We doctors would not have gone to school for 25 years if we did not expect to make a fortune after age 40. We would not have spent decades in operating rooms and labs if we did not expect a massive reward for our efforts. And we would not have sacrificed our youth working sleepless 140-hour shifts every week after medical school. Put simply, we have worked extremely hard. It is not about the patient; it is about us. We have suffered to get where we are. As physicians, we will not allow Congress to insult us by paying us less than $2,000,000 every year. It’s about time that someone thought about the doctors for once, not the patients. After all, we do all the work. Patients just lie there under anesthesia and wake up later. That’s pretty lazy, if you ask me.

Doctors need something to look forward to. As President of the Union of American Physicians for Fiscal Strength, I speak for every doctor when I say that we like money. No one in our society works as much as we do. No one in our society delivers such tangible worth as we do. Think about it: When you bring your sick mother into the hospital, our skilled work saves her from death. Isn’t that valuable? If we didn’t spend our whole lives studying and scurrying around hospitals, we could not have saved your mother. Don’t you think we deserve a big salary for that? We are happy to save your mother, but remember what we go through every day, too. We expect to be well compensated for our services. If we did not have large salaries, bonuses and insurance incentives to look forward to, we would not want to get up in the morning. How would you feel if you knew you had to stitch an immigrant’s anal canal for 14 hours for a paltry $500,000 per year? What if you had to stick your finger up a homeless person’s anus for a lousy $500 weekly stipend from a city bureau? And what if you faced medical malpractice charges for creating a vaginal fistula knowing that Medicaid will pay you pennies—if anything at all—for your toils? You wouldn’t like it, let me tell you. In a word, physicians face tremendous stress and difficulty every day. Only sufficient salaries can provide the motivation necessary for physicians to cope with the pressures unique to their trade.

We sincerely hope that Congress will recognize that health care reform will not succeed without our support. No matter what Congress decides to do, it must ensure that every doctor in America receives at least $2,000,000 per year. We leave it to Congress to decide how to organize our pay rates. Obviously experienced doctors must receive more than the minimum salary. Obviously radiologists must receive double the going rate for comparable internists. And obviously doctors who secure favorable results for more patients should receive “performance bonuses.” If Congress really wants to reform health care, it will provide suitable incentives for doctors. If doctors know that they will receive a $750,000 performance bonus if they remove 15,000 polyps per month, they will more zealously remove polyps. A world with fewer polyps is a better world. Congress can achieve goals like these if it simply pays doctors what they deserve.

Many liberal Democrats say that doctors need to consider the “common good” in order to change focus in American health care. They say that doctors must play a “philosophical role” in changing the way our country approaches the issue. We strongly disagree.

First, as medical professionals, we are neither politicians nor philosophers. We are technicians. We are bodily repairmen. No one expects a mechanic to care about philosophy. The same goes for doctors. We are no different from any other worker. We ply our trade and we expect pay for our labor. We stitch, cut, suture, order lab tests and write prescriptions. We do not philosophize. The “common good” is not necessary to perform incisions, administer chemotherapy or clear an artery. While our skills may result in “good” for society, the “common good” is certainly not necessary for technical medical work.

Second, we are really not all that different from other workers in the economy. Although our skills may be especially valuable, we want the same things from life as everyone else. We want to own real estate. We want stable investments. We want cars. We want savings accounts. We want to send our children to college. We differ from average workers to the extent that we work harder. We spent a long time in school and even longer in professional training. It is only fair that we receive some special compensation for our incredible sacrifices. That is why we expect to own at least a second home, and maybe some income-producing rental properties. These are reasonable expectations. Every American deserves some reward for performing valuable work. In that regard, doctors are no different from anyone else in our society.

In brief, it is both unrealistic and unfair to ascribe some special “nobility” to doctors. We work for the same reasons everyone else does. Congress must understand that. We are not saints. We are just trained professionals who perform impressive work. Saints work for free. Professionals don’t.

As our representatives continue to debate health care reform, we demand that they remember the doctors. We are the real miracle workers who make our system great. Our system became great because doctors receive the pay they deserve. They have an incentive to work hard. Over time, those incentives led to revolutionary new treatments, medications and procedures. Until now, our system proved that when doctors get paid, anything is possible.

True, some people in our system could not receive care. But that was a small price to pay for the medical miracles we achieved through proper pay. We expect that Congress will recognize that health care in America depends on well-paid doctors. Without at least $2,000,000 a year, the miracle well will run dry. No one will endure 25 years in school and sleepless 140-hour weeks without a suitable reward to covet. Our country has always rewarded hard work and valuable service. Our health care system is no exception.

We do not care whether Congress adopts universal care or retains our private market system to provide health coverage. We simply demand that every physician in this country receive at least $2,000,000 per year. It is a simple demand. We do not care where Congress gets the money for our salaries. We simply remind Congress that without at least $2,000,000 every year, no doctor will have an incentive to repair anal canals, invent new erectile dysfunction medications or deliver deformed children. In this light, it is in the national interest to keep paying doctors, even if that means taxing other professions. We are the only technicians who can save lives. We deserve to be paid commensurate with the importance of our skill and knowledge. If we do not receive what we are worth, we’re walking. We don’t care what the State disciplinary boards say. This is about fair pay, not duty.

You want us to save your mother when she breaks her hip, don’t you? You want us to save your child when he falls down a drainage pipe and fractures his skull, don’t you? You want us to successfully replace your jaundiced wife’s liver, don’t you? You want us to find a cure for cancer, don’t you? Well, we won’t do any of these things unless Congress guarantees that we get at least $2,000,000 a year—every year. We don’t care where the money comes from. We just want it.

