Sand Hill Philosopher

E-Mail Notification of New Posts

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Healthcare Reform: Where Did We Come From?

Present Healthcare Reform Legislation is before Congress in a form that no one understands, especially those who will be providing it. One thing healthcare providers know is that more bureaucracy will not solve the issue.

Almost everyone, in Congress and in "real" America, agree that something has to be done about access, cost and quality of healthcare. Perhaps a look at where we came from will be of some help.

In 1992, when I was three years out of a Family Practice Residency, an elderly gentleman in his 90's was brought in to see me for an acute respiratory infection on a Saturday morning. His daughter explained to me that he was a retired physician and was only visiting for a few days.

Fascinated by this man, this historian of the noble art of medicine, I pondered the fact that he had gone to medical school shortly after WW-I. He had served over-seas during WW-II, and had re-entered the world of "everyday" Family Practice in the late 1940's.

Temporarily forgetting his illness, I blurted-out, "What is the biggest NEGATIVE change you have seen in medicine since you went to medical school?"  Without hesitation, he pointed to the waiting room: "There, in the lobby. We would NEVER have let a person as sick as I am sit among other patients, either well or sick, in a common room."

When asked to explain, he replied that mornings were generally devoted to house-calls, and afternoons were used for the "non-infectious" cases, fractures, lacerations, obstetrics, surgical evaluations and dermatologic cases.

I have often thought about his remark, and glanced into a waiting room where five or six doctors had as many as fifty patients waiting, most coughing or febrile. We tried to schedule well-visits and routine follow-ups in the first slots of the morning and after lunch, but inevitably, the contagious would show up and ask to be seen.

We should gather two things from this: first, prevention of illness is key to containing the cost of medical care, and opening access to doctors available; second, patients must be better educated, or develop better understanding of what is urgent and not push in to see a doctor, for what even twenty years ago would have been recognized as a "common cold" and no medical treatment generally necessary. There is a split responsibility here.

I have previously written on "The Dangerous Co-Pay" and how it led to over-spending and over-utilization of resources. Doctors and hospitals have been blamed for much of the cost of healthcare, but in my experience, at least 1/3 of the tests ordered and as much as 1/2 of the money spent on office visits is unnecessary.  Any new plan for healthcare reform must address this patient-driven model of care. Perhaps it is time that we quit letting "sick" people into the office and return to home visits.

Let us do some thinking about ways in which knowingly sick people subject dozens of other people to illness, usually needlessly. This will account for much of the over-utilization at the primary care level.

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

Victory Garden: Overcoming Affliction

Victory Garden: a Lesson in the Endurance of Suffering

Victory Garden continues to be in my attention and care, but there has been little to update over the past few wintry months. This region that borders the northern Hill Country of Texas (known for its glorious fields of blue bonnets and Indian paintbrush, among other wild flowers) and on the southern edge of "Northern Texas", basically that which is near Interstate 20, has faced a much prolonged and harsh winter compared to average.

For those of you not familiar with Victory Garden, it would be worth your while to look in the archives to late summer 2009 to the first post, Victory Garden: Overcoming Disability, and the few subsequent articles.

My last note to you was in October, when I was planting broccoli, hoping to have some produce before the first freeze. Our first hard frosts are often in December.  Following this hope, I planted three small broccoli plants in the rusty old stock tank, which had composted and decayed to a level 6-8 inches below the top rim of the 30 inch tall tank.

About 2 weeks after transplanting, we had our first frost, but on inspecting the plants, they were either tolerant of this temperature, far enough above ground, sheltered by the edges of the tank (which were taller than the young plants), or perhaps still enjoying some heat of the remaining composting process two feet beneath them.  At any rate, I continued to watch, and freeze after freeze fell upon the young plants. Three times they were completely covered by snows of up to 6 inches, which I left in place. Several nights dipped into the 'teens.  Few days reached above the mid-40's before mid-March.

For nearly five months, these three plants weathered every storm and every freeze that blasted down upon them.  Many times I crept out to the tank expecting death against such adversity, only to find that though the plants had not emerged above their 8 inch metal hedge, they were growing and becoming bushy.

