A Good Thing?

If we send illegal aliens south

Wouldn’t that decrease the number of coming north?

Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Actually, it would be a good thing for them too.  They wouldn’t needlessly risk their lives and lose their fortunes for naught.  It just might decrease the smuggling of drugs and I would think that would be a good thing too.

However, it would seem the dummycrats have it wrong again.  They think it would be bad and inhumane.  Truly, the best thing they can do is fix things in their own country instead of coming up here and destroying ours.

Tell me.  To where do we run when the US is destroyed?

P. S. I’m still waiting for an answer to my question, how does a drone stop someone from crossing the border?  For that matter, I have not heard one other person ask the question, not even Fox News, not even Hannity.  I don’t understand, it seems such an obvious question.

Decrease the Costs of Healthcare

If you really want to cut the cost of healthcare, one way you can go about it is to keep the lawyers out of it.  Doctors have to pay a great deal for malpractice insurance.  Let me restate that.  We who visit doctors pay a great deal for malpractice insurance.  It is a cost of business for doctors and we pay every bit of that cost.

Well, that is not totally true.  Most of us don’t pay the doctor.  We pay insurance companies and the insurance companies pay the doctor.  Regardless of how many hands it goes through, it is our dime that pays for that doctor to keep his practice.  Even if the cost is paid by an employer, it is part of our pay package.  In a way, when the payment is made through other means, it is worse.  By isolating us from the knowledge of the cost, we remain ignorant of just how much is paid for that visit to the doctor because we have sniffles.

It wouldn’t be so bad, but in most malpractice lawsuits, the doctor is not even at fault.  However, the insurance company usually settles to avoid paying legal fees as well as the off chance that the jury improperly awards the case to the plaintiff.  Let us face it.  Paying ten-thousand for sure appears better than possibly paying ten-million.  So the lawyer gets forty percent of ten-thousand, four thousand for simply threatening to sue.

When it happens in small numbers, it isn’t any big thing.  However, there are lawyers that make their fortunes making such lawsuits, even though they know that they would lose the suit should it go to trial.  So you and I pay no-good-bums to sue good doctors without good cause.

If the lawsuits were not permitted, thousands of lawyers would have to find another line of work and the price of healthcare would plummet.

Unfortunately, that is not all of it.  Everyone knows about defensive medicine.  There are many doctors that order tests that serve no purpose other than to keep out of court.

Then there are the medicines.  A pharmacology company spends money and years to come up with a new drug that serves a very important purpose.  Then, after all the testing and all, they finally release the drug so that they can start realizing a profit.  Then, one week later, some lawyer takes the company to court in hopes of getting a big settlement out of it.

It happens all the time.  One day I hear of a new drug that really helps and within a week, the advertisement comes on TV, “If you took (whatever the drug is) and suffered (whatever the problem is) then contact (whoever the lawyer is) and we will make you a millionaire.  (And, by the way, we will become a billionaire.  And, by the way, we will drive the cost of meds up roughly thirty to forty percent.)

Lest you get the wrong idea, I am not advocating completely taking the lawyers out of medicine.  It would be a horrible idea.  However, we really need to take a long hard look at our tort system.  Indeed, it would be a good idea to look at it in general, not just the world of medicine.  Everything we buy includes legal fees.  Worse, there are some products that never make it to the market because of lawyers.

My suggestion is that the lawyers should be held to a higher standard.  I don’t know how it would be, but lawyers who do such things should have their licenses pulled and they should be fined.  If we could figure out a way to do it, the cost of medicine, as well as other things, would immediately drop.  Not only that; I wouldn’t have to listen to those ridiculous commercials.  TV and radio would have to find a replacement for their programming.

Unfortunately, I don’t hold out much hope for anything to be done.  The lawyers make the laws.  They benefit from them.  I doubt that they will do anything that will decrease their fortunes.

The Truth About Government

If I may, I would like to make a statement based on something I heard Dr. J. Vernon McGee made one time.

The best government in the hands of bad people is horrid.  Even, it will tend to get worse.

The worst government in the hands of good, God-fearing people will tend to be good.  Moreover, it will tend to get better.

Keeping this in mind, is it better to put the control of the government in the hands of people who want to destroy our government as we know it.  After all, even Obama promised hope and change.  I didn’t see much hope but I saw a lot of change… all in the wrong direction.  Do we really want to repeat that mistake and put the country of communists or are we going to learn from the last mistake?

Public Schools

When our forefathers set up our government, they did a wonderful job.  There are a few suggestions I have for a change to the constitution, but by and large, they did a much better job than I ever would.  It would stand to reason they had a good look at what they didn’t want.