We might be doctors. But we’ve worked hard in our lives. We’ve learned how to cheat death and extend life. We’ve learned how to read medical charts and MRI scans. We know what masses are benign and which ones aren’t. This is valuable knowledge. We don’t share it for free. We spent 25 sleepless years to learn our craft. Congress had better pay up or no one’s going to get it.

GREETINGS FROM THE FEDERAL CHANCELLOR FOR LIVING/DEAD RELATIONS

THE DEPARTMENT OF LIVING/DEAD RELATIONS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

By : Mr. Franklin F. Tottenham, Chancellor of the Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations; J.D., Yale Law School (1989); Consulting Expert in Health Policy, The Brookline Association, Boston, Massachusetts (1991-2004); Deceased 2005; Vice President of the American Walking Corpse Federation for Fair Employment Opportunities in the Private Sector (2005-2008); Corpse (Living).

When President Barack Obama won the White House last autumn, he promised America “change we can believe in.” Unlike his predecessor, President Obama grounded his political philosophy in a society of inclusion, not exclusion. In short, President Obama ushered in a new day in American political life. Under President Obama, everyone has a chance to succeed in America. Everyone counts. The President’s own life story proves that anyone make it in this country. Minorities and historically-marginalized groups all over America wept for joy to celebrate Obama’s victory. For the first time in their lives, they felt real hope that America would finally make a place for them: African-Americans no longer felt that they were doomed to repression and “dead ends” in society; gay men dared hope that they, too, could marry; and immigrants proudly stood up to say that they had a place.

This is a new America. This is an America that believes in itself. This is change we can believe in. President Obama, you said: “Yes we can.” We say: “Yes we did.” We salute your commitment to the American dream for all Americans. You understand that everyone in America—even those without economic power or education—can contribute to our Nation’s success.

This is a significant achievement. All Americans means all Americans; that means both living and dead Americans. For too long, America has failed to consider the needs of the dead in political life. For too long, America simply buried its dead and moved on. It not only maliciously discriminated against dead people; it literally forgot about them. But President Obama understands injustice when he sees it. Freedom does not exist unless all people enjoy it. It does not matter whether a person’s cells have perished. It does not matter whether a person’s heart has stopped or his flesh has rotted away. It does not even matter whether a person died in 1694. Americans are still Americans—and Americans deserve freedom. That is why President Obama commanded Congress to pass the Dead Matter Too Act (DMTA). This act represents a gigantic step toward justice in the United States. For the first time in history, America told its dead: “You have a voice, too.”

Mr. President, as Chancellor of the Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations, and as a dead man, I salute you for your commitment to American ideals. I speak for every dead body in America when I say: “We will help you realize the dream.”

But despite all the recent gains, our road has not been easy. We cannot guarantee immediate progress. For centuries, America has stamped the dead with a badge of inferiority. The living lived as if they were the only ones here. For centuries, the law permitted them to bury us, burn us, toss us into ditches and even sink us to the ocean bottom without so much as asking our opinion on the matter. The living branded us with epithets that cut deeply into our collective self-esteem: stiffs, stinkers, stenches, funeral parlor bait, coffin crud… the list goes on. Laws not only authorized this unequal and demeaning treatment; laws did not even mention us. From a legal perspective, we were not even second-class citizens; we were nothing at all. Although the living spent money on headstones and even set aside land for us, they simply ignored us afterward, leaving us to slowly decompose six feet underground. To add insult to injury, they took away all our property and distributed it to grandchildren, estranged wives and even creditors. In sum, dead Americans face a legacy of State-sponsored discrimination. We have been purposely suppressed, marginalized, demeaned and forgotten. In some cases, we are completely gone. We ask the President to remember our dead brethren who faced cremation, obliteration, vaporization or worse.

But those dark days are over. We are turning a new page in American history. Now, the Federal government has finally recognized that we deserve a chance, too. Despite all the historical prejudice against us, President Obama recognized that we deserve a chance to influence policy in the United States. Through the DMTA, the Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations has two goals: (1) To help eradicate the practical handicaps created by historical discrimination against dead Americans; and (2) To make policy suggestions to living lawmakers concerning national legislative initiatives.

Today, I want to educate the public about our mission. Concerning our first goal, I want to remind all living Americans that dead people are people, too. We ask you to remember that President Obama promised a bright future for all Americans, whether black, white, Native American, Asian, immigrant, disabled, homosexual or dead. We recognize that it used to be “OK” to discriminate against the dead. In days past, polite people rarely invited dead neighbors over for dinner. Top-rate universities never accepted dead applicants. Living Americans assumed that all dead people smelled, were ugly, acted irresponsibly and looked like they were sleeping all the time. But that was pure bigotry. In 2009, we no longer make assumptions about people simply because they are dead. We evaluate people based upon their character and their achievements, not their cellular status or pulmonary/respiratory function. We do not stereotype about dead people, just as we do not stereotype about Hispanics or Asians. Today, every American deserves a chance.