Last week, I considered the work of removing the top soil, and the new compost, and starting over. The plants looked small enough to plant without difficulty, but a look at the roots, the "unseen plant" was in order before such a decision was made or work begun. I was shocked that as I dug down, the root structure of these relatively dwarfed plants reached all the way to the bottom of the tank. A look at the stem revealed it to be over 5/8 inches in diameter.

I am reminded of the quote by Oscar Wilde, "To have become a deeper man is the privilige of those who have suffered."

People are a lot like that. Some face adversity, and expecting little, we are surprised to find them around a few weeks into the difficulty.  Even after having realized that the plants had somehow outreached all expectation, I dug down to look at the roots and was even more surprised. While the tops were not "all that impressive", the roots had grown deeply, and no doubt contributed to the plants' overall abilities to survive the oppressive winter.

Sometime we look at a person and judge their spiritual growth, and may see very little "on top", but a strength unseen, below what is normally judged, is flourishing.  The most spiritual, the most knowledgeable of Child of God's grace may appear to be rather simple, rag-tag, quiet and unobtrusively person, sitting on the back of the worship hall, but their roots grow deep.

Jesus taught us that the vine must be trimmed that the vine may bring forth much fruit. Much of this pruning proliferates the roots, which the nourishment of the latter harvest.

After a hard winter, and only one week of sunshine, Kathy and I will eat our first Victory Garden broccoli this week. We are already planning the new, larger tank. I think I might just leave this broccoli bed undisturbed this time. 

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

Green Zone: a movie review

The movie Green Zone, starring Matt Damon, and directed by the previous Damon successes in the Jason Bourne Trilogy opened in theatres today. Advertisements did not mention that it was an Oliver Stone Production, which speaks loudly about the bias of the movie.

The movie is moderately well-done as an action-packed war movie. It is situated in the early days of the Iraq War and the unseating of the Saddam Hussein Regime.

Historically, there are some arguments that most unbiased viewers would agree upon, and serve as major background for the movie:

1.   The invasion was largely instigated on past knowledge that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction (having used them on villages of Kurds in the North).

2.   There was no proof of Hussein having destroyed the weapons of mass destruction (WMD's).

3.   Repeated attempts to inspect Iraq for these weapons were delayed, denied or obstructed.

4.   Intelligence reports that these WMD's existed at the time of the invasion were either untimely, or fabricated, provoking America, as well as other world leaders, to instigate an invasion as the primary motive for the timing of the war.

Points the movie does neglect include:

1.   Other motives for invasion and overthrow of the Saddam Hussein Regime included mass genocide, including use of WMD's, such as nerve agents.

2.   Torture and mass murder were common in the country, under the government's sanction, and, sometimes, for entertainment of Hussein's sons and their companions.

3.   Iraq presented a continued threat to the stability of the region and the peace of neighboring countries.

Necessary for the integrity of the movie script, and probably without question in most viewers' minds, is the issue that the levels of American Government, such as CIA, FBI, DOD and other acronyms do not always bear the same objectives. This is the hinge-pin of the movie's plot.  It is noteworthy that no direct blame is placed upon the President Bush, other than the notion that he, and everyone else, was working under the misplaced understanding (inaccurate "intelligence" reports?) that WMD's still existed.

In the movie, two oppositional bureaucrats face-off, and have their own "rogue" military regiments that work under their influence.  The notion that two different regiments could fall, unnoticed by their military commanders, into the hands of bureaucrats is rather untenable.  Unfortunately, it gives the basis for the movie, and these two regiments begin their own war against each other.  Matt Damon's character, Captain Miller becomes leader of one of these rogue regiments when his concerns are expressed that they are working on false intelligence, and these concerns are dismissed.

Over-all, the movie gives the impression that military agents in Iraq work largely unsupervised, or, are capable of evading supervision on a large scale, and violently lash-out at the Iraqi civilians who get in their way.  There is no sense of a chain-of-command that is more than tenuous, or of the military discipline and honor that our troops are so-well known for.

Unlike the war movies done about the heroism of WW-II, which continue to serve as a documentary, of sorts, even in the fictionalized movies, this does not represent what happened in Iraq, either by the popular press, or the soldiers who have served there.  Unfortunately, it may be included through the following years as a documentary of the American war experience in Iraq, which denigrates the nobility of our gentle warriors.