Unfortunately, I do believe they overlooked one major thing.  I can understand it.  It could not have been foreseen in the day.  The hitch is that now it is very likely too late.  It would seem that the federal government has crept into our education system.

They gave us the first amendment to keep the government out of publishing papers.  However, when the government controls what is taught in our schools and colleges, it really amounts to the same thing.  Our education system is horrible at teaching as compared to most developed nations.  On the other hand, it is very good at indoctrinating.  Worse yet, they are bound and determined to prevent private schools wherever possible.

The instant that anyone brings up the possibility of a penny going to a private school, it is about the same sound as when I accidentally step on my dog’s tail.  They don’t even want any money paid toward such private schools being tax deductible.  As such, people who do send their children to private schools end up paying twice.

Certainly, there are two reasons they don’t want private schools to thrive.  Already, statistics show that kids who go to private schools, or those that are homeschooled, do so much far better.  Their academic measures are better in every way.  Also, they are generally better citizens.

To add to the indictment of the public schools, the private schools provide the better education at about half the costs.  Certainly, the NEA does not want that getting around.

If students that normally do poorly were to be put into private schools and they suddenly started doing well, it would really give the public schools a black eye.  They certainly would not want that.

Worse yet, they would never get a chance to indoctrinate any student permitted to go to private school.  It would take them out of the reach of the NEA and the government.  Now you know why the government wants your children in their schools.  And woe to the parent who complains about them being indoctrinated.  And woe to anyone who complains about the public system.

 

Coverup, Really

Pelosi said that President Trump is covering something up, though she would be hard-pressed to determine what it is he is covering up.  I mean after two years and four investigations, no one has found anything for him to cover up.

This is not just dumb but willful stupidity.  Not only is it not the truth but she knows that it isn’t true.  That makes her a liar as well as dumb.  Then too, she expects us to believe it.  Now that is really dumb.

Then, of all things, after she verbally assaults President Trump, she expects him to work with her as if she said nothing.  That means she’s not just dumb but also has a lot of audacity.

A Little Question

Former President Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch say they just happened to meet at an airport.  (Sorry.  Don’t remember which one.)  I really don’t believe that one.  More important it brings a question to mind.  Just how many more “incidental” meetings occurred during the months just before and just following the election.

The meeting just happened to be recorded by a newsman.  Then, when confronted, they tried to say they talked about grandchildren and golf.  It was a very bad lie told when they were caught doing a very bad thing.  Moreover, I would suspect that there were very many clandestine meetings.

Anyone who believes their lie would have no difficulty believing my books.

The Bully

The leaders of Iran are nothing more than two-bit bullies.  They are throwing their weight around, such as it is.  There are two ways to deal with bullies.  Ideally, you ignore them.  Sometimes that is not an option.  When they kill people, especially when they threaten to kill people in mass, then it is time to use the second method, or at least make the threat.

Iran has threatened to eliminate Israel.  Soon, if permitted, they will gain the ability to do that.  It means preventing that, no matter what it takes.  Moreover, we need to make sure they realize our intentions.  That means, in the long run, we need to make sure they don’t get a nuclear bomb or the means to deliver it.

In the short term, we need to watch them carefully.  The instant they start flexing what little muscle they have, we need to retaliate and quickly.  We need to make them pay for their stupidity.

That does not mean that we send in troops.  Most likely, there would be no need.  Simply a few well placed conventional bombs would be all that would be needed.  Depending on what they do or threaten to do, ten to thirty bombs would be all that would be needed to send them a message.

It wouldn’t be the purpose to win a war.  It is simply important that we remind them that we have the means and the determination to deal with them.  That doesn’t mean that they suddenly behave themselves.  It is just important that they know each time they strike,  we will counterstrike significantly harder.

Sometimes, it is the only way a bully will learn.  You see, most bullies have are hard of hearing.  Sometimes, it takes three or four lessons, but, eventually, they will learn.  It is better than sending in troops.  It will let them know that we can strike by pressing a few buttons.  Oddly, it is better for them too.  If we have to send troops in, their losses will be far more.

This has another benefit.  In the unlikely event that we would have to send in troops, our army would probably would not encounter much resistance.  Also, if we need to send in troops, they should have one objective, the oil fields.  Without their oil, what little threat they have would be suddenly removed.

The most important part, we need to “bluff” them and then stand ready to fully back the bluff.  There would be another advantage of this method.  Bullies, worldwide, will know that we mean what we say.  It will drastically decrease the need to send our troops anywhere again.