We want to set the record straight about dead Americans. We are not sleeping. We do not smell. We are not ugly, even if we may have decomposed in whole or in part. Despite our appearance, we have achieved great things. Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity and he is dead. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone and he is dead. Dwight Eisenhower defeated the Nazis in Europe and he is dead. Henry Ford introduced mass production and revolutionized industrial society; he is dead, too. Thus, there is no substance to the claim that “all dead people” are irresponsible or lazy. To the contrary, many dead people have achieved tremendous things. Babe Ruth, for instance, is one of the greatest baseball players in American history. And he is dead. We believe America should open its mind to the reality that dead people have done—and will do—great things. We must move beyond superficial generalizations. We believe the Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations will help living Americans cast aside their historical prejudices against the dead. After all, you likely have dead relatives. You wouldn’t treat them with disrespect, would you?

When Americans learn that the dead are people just like you, we are confident that dead Americans will overcome the practical roadblocks that have held them back for so long. When Americans learn that dead people do not just “sleep” or “smell,” we are confident that private employers will proudly offer them jobs. We are confident that dead Americans will prove their worth by their own merit and intelligence. For that reason, we do not advocate mandatory quotas to forcibly assimilate dead Americans into the workforce. We do not believe this because we fear that the United States Supreme Court will rule against us. Rather, we do not need quotas because dead Americans have the ability to succeed without additional assistance. Many dead people achieved success during life. There is no reason to think that minor impediments such as death should bar them from resuming their winning ways. All Americans face adversity. All Americans can overcome adversity. Death is no exception. A determined American dead person can get any job he or she wants, as long as she has the talent, drive and ambition to get it. In short, we are confident that dead Americans will soon be respected, productive members of American society, just as they were when they were alive.

Dead people want to work. They want to be responsible. They want to send their children to college. They want to pay taxes. We believe they should have the chance to prove themselves on a level playing field. Although we acknowledge the concern that living people may lose their jobs to the dead, we point out that death affects us all. Living people, too, will one day be dead. While a living person may feel stung to lose a job or university seat to a dead person, we merely note that for centuries the dead had no opportunity whatsoever either to work or study. In that light, we believe that living people can bear some incidental burdens to compensate dead people for centuries of unrestricted social exclusion. Colloquially, we also note that “what goes around comes around.” When a living person sacrifices for a dead one, he or she should do it cheerfully, for one day she, too, will be dead. Once she is dead, she will want all the same opportunities she had when she was alive. In this sense, it is only fair that both living and dead Americans enjoy equal access to every advantage in American society. And fairness is important in America.

Dead Americans also have a right to participate in the democratic process. The Federal Department for Living/Dead Relations gives substance to this right. Under the DMTA, the Department has authority to advise Congress concerning all legislative initiatives. This does not mean that the dead will dominate the national debate; it merely means that the dead have a right to be heard in legislative decisionmaking. This is not revolutionary. To the contrary, the dead have special insights into practical problems. Taken as a whole, dead people possess boundless wisdom. We have seen everything under the sun. This collective experience will translate well into prudent legislation.

Yet we cannot effectively consult on legislative matters until Congress recognizes that dead people have needs, too. We agree with Congress that health care must be reformed. But we will not solve the health care mess by ignoring the dead. We must take steps to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care, including American corpses in various states of decay. How is it just that only wealthy living people have access to top-notch treatments? How is it just that lower-income living people and every dead person cannot even visit a doctor when they need to? Both the economy and the government depend upon people. Without a healthy population, people cannot effectively serve either the economy or the government. We must find a solution to the health care mess that delivers compassionate, high-quality care no matter whether the patient is a wealthy living banker or a bankrupt dead day laborer. And we must do so in a fiscally responsible manner.

We believe that dead people can help end the health care impasse in many ways. For one, dead doctors can volunteer their time to treat living patients. Contrary to longstanding social prejudice, dead doctors can perform examinations, administer medications, write prescriptions and oversee surgery just as well as—if not better than—living doctors. In fact, many living doctors learned what they know from doctors who are now dead. Additionally, dead doctors have simpler salary requirements, do not require lunch breaks and do not suffer as much fatigue as living doctors. Second, dead financial advisers can help iron out solutions to funding national health care programs. Many well-respected dead financial advisers have key experience needed to balance the unique fiscal risks inherent in any national health program. We should harness that experience. Third, dead office personnel can handle the tremendous administrative burden that surely will accompany any national health plan. Millions of dead Americans lived their lives managing charts, organizing files, pulling patient records and stapling medical documents for hours on end. We should put their experience back to work to guarantee well-administered national health care for all. In a word, dead people have varied talents. And they all can help write America a clean bill of health.

As dead people, we just want to be heard. We acknowledge that there are certain questions in the national debate we may not be fully qualified to handle. For example, the death penalty perplexes us. After all, what good does the death penalty do for offenders who are already dead? In our view, the death penalty is no penalty at all for a dead American. Yet we acknowledge that we are not qualified to debate this issue. We are fully prepared to defer to our living colleagues to handle it.

All in all, we are happy to live in an enlightened era. For the first time in American history, we have achieved equal opportunity. We finally matter. We are not just forgotten relics. We are confident that we can contribute to American society. We salute President Obama for his commitment to freedom for everyone, including the dead. No longer are we condemned to a bleak future in caskets and urns. No, for the first time in American history, we have a chance to speak. We have achieved so much. And so has America. We truly now live in an era of freedom.

It is 2009. Discrimination is dead, not us.

"SEX" IS NOT A BAD WORD ; CENSORSHIP IS

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Jeremih’s single “Birthday Sex” should have been just another R&B song about a young man’s assumed romantic prowess. When Def Jam released the single in April, audiences responded with enthusiasm: It went to #1 on the R&B charts and #4 on the pop charts. It fit the “urban love anthem” mold: A man does not buy gifts for his girlfriend on her birthday, so he gives her “birthday sex” as a replacement. And true to the smug, sexually conceited male caricature that so often appears in the R&B canon, Jeremih assures his listener that his sex is better than any material gift.