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

 

"Tea-Sipper" attacked by Press

Note from Rick Green on Facebook:

 

"Get ready for an onslaught of negative press directed at our team, it's nothing new to us & will not distract us from our positive, principled march to victory! Despite all their twisted innuendos and rehashing of decade old political attacks, even some of their intended insults are badges of honor. I love this one:"

 

One newspaper wrote:

 

"Green is just the Jesus-baseball-and-Thomas-Jefferson sort of candidate who appeals to an electorate in a Tea-sipping mood."

 

Hey, I'm proud to be the faith based Little League coach that studies the founding fathers!! They mock the very things we care most about because they do not realize that most Texans agree with our values.

 

So thankful for the endorsement of former Supreme Court Justice Scott Brister!

"We need judges who will not wilt under pressure, or change their opinions to please the newspapers. Rick Green will be that kind of judge. His service in the TX Legislature gives him a perspective on TX law that no other member of the Supreme Court has. I urge TX Republicans to support him in the April 13th runoff."  --Scott Brister

 

These are the same reasons that I have thought about Rick Green, and considered him worthy of support in the run-off for Texas Supreme Court. You can tell a lot about a man by who is attacking him.

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

 

Consent of the Governed

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2.)

In circa 1978, while Governor of California, Ronald Reagan gave a speech at the von Mises Economic Conference, hosted at Hillsdale College. In this speech, he blamed many of the problems of failed government upon legislators not considering what was actually best for their constituents. He then went on to say that this type of government required that people report their opinions on legislation, and that the legislators would then respond.

As an example, he recalled a few years earlier when weight sensors were required in automobile seats, and if weight was upon the seat, the seat belt had to be latched for the vehicle to start. The problem arose when you sat an object on the seat, such as a bag of groceries, and the car would not start, without fastening the seat belt across the seat, behind the groceries. This became such a hassle, that just three months after instituted, when Congressmen went home to their districts, the out-cry (just from people who had had this problem and had bought these cars within the three month time period) was so resounding, that the first order of business on returning to Washington, DC, was to repeal this law.

That was in the mid-1970's. Now look at the year 2010 AD. We have legislation pending in Congress that "the governed" are howling about, has 2/3 of the public against it, and I have to ask:

What about the Consent of the Governed?

When do we repeat the 234 year-old fact,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Personally, I liked the Original United States Constitution, and would like to see that government restored.

Has our government become destructive of these ends, of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

 

Liberty Requires Sacrifice

After more than one year of watching these Conservative "Right-wing Extremists" take shape, learn to state their ideologies and educate themselves deeply in the United States Constitution, early American history, founding documents, and with consideration of the Founding Fathers' variety of  religious convictions, national origins, and wide differences in economic conditions and education much work has been put into Americans educating themselves on Freedom and Liberty. Not since the sweltering summer that kept everyone 'on their edge' while that diverse group of men at the Constitutional Convention have so many Americans devoted themselves to the learning the Foundations of Liberty, as they have over the past year. The Founders developed and penned a true Classic of Government, Literature and inspired Wisdom like the world had never known before. That document, The Constitution of the United States of America remains the hope of every person in the world suffering from  bondage and persecution.

History has shown that our nation's own founding documents, when given to a nation that "wants freedom and democracy" holds little chance of surviving in freedom. Do you know what the reason has been? A lack of commitment, in which each person, "pledges their lives, fortunes and public honor to achieving and maintaining these same desired freedom." Wanting it is just not enough. Our Forefathers had the 'want-to', and the commitment to see it through. One of the wealthiest of these men died in debtor's prison for monies lost, which he had given to the Revolutionary War effort. Others lost their homes; property was taken from them or destroyed. Some died, and some lost their wives and children because of their 'sacred pledge of honor'.

I have no doubts about the Ideology of Conservative Americans, of the Tea Party Groups, the 9/12 Groups, and most Republicans, and their sincerity.  The question remains, and will only be known when actually proven or abandoned, after the SACRIFICES begin. Our Founding Fathers knew that conviction without preparation for sacrifice, and, that sacrifice with conviction of principle, would each be insufficient to bring about the kind of revolution they needed in 1776, and that we need NOW.  It is also not enough that half the Conservatives bear the conviction portion, and the other half bears the sacrifice: we must all be prepared to serve both functions. One might reply that they have little to sacrifice, but the point is that we must all be ready to sacrifice everything that we have. You may complain that you already have so little, but what is that sacrifice to the man who has much, and he gives it all?

