Letter 1:
Senator Ben Cardin
509 Hart Senate Office
Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Cardin,
I
would like to propose an idea that several of my senior friends agree would be
a worthwhile endeavor: namely, mandate Anger Management classes for all
elementary school children, with a follow-up reminder class in high school.
This may provide a useful counter to bullying against youngsters and help diminish
the need to settle arguments with guns when older. In fact, this may prove even
more useful to reduce gun deaths than proposed laws limiting the size of
ammunition clips. It may even save some marriages.
Letter 2:
U.S. Department of Education
Attention: Secretary Arne Duncan
400 Maryland Ave. SW
LBJ Education Building, 7W311
Washington DC 20202
Attention: Secretary Arne Duncan
400 Maryland Ave. SW
LBJ Education Building, 7W311
Washington DC 20202
Attachment: letter sent to
Senator Ben Cardin
Dear Secretary Duncan,
1.
The majority of firearm killings use small pistols not covered by any of the
proposed restrictive gun/ammo laws.
2.
Many killings also use knives or weapons other than firearms.
3.
Many killings result from domestic disputes (and even some suicides are caused
by domestic violence).
4.
Therefore, I deduce that perhaps over 90% of all killings do not use the type
of military type weapons or ammo that are contemplated being restricted.
5.
Which leads me to the question: why does Congress and the Administration focus,
seemingly exclusively, on perhaps 10% or less of the killing problem and ignore
the remaining 90%? For purposes of this proposal I am ignoring other types of
accidental deaths (e.g., by automobile).
6.
I would like to suggest there is much more bang for the buck in attempting to
diminish the perceived need for killing in the first place –which leads me to
my suggestion that MANDATED classes in anger management be instituted in early
grades of elementary school, with follow-up classes in high school for
reinforcement of previously learned techniques. Hopefully this will lead to a
mentally healthier society.
I
hope my suggestion will bear fruit.
I'd support the anger management classes, but also support the most stringent restrictions imaginable on ALL types of guns as a way of reducing the amount of deaths, injuries, or crimes caused by their too easy availability. I suspect that attention given to the long guns with big magazines is because it would seem extremely difficult to justify any need for their proliferation among the general public. That's other than maybe the police and the military. At any rate, I believe that some of the existing gun control proposals do cover all types of guns. Background checks would be an example. Ideally, I would favor getting the profit motive out of gun sales by requiring that all guns that may be necessary for whatever purpose be produced in government-owned facilities and dispersed (according to stringent rules) by governmental entities. For me, socialism (whether in guns or health care) is not that bad a word..
ReplyDeleteThis comment doesn't actually pertain to this particular blog, but I couldn't find the one on health care. Following is an email I sent to Norman in response to his comment about Ryan's voucher program. I am very strongly of the opinion (after having read "Catastrophic Care" by David Goldhill, that Obamacare should be repealed. I hope some of you will find time to read this book; would like your opinion.
ReplyDeleteDory
Norman,
Goldhill is proposing something somewhat similar to vouchers, but making provision for catastrophic illness [and the inability of some persons to pay]. He calls his system Balanced Health System (BALANCE). (Apparently he used the Singapore system as his model to some extent.) There are three major components: health accounts, health loans, and catastrophic insurance, with a very high deductible. "Essentially, all the money that now goes into the insurance system or for out-of-pocket payments (and, as I'll show later, the government money that now runs through Medicare and Medicaid) will run through your individual Health Account." (I won't go into explaining how this works here; if interested, you should read the book.)
Goldhill faults ACA as having its primary thrust to complete - rather than reform - our "horrifically dysfunctional health care system."
It provides for coverage of many treatments that " ... used to be thought of as cosmetic, optional, or at the very least not medically necessary. Ten states require coverage for hair prostheses; thirteen for in vitro fertilization. Thirty-one mandate contraceptive reimbursement. Forty-six require reimbursement for the services of chiropractors; fourteen for marriage counselors; and four for massage therapists. Arizona mandates the cost of athletic training. Maine mandates breast reduction surgery. And then there is Viagra, contraception, and many other such items. The issue isn't whether any or all of these treatments are good or useful: the question is whether we should all be required to pay for some who want them.
The author disputes that covering "pre-existing conditions" is going to turn out to be a good thing. He suspects that some people (particularly young healthy people) will opt out of paying for insurance (will pay the fee instead) until they have a "pre-existing condition" and then sign up.
Employers will opt out of buying insurance for their employees, preferring to pay the fine. He argues that employers no longer need to offer health insurance as a lure to workers. Employers can actually offer to up the wages of their employees rather than pay for health insurance, and still come out ahead.
Goldhill says: "We are accustomed to someone else seeming to pay for our health care, but obviously we taxpayers the ones who are paying in the long run. And paying for many unnecessary things. Under a government/insurance paid system, the medical profession is prone to finding a "need" and then coming up with an expensive way of treating it. As long as they are fairly well assured of getting paid, by private of government insurance, there is no incentive to cut costs.
As long as someone other than the real "customer" is paying, there will be lots of waste and greed.
As you say though: I believe there will have to be a financial cataclysm before healthcare gets on the right financial track. You are probably correct.
Dory