This is not an uplifting message. In fact, it is laughable. But I am not writing today to mock “Birthday Sex.” I am writing today because mainstream radio stations bleep out the word “sex” when they play the song.

Since when did “sex” become a word “bad” enough to warrant censorship? We all know that the Federal government has power to prevent us from hearing a few “really bad” words during mainstream broadcasts. See, e.g, F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). But those “really bad words” are familiar vulgarities, colorful English phrases that go straight to the unrefined truth about sex and the body. We know we are not allowed to hear the words “fuck,” “shit,” “asshole” and “cock” on everyday broadcasts because those words cut to the linguistic quick about sex, excrement and “private parts.” Popular morality teaches us to revile these things, so law provides society a way to protect our ears from them. For better or worse, these traditionally “bad words” have real rhetorical punch. Their strength lies in their unabashed directness. Their strength lies in their pure Germanic derivation. No doctor or scientist mulled a Latin equivalent for these words. They are brutally honest, English core words. And to some extent, that is one reason why popular morality reviles them: Our society has an uneasy relationship with sex and the body, so it recoils from overly honest expressions about them.

But the traditional reasons for banning “bad words” do not apply to the word “sex.” “Sex,” unlike “fuck” or “shit,” is a Latin-based medical coinage, not a vulgarity. When people honestly talk about sexual conduct, they generally do not use medical terms. They use tried-and-true Germanic vulgarities. They do not say: “May we now engage in sexual activity?” In much the same way, they do not use medical coinages when referring to basic bodily functions. People do not say: “I must defecate now.” Latin does not tell the same story as German. Every English speaker knows that “shit” is a more honest word than “defecate.” Yet it ruffles feathers precisely because it so honestly describes “a coarse bodily function.” “Defecate” distances the listener from the body. That is why it is permissible to broadcast “defecate” during a daytime radio show, but not “shit.” The same reasoning should apply to “sex;” it is a medical coinage that distances the listener from the honest truth about sexual contact between human beings. In this case, however, the usual reasoning does not apply.

Why the inconsistency here? You would think that using the word “sex” instead of its coarse Germanic cousins would satisfy the decency police. After all, it purifies the language from uncomfortable honesty. “Sex” inevitably will offend fewer prudes than “fuck,” even though both words refer to precisely the same activity. But in this case, the censors bleeped out “sex,” too. In a way, I pity Jeremih. He tried his best to write a sensual song without using “traditional vulgarities” because he knew those words would be censored. Yet despite his efforts to use satisfactory words, the censors muffled him anyway.

I can only explain this new hostility toward the word “sex” by positing that popular morality does not like sexual conduct in the abstract. Although doctors created the word “sex” to make it easier to discuss sexual conduct without using uncomfortable Germanic vulgarities, apparently the subterfuge isn’t working anymore. The subject matter is apparently so uncomfortable that even Latin circumlocution can no longer suppress the shame. What can explain this if not a profound discomfort with anything concerning sexual contact between human beings? The word “sex” was supposed to disguise the raw, bodily truth about sexual conduct. It is deliberately uncolorful, undescriptive and unmemorable. But now, it is just as bad as the subject matter it was intended to conceal.

This is not just censorship. It is sloppy, incompetent censorship. A good censor has consistent reasons for suppressing certain words. For thirty years, censors at the F.C.C. consistently applied the “traditional vulgarity” test to determine whether a word “could be heard” on the airwaves. That test protected young ears from “overly honest descriptions” about sex and bodily function while preserving some “decorum” during daytime broadcasts. The test was exquisitely formal and categorical: Either the word was on the “dirty words” list or it was not. But now, the F.C.C. has scrapped the categorical approach. “Sex” was never on a “dirty words” list; it is a euphemism calculated to avoid using a word on that list. Yet now it is just as bad as the words it was intended to circumvent.

This is censorship by moral fiat, not reasoned analysis. I argue that such an approach disparages government’s obligation under the First Amendment to “make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court has steadily eroded our right to speak as we please under the Constitution. But it has nonetheless always reminded government that it cannot drive certain words from discourse without compelling justifications based in reason. See, e.g, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). The Court said that driving “traditionally vulgar words” from discourse could be justified because it was important to “protect children” and “unwilling listeners” from coarse language. F.C.C. v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726, 748-750 (1978). But it never said anything about words that are not “traditionally vulgar,” “shocking” or “coarse.” Viewed linguistically, the word “sex” is neither vulgar nor coarse. It is not “shocking,” either. In fact, it is supposed to take the “shock” out of traditionally “vulgar” expressions. Its capacity to give offense lies solely in the subject matter to which it refers, not the honest tone in which it describes the subject matter. By any test ever used to judge “decency” under the First Amendment, “sex” clearly passes. It is therefore shocking that the F.C.C. now decides to rewrite the law to censor a word that violates no legal standard.

If we allow the F.C.C. to drive the word “sex” from discourse, how are we supposed to “properly” talk about sex? What about shows like “Sex in the City” or songs like “Sexual Healing?” Those titles contain the word “sex.” What about a broadcast discussing “sexually transmitted diseases” or “sex therapy?” What about the countless advertisements for products addressing “sexual dysfunction” and “normal sex lives?”