I pray that we will try and learn as much of one another's needs and wishes, before we are called to sacrifice our lives, fortunes and sacred honor for one another. It will increase our chances of winning and strengthen our commitments to one another, to Conservatism, to liberty, and, in short, TO FREEDOM. As we work towards these philosophical and political ends, remember the words of President John F. Kennedy,

Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.

May God Bless America!

Remember the Alamo!

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

 

 

The End of the Road for Barack Obama?

In an article posted by the British newspaper, The Telegraph, Simon  Heffer examines the failure of Barack Obama, but rightly places much of the blame on Obama's failures. Not only have things not improved, but many areas have become worse as a direct effect of his administration, and his Chicago-mob thug, Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel.

One interesting quote, however, places blame on the American public and their "infatuation" with Fox News:

The Fox network is a remarkable cultural phenomenon which almost shocks those of us from a country (note: Britain) where a technical rule of impartiality is applied in the broadcast media. With little rest, it pours out rage 24 hours a day: its message is of the construction of the socialist state, the hijacking of America by "progressives" who now dominate institutions, the indoctrination of children, the undermining of religion and the expropriation of public money for these nefarious projects.

Could it not be that there is some truth in these points of hijacking of America, domination by institutions, construction of a socialist state, indoctrination of children, undermining of religion and use of public funds for nefarious projects?  I have certainly witnessed these things occurring in America.

If there is not at least a modicum of truth in these allegations, and Americans aren't seeing evidences in other media, as well as their lives, why would they spend two years fixated on these ideas? Interest in important, pertinent and accurate news, is not a "remarkable cultural phenomenon," it is a human characteristic.

Bob Dylan said, in the Sixties, "Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to kill me."

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

Telegraph article: http://bit.ly/bd2R5g

Conservative AND Dangerous

 In an effort to be headed by pit bull James Carville, the Democrats plan to do opposition research on the top seven or eight leaders in the Tea Party Movement. According to BigGovernment.com, they will try to identify one or two persons they can perhaps "turn," either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign. This is the type of strife that Carville is known engender, and will signal that the "triangulation" terror has begun.  From there, it can be quickly spread within the various groups without much "outside" assistance at all.

The liberal media has already being mobilized. On the same day as the RNC meeting two weeks ago, the New York Times ran a spread that dismissed the Tea Party Movement, "as in league with politics' dark-side."

Early in the article, the reader was told of how one lady, and her Tea Party Group members had also joined other groups, including "Glenn Beck's" 9/12 Project, and conjectured an association with a resurgent militia movement.

The threats of a political realignment and the shear numbers of newly active citizens, such as the Tea Party Movement  and 9/12 Groups would create a Conservative Swell. This coalesced "swell" would be comprised of those believing in limited government; that the citizens hold the reins of power, and not the Progressives, who believe all blessings flow from government, instead of the Creator. This Conservative Swell could make rivers flow backwards for days and move mountains. This type of symbiotic relationship among Conservatives will be cataclysmic, not only for the Harry Reid-type liberal who force legislation that as many as 36% of Americans oppose. But For Everyone. Why do I say, "For Everyone?" Much damage has already been done.

It is said, "To the Victor belongs the spoils," the spoils in this case will be large debt, millions of citizens with a sense of entitlement, massive unemployment and large Social Security promises.

That brought back memories of the report released by Janet Napolitano's Homeland Security Department, warning that recession and the election of the nation's first black president "present unique drivers for right-wing radicalization."

That was before the Fort Hood Massacre by a radicalized Muslim soldier and the attempted downing of a U.S. airliner by a Nigerian Muslim with explosive underwear. Back then, the Homeland Security Department and the liberal media, were on the lookout, as the report put it, for "domestic Right-Wing terrorists" (i.e., white, male, middle-class, Christian, gun-owning, Bible-reading Americans, who can both read and speak English). Now some are trying to paint the Tea Party Movement with that broad extremist brush.