In short, the word “sex” has evolved into an “acceptably neutral” means to express human sexuality without offending the decency police. We rely on it to discuss a profoundly important aspect of our lives. If it suddenly becomes as “bad” as the other “dirty words,” how are we supposed to discuss it? This may sound extreme, but we are on that path. The F.C.C. censored the word “sex” in Jeremih’s song. For all concerns and purposes, government decided that we should not hear the word because it was somehow “bad” or “offensive.” Yet “sex” is not a “bad word.” It was invented in order not to give offense. It is ironic that authorities now seek to suppress a euphemism.

I strongly resent any government attempt to control language. Our Constitution grants American citizens a broad right to speak freely. We should only tolerate restrictions on our language for the most compelling reasons. Moral awkwardness about sex does not even remotely rise to that level. Yet if we do not express our disapproval about censorship when it happens, we tacitly certify government’s power to regulate our language. That is why it is important to oppose censorship whenever it appears. “Birthday Sex” may be stupid, juvenile and absurd. But if we don’t say something to oppose government’s attempt to outlaw a perfectly legitimate word in our language, we empower government to take even more steps to muzzle us. In this case, government has applied its own moral queasiness to suppress a neutral word we all have a right to use. Moral queasiness is no justification for ignoring the First Amendment, no matter how many supersensitive mothers call to complain.

America has deep and fundamental social problems with sex. But those problems should not be allowed to impact our rights under the First Amendment. Censorship should worry us all, no matter where it appears. Our language existed before the Constitution and before the government. It is ours. As long as we do not use it to injure others or foment violence, government has no right to trespass against it. When government targets our language, we all lose expressive possibilities. Without expressive possibilities, we do not truly enjoy our rights as individuals. That is why I detest ungrounded censorship. It is not just an attack on the speaker’s expressive powers. It is an attack on us all.

SUCCESSFUL PEOPLES' PRACTICAL ALLIANCE FOR THE REDUCTION OF ALL LIFE QUESTIONS TO A MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Dr. Chuang Ho Fung, Esq. (bar licensed in all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia), M.D., D.D.S., C.P.A., D.V.M., P.E., D.P.M., Certified Race Horse Rider & Jockey, Certified 500-Meter Springboard Diver, N.A.P.T.-Certified Personal Trainer, State-Authorized Dietary Technician (New Jersey); Chairperson, The American Board of Standardized Test Takers (Multiple Choice Division); CEO and Founder, Ho Fung’s Test Wizzes, Inc., a Delaware Corporation with subsidiaries.

In America, success depends on taking tests. From school to work and professional life, Americans must repeatedly prove their merit by answering substantive questions under supervised time pressure. Third-graders must take tests to prove they can spell. Eleventh-graders must take tests to prove they can handle college work. Doctors must take tests to prove they know the aorta is not the colon. And lawyers must take the Bar Exam to prove that they know what contracts are. Tests define and mark our lives. If we do not do well on the test, we fail. If we do well on the test, we succeed. Our tests determine whether we go to college, get a job or make money in life. In short, tests are everything. Without solid test-taking skills, success is impossible.

We are successful because know how to take standardized tests. Test-taking is an art and a science. It involves iron nerves, time management, cunning, skill and aggressiveness. In that sense, taking tests mirrors American life. Just as a successful person must have iron nerves, solid time management skills, cunning and aggressiveness, so too must a master test-taker. Great test-takers manage their time to the minute. They do not spend 61 seconds on a question that only deserves 45. They know how to answer questions. And they are cunning; they can ignore distractions and focus solely on the important information in a problem.

We did not become master test-takers overnight. We spent our entire lives learning how to take tests. We endured failures before learning how to decipher standardized questions. We did not always know how to answer questions such as: “It is raining on Sunday, but not Thursday; Jones goes to the park on Wednesdays, unless it is Friday; Marge cooks in the parlor every day but Sunday, unless Jones goes to the park; When does Jones not go to the park? (A) On Tuesday if it is raining; (B) On Fridays, except Good Friday; (C) Unless Marge cooks in the parlor, on Saturday night; (D) (A) and (C), but not (B); (E) None of the above; but all of the above if Marge cooks a steak.” But now we can fish out the correct answer simply by looking at the sentence structure. We know how testers think. We can read their minds and give them the answer they want. We know how to use the words “but,” “unless,” “except,” “not,” “all,” “if” and “none.” Armed with those skills, we passed tests that made us doctors, lawyers, accountants, professors and veterinarians. All Americans can learn test-taking. They need not actually know the material; they just have to know how to take tests. In America, results matter. Tests measure results. In that light, testing is everything. Knowledge is unnecessary. Even the most knowledgeable man will fail a test if he does not know how to take it. And if he cannot subconsciously interpret the word “unless,” he will stand no chance at all.

Our test-taking abilities brought us untold riches. By learning how to take tests, we got into the best schools, passed all the professional license exams and landed extremely high-paying jobs. We learned how to take each test, aced them and started collecting our money. True, we often forgot everything about the test after we passed it. But that did not matter. We achieved our goals. We got our degrees. We landed our jobs. We did all this because we knew how to take each test along the way. Who can argue with success? Too many Americans complain that they just “cannot get over the hump.” We disagree. As the Successful Peoples’ Practical Alliance for the Reduction of all Life Questions to a Multiple Choice Test, we believe that all Americans can achieve success. They must simply know how to answer questions in a standardized test format. Once they learn this art, no door will close to them. Rather, even Harvard and Yale will bombard them with scholarship offers. After all, it is all about the score in America, in both life and sports. If you get the high score, you get the result you want. Test-taking skill will get you the high score. And that will get you all the love America can give.

Educators in the United States do not understand this. They believe that students should learn for learning’s sake, not merely to pass tests. They think that knowledge is a permanent asset, not merely an expedient instrument necessary to overcome a looming exam. These are fundamentally flawed assumptions. If it came between a well-rounded person who “learns for learning’s sake” with no special test-taking skill and a narrow-minded person who “learns what is necessary for the test” with special test-taking techniques, the trained test-taker will always get the higher score. And in America, high scores trump low scores. It does not matter that the well-rounded person retains his knowledge and thinks profoundly. Nor does it matter that the test-taker immediately forgets everything he learns before moving on to the next exam. Scores are more valuable than knowledge. Harvard does not take “smart people;” Harvard takes people who get the high scores on standardized tests. High scorers do not need to be smart. They simply need to know what’s on the test and how to correctly—and quickly—answer the questions. Intelligence actually hampers test-taking ability, since “intelligent people” see ambiguities in unambiguous test questions. Rather than instinctively answering, they hem and haw, pondering grammatical issues in the text. What good is intelligence when it costs them test success? Nothing. Thus, educators have it all wrong. Intelligence and knowledge are not the goal. Rather, students simply need to pass tests. They do not have to be “smart,” “curious,” “profound” or even “remotely bright.” They just need to know whether (A), (B) or (C) answers the question—within time limits.

Tests gave us all we could ever want in the world. We achieved our status because we learned how to take the tests and aced them. Nonetheless, even master test-takers face quandaries. Despite our superior test-taking abilities, there are some questions in life that we cannot answer. This frustrates us greatly. We feel cheated. We worked long and hard to learn how to take tests, only to discover that there are some questions that do not appear in a standardized format. Worse, no one grades or corrects responses to these questions, making it impossible to achieve a high score for answering them. Put simply, this is unacceptable. Test-takers deserve better. We believe that all questions in life must appear in a standardized, multiple-choice format subject to grading and scoring. We can answer any question by ruling out (A), (C) and (D). Why can’t we apply our skills to answer “unanswerable” questions? What message would it send to hopeful test-takers if they knew that all their hard work will never answer certain questions? As master test-takers, we are accustomed to success. We refuse to allow life to ask any question that we cannot answer in a graded, standardized format.

To reinforce respect for test-taking in America, we must draft a standardized test for “difficult life questions.” It is not enough to test future lawyers by asking them about evidence, contracts and property division rules. It is not enough to test future engineers by asking them about load walls and stresses. Rather, we must test and grade responses to all questions, not just questions necessary to get into universities and obtain professional licenses. To do this we must introduce a Universal Life Standardized Test (ULST). We must appoint a professional board to grade it. This is the only way to bring all life questions under standardized control. We are not accustomed to questions without answers. That is why we resolve ourselves to answering them all now—once and for all. No longer will people say: “There is no answer to this question.” Soon, there will be. And you will fail if you do not answer it correctly.

We believe that we can answer any question as long as we know the test. The ULST will provide definitive, objective answers to all life questions, even questions that have eluded explanation since time began. For example, the ULST will pose questions such as: “The purpose of life is which of the following, assuming Herbert is present in the room on Friday: (A) To live well according to James Wilson, except if his wife objects; (B) To obtain $5,000,000 before age 50, but not if it snows in London this March; (C) Meeting James Wilson; (D) Not meeting James Wilson; (E) All of the above except (D).” It will also resolve intractable philosophical issues with questions such as this: “Happiness can best be described as: (A) Joy, but not pain, provided the supervisor consents; (B) Pain without joy, unless the supervisor does not consent; (C) A warm house owned in fee simple absolute and not subject to adverse possession claims; (D) Mental retardation and lifelong dependency in the State of Ohio, but not mental retardation or lifelong dependency in the State of Hawaii, unless it is a leap year; (E) Death, unless it is not quick.” Additionally, the ULST will test an applicant’s ability to ascertain previously-unknown—and apparently insignificant—facts: “Bill Ruggles went for a walk in June 1987 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. During that walk, Bill DID NOT think which of the following thoughts: (A) I need to get home in order to urinate, but not feed the cows; (B) My wife is a mean and awful woman; (C) I do not need to feed the cows, but I need to get home to urinate; (D) My left middle finger has a cut on it; (E) None of the above except (A).” Lastly, the ULST will test matters of taste and morality: “Good people: (I) Read good books; (II) Eat good food, but not eel grass; (III) Exercise regularly without ingesting more than 500 calories per day; (IV) Tell the truth, unless working; (V) Do not tell the truth, except when not working; and (VI) Visit their parents in Duluth during bad weather, but never in summer, unless the parents are named Carlsbad. Applying these facts, bad people do which of the following: (A) (I) and (V), if they are not named Carlsbad; (B) Tell the truth, (II) and (III), unless they are working; (C) (I), (II) and (III), but not (VI); (D) (V) if not telling the truth at work in Duluth; (E) All of the above, except (III), other than eel grass.”

Test-takers will learn how to answer ULST questions in less than 60 seconds. Good test-taking requires disciplined time management. Applicants will have 180 minutes to answer 180 multiple-choice questions on the ULST. Applicants will have one 15-minute break in between the first and second halves. Applicants will not have access to any outside information during the testing session. They must know how to answer the questions without recourse to data. That is the only way to determine whether an applicant truly understands universal life questions. Proctors will circle the room to ensure fairness. The test will be administered quarterly. Registration will cost $575 per applicant, plus applicable taxes and fees.