The Tea Party movement is not a coalition of John Birchers, white supremacists and militia-group wannabes. They are taxpayers who don't want to see their money squandered. They believe in the limited government intended by the Founding Fathers. They believe in states' rights as enshrined in the 10th Amendment. And, yes, they believe in the Second Amendment, too.

Most of all, they are red-blooded Americans; Conservative, religious, family-oriented, and have sacrificed a life of "more", for a "life of better" and they are 'typically' Republican, Libertarian or Independent. They believe government should serve the people, not the other way around. They are dangerous people indeed.

For an Obama/Reid/Pelosi Government, they may well be politically fatal.

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

 

How to Get a Republic, and Keep It If You Can

Those great men plodded on through to present the Political Opus known as The United State's Constitution, with its poetic, yet informative, introduction, and then the clearly stated, easily understood Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities incumbent upon a free people who are to govern themselves; followed by the succinct, flawless responsibilities of the Federal Offices, the method in which they are chosen, manner of succession, and ways in which the various individuals and groups would work together, deal with differences, finally showing their method by which citizens and officials would conduct themselves and keep each other in 'checks and balances.'

The 'bow' of individual Rights and Liberties, ten short statements that we cherish as "The Bill of Rights," were then trimmed upon the document so that Progressives, Liberals and every other group that prefers tyranny, taxes and slavery to Freedom, regardless of moniker have insured our basic individual Freedoms. When one of the signers was asked why he would not sign the Constitution without these ten  new 'amendments' upon a new, freshly penned document, when the wording of the main body certainly spelled out that we were given legitimate liberty. It is said that he replied, that unless clearly spelled-out, the most basic freedom could be withheld by a zealous government, or excluded by a court because of the lack of detail pertaining to the subject. Those ten priceless guarantees regarding Individual Freedoms have rescued many hundreds of thousands of citizens from the needless abuses, because that one foresightful man required this Bill of Rights in order for him to grant his signature. While it seemed a slight thing to essentially everyone else at the Constitutional Convention, this small, obstinate request has served each and every American more times than we know, and has kept the government from running over us roughshod.

If we lose this opportunity of bringing Conservatives together at this historic time, with people from every ancestry in the world, differing educations, interests, abilities and religions, it will not be because the Left-Wing has beat us in a battle of ideas. Destruction will come from within, perhaps sewn among our fertile fields of dreams of Liberty; our depraved nature and our inborn proclivity to greed for power and money will lead to mistrust, disarray among the leaders, and selfish individuals who will destroy this reborn Conservative Revival, and put the condescending and vitriolic "Progressives" in duly-elected positions with liberal power, while it takes months, perhaps years (if, ever), for us to lick our wounds, and live to see a new generation rise-up and say, "This is not what America was intended to be," and once again starts the labor, and, perhaps, the blood-shed that oft accompanies such impassioned efforts.

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher

 

Obama's Actions Will Force Call For Civil War

President Obama declared Wednesday that he would push Healthcare Reform through Congress. This is in spite of the fact that a minority of Americans favor Government-run Healthcare.  He is forcing Americans into actions that he can only enforce with violence, if we refuse to cooperate.

Barak Hussein Obama also mocked the Republicans, who brought out a copy of the 2,700 page healthcare bill, which no one has claimed to have fully read and understood, as a grand-standing move that was meant entirely to play upon the public's perception of the bill.  (The same BHO that put doctor's coats on children.)

What is "the public's perception of the bill?"  Most Americans believe that it is too large to read and understand, and that the instigation of such onerous terms upon healthcare providers and recipients alike, will result in an unwieldy, poorly understood bureaucracy that no one will be understood.

His proclamation that this will go through, and the consummation of the hostility by Harry Reid (by manipulating the use of parliamentary rules), and Pelosi's pressuring of House Democrats to push this through, will divide this country, and I believe will lead to the Civil War and destruction of this great Republic.

Since being President of the United States, BHO has done nothing, except win the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he did nothing, except push for government take-over of healthcare in this nation.

People will die. Obama, by failing to represent the people, and his reaching past constitutional limits, has lit a fire that will burn a nation.

After his declaration, the people of this nation face no option but Civil War to counter-act his treasonous acts.

Just Thinking, The Sand Hill Philosopher