We suggest that the National Board begin work on the ULST immediately. If we do not reduce all life questions to a multiple-choice test, we insult all the hard-working test takers who gave their lives to learn how to take exams. As it stands now, even the best test-takers cannot truly answer “what is the purpose of life” or “what makes you happy” because there is no standardized test to ask those questions.

No more. Through the ULST, test-takers will remove all uncertainty from their lives. They will take comfort in the fact that even tough questions can be answered—and graded accordingly. Finally, successful ULST takers will receive “Universal Life Certification,” meaning they have correctly answered every question in life. That, in turn, will allow them to update their resumes and legitimately claim that they “know what they are talking about” on any life issue. Of course, success on the ULST will not replace success on specific subject matter tests. Lawyers must still take the Bar Exam even if they have passed the ULST. Doctors must still take their Boards even if they have Universal Life Certification. Although successful ULST takers should not have a problem with specific subject matter tests, we believe that Americans can never take enough tests. After all, the more high scores one achieves in life, the better.

Life is understandable. Everything can be boiled down and graded under an objective standard. There is no uncertainty in life; rather, we can know everything. As long as we phrase our questions in a standardized format, we can answer them correctly. Tests are the gateways to truth and success. We control our own destinies. We simply must write the test, enroll in a course, learn how to take it—then pass it.

Enroll in a special ULST practice course today. Testing day is coming up. You want to pass, don’t you? You don’t want to fail, do you? You want to be successful in life, don’t you? If so, you had better start studying for the test. You can do it. You just need to know how to answer the questions. After all, life has an answer key, just like the ULST. Just learn it once and you’re on your way. Once you pass, you can tear up your study materials and go to work for the rest of your days, confident in the knowledge that you have “Universal Life Certification.”

RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE GET HEALTH INSURANCE ; IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE GET SICK, DIE AND DESERVE IT

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Ms. Deborah G. Cunningham, M.S. (Bakery Management), B.S (Health Care Billing Systems) (Technical College of Southwest Texas at Pedejo Gulch); Senior Policy Advisor, The Institute for Increased Family Responsibility, Dallas, Texas; Mother of Four; President & Rally Coordinator, Southwest Texans United for More Bush (2008 Campaign).

Europeans commonly criticize our country because we do not provide basic health coverage to our citizens. Rather, they say, we leave our citizens dangerously underprotected because we require them to make their own choices concerning health coverage. According to these critics, many well-meaning people cannot compete in the private insurance market, leaving them open to preventable illness and death. They also say that it is unfair to peg health coverage on employment, since very many people have difficulty finding jobs, and even if they do, many employers do not even provide health coverage. In sum, these Europeans call us “inhumane free marketeers” who commit moral transgressions against our own people. They say we have no qualms about allowing our most vulnerable citizens to go without health coverage simply because they are not “responsible” enough to get insurance.

We have a simple response to these criticisms: We believe in responsibility. In America, we do not look to the government to tie our shoes or pay for diapers. Rather, we are rugged individuals. We take life by the horns and get things done with our own two hands. Responsibility is a lifestyle. It means knowing who you are and what you are supposed to do in life. It means you understand who employs you and what they expect. It means you understand that you’re running the show, not your mommy, daddy or the government. Responsible people buy health insurance; that is what they are supposed to do. Responsible people are also supposed to find a job, show up at work and shut up. They do not sit around and whine about life or health insurance. They go out, look for competitive prices, compare options and make informed, reasonable purchases. Health insurance is like any other commodity. And in America, responsible people do not need the government to tell them what to buy. We do not live in a central African thuggocracy; no one tells us what to do.

We have no moral obligation to people who are too irresponsible to buy their own health insurance. Contrary to the European view, we do not feel collective shame that some people have access to top-notch medical care in our society, while others have none. Uninsured people cause their own predicament. We cannot feel shame or compassion for people who could have gotten a job, saved money and purchased an affordable health insurance policy. Nobody stopped them from buying coverage; they chose not to buy it and now they must live with the consequences. Responsible people look to their own needs and make purchases to suit those needs. Irresponsible people try to slide by and let others pick up the tab. In our view, we cannot feel compassion for people who try to foist the bill on hard-working, responsible Americans. What message would that send? What incentive would it provide for responsible people to work hard, get a job, be responsible and make informed economic decisions if they had to indemnify irresponsible people? In that situation, irresponsibility would triumph over responsibility. As a Nation, that would set a horrific precedent. That is why we feel no remorse for allowing uninsured people to go without care. Responsibility should bring rewards, not liabilities. By contrast, irresponsibility should bring suffering.

Uninsured people love to complain. They say they want to be responsible, but there is just no way for them to pay for health insurance. They say it is too expensive. They say that insurance companies refuse to cover them. They say they have untreatable conditions. They say they work at jobs that do not provide health coverage. They say they have too many other expenses to afford another major monthly bill. They say they are in debt. They say they do have insurance, but a loophole prevents them from being reimbursed for some arcane treatment. In essence, this is irresponsibility. Responsible people do not make excuses; they stoically accept the consequences of their own bad decisions and carry on. If these whiners really wanted to get health insurance, they could have bought it. They could have asked their parents for some help. They could have gotten loans from financial institutions. They could have sold their car. They could have mortgaged their room. Their own laziness prevented them from getting insurance, not “impossible circumstances.” Health insurance is not expensive. Healthy, working Americans can get excellent coverage for less than $1,000 per month. That is not a significant expense for a responsible, working person. And we have a simple lesson for the uninsured: If you feel you can’t afford health coverage, try trimming some luxuries. Don’t live beyond your means. First things first. Get insurance. Don’t buy televisions, video game consoles and cars. When you say that you can’t afford insurance, you just don’t want to give up your television, Friday night beer binges and movie nights, do you? If you were responsible, you would never have landed in this spot in the first place.

We believe that uninsured people are irresponsible. Irresponsible people provide minimal value to our society. To that extent, we believe that it is good to allow them to get sick without treatment. If irresponsible people die, what difference does it make? What do we lose? Nothing. On the other hand, responsible people obtain health insurance. They are worth protecting. When a responsible person gets sick, he goes to the doctor and receives care. It would harm our society if responsible people go without care or die. To that extent, health insurance protects responsibility and preserves responsible people. At the same time, it punishes irresponsibility. Irresponsible people do not obtain insurance. If they get sick and die, we lose nothing as a society. What do we lose when an unemployed, libertine, selfish money leech gets cancer and can’t receive care at a good hospital? Responsible people earn what belongs to them. We have no problem allowing an irresponsible person to suffer for his own bad choices. We do not give benefits to people who do not earn them. Irresponsibility is bad for society. Our private health insurance system provides an admirable way to punish it. In short, we believe that responsible people are worth saving. Irresponsible people are not. Although idlers and beggars may escape God’s justice on earth, our private health insurance system provides a fitting, secular replacement.

Europeans, especially the Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and English, find these sentiments revolting. They think it is an international disgrace that we allow so many people to live their lives without health coverage. They say everyone should be entitled to some basic medical care at State expense. On this point, we interpose a fundamental objection: We do not believe in government entitlements. We believe in minimal government. Entitlements expand government. In America, citizens are entitled to two government functions: (1) Paying taxes; and (2) Imprisonment or death at a State institution for committing crimes. Those are the only things Americans may rightly expect from government. For everything else, they have their own responsibilities. Government does not tie our shoes in this country. Rather, it provides a free framework in which private individuals may establish their own rules according to contract law. Private enterprise made this country, and it will sustain this country. Private health insurance is just another example of robust private enterprise. Responsibility makes our system work. Entitlements weaken responsibility. That is why we do not entitle our citizens to anything except taxes, imprisonment and death. They must be responsible or suffer the consequences.

Private enterprise and responsibility bring many rewards. They make our medical community stronger than any other on earth. American doctors and pharmaceutical chemists offer the most effective treatments for every possible disease, precisely because they know the government will not plunder their earnings. American medical science performs miracles every day because we pay our doctors what they deserve. But we would not encourage future miracles if doctors performed miracles for irresponsible people. Only those with qualified, paid-up health insurance may receive revolutionary medical treatment in this country. If an irresponsible person has a rare kidney disease and no insurance, he will not receive life-saving treatment. In this way, our society rewards responsibility and punishes irresponsibility. So far, it has worked extremely well. After all, who really remembers irresponsible people who die? No one. Yet we remember the medical miracles performed upon responsible people, because responsible people are worth saving. Thankfully, medical science receives just pay when it saves responsible people. If medical science cared for everyone equally, it would receive no pay. And who would want to be a doctor or pharmaceutical chemist without pay? If we allow government to pay pennies for medical science, we will drive away our greatest medical talents. Doctors are private commercial actors in a free market system, not saints or shamans. They expect high pay, and only our private enterprise system can provide them the pay they deserve. Put simply, irresponsible people do not pay their doctors. They do not deserve medical miracles. In America, only paying customers have a right to demand services. Medicine is no exception.

In sum, we do not feel the least bit bad about health insurance in America. Health insurance companies help our country. They advance medical science and make medical miracles possible. They allow Americans to receive swift, effective medical care. By contrast, Europeans and Canadians—who do not pay for private health insurance—die like flies in hospital waiting rooms because it takes 17-24 weeks to receive emergency treatment. For discretionary procedures, it takes even longer to receive necessary care. Additionally, socialized medical systems do not use anesthesia or sterile operating tools. Rather, they use stone bludgeons and garden clippers. Worse, doctors in these systems earn less than nightclub bartenders. This is the price of irresponsibility. Yet in America, responsible patients face no such dangers. Our private health system provides compassionate, timely and technologically advanced care for responsible customers. It is not difficult to obtain access to these wonders. One must merely pay a monthly health insurance premium and meet the insurer’s insurability qualifications, subject to all relevant contractual exclusions.

Responsibility is the best policy. We applaud our health system because it reinforces responsibility in America. We squarely reject all European reasoning about morality, ethics, compassion, entitlement and “State obligation” in health care questions. When it comes to responsibility, we trust the American people. They know what they owe. They know what they are supposed to do. They know their bosses. They do not wait for handouts, nor do they complain about their self-inflicted misfortunes. They grit their teeth, work through adversity and somehow carry on. In a word, it is not impossible to get health insurance in America. Anyone can buy it as long as they have the money. And anyone can get it through an employer if they have the strength, dedication and zeal to get a job. Even in tough times like these, Americans always find a way—a responsible way.

That is what makes us different than Europeans. We live responsibly. We look to ourselves and we look the other way when irresponsible people suffer. We do not feel shameful; we just get back up, go to work and pay our health premiums. Irresponsibility is not our problem. We are not here to help others. We are here to be responsible. You can be responsible, too. Don’t complain. Just get up, get out there and do it.