It is ironic that with so many media outlets including tv, cable, and print it is actually difficult to get accurate and reliable news. A lot of the news just skims the surface and it is difficult to find resources that look deeper into stories. In depth news about Israel seems quite hard to come by. These are a few of the sources that I go to on a regular basis.
I get the Wall Street Journal everyday and I usually turn to the back of the first section where the editorials, commentary, and letters are written. I find these to be very informative and consistent with my political bias. Beyond that, if I have time, I read the personal finance pages which often have good advice on my own financial situation. Then, the front pages and finally the financial data pages which I rarely get to.
C-SPAN has a show every morning called Washington Journal. It is a call-in show from 7-10 without a screener and the topics are fairly wide-ranging. The reason I like it is that people say what they truly feel. Periodically, they discuss Israel or the Middle East in general and it amazes me the number of calls that come in which are anti-Israel. Often they are discussing an unrelated topic and someone will call in blaming Israel. The guests on the show field questions from the public and the topics are discussed in depth.
Every night from 9-1am the John Batchelor show airs on talk radio 770. He has a very interesting show and has guests which are quite informative on foreign policy. I especially recommend Thursday nights when Malcolm Hoenlein is cohosting. There is usually an in depth conversation regarding the Middle East and Israel in particular. Malcolm Hoenlein can also be heard on JM in the AM on Friday mornings or you can go to the website archives and listen to his update from the computer (Jmintheam.org).
Finally, if I get home in time I like to watch Special Report on Fox News from 6:40-7pm. There is a panel discussion but I really only like to hear what Charles Krauthammer has to say about the events of the day. He has the ability to cut directly to the core of issues and explain them in a simple manner with excellent commentary. If anybody has other outlets, I would love to hear about them.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
BO vs. Bibi
Ponder the following scenario. Hezbollah instigates Israel by kidnapping a couple of soldiers or sending a suicide bomber or placing their new Syrian/Iranian scuds on the border. Israel retaliates and the confrontation with Hezbollah escalates. Israel has has it with the Syrians supplying weapons to Hezbollah and decide to go after Damascus. Israel depletes its weaponry and asks the US to resupply its forces. Barack Obama must make a decision whether to supply Israel with arms to continues its mission. BO hesitates on the decision, perhaps by demanding tying rearmament to concessions. Iran says okay the US is hesitating on arming Israel, here is our chance and launches an all out attack to finish off Israel. Israel fights for it's existence. Far fetched? I do not think so.
Show me one action BO has done, not words, that demonstrate that he will be there for Israel when the time comes. By his inactions and negative behavior towards Bibi, BO is quietly giving the signal to the Arabs that their next chance to eliminate Israel is coming up. So not only will he stand by while Israel needs him but in effect, by his current behavior, he is instigating a conflict. The tiniest crack in the relationship between the US and Israel will be exploited by the Arabs.
The only reason BO involves himself with the Israel-Arab conflict is for his own self promotion. His mission is solely to put his name onto a peace accord regardless of the effect on the parties, specifically Israel. Just like in the case of health care he doesn't care about the substance of the legislation he just wants to glorify his name and ego by achieving something that has been elusive to previous administrations. It has always been and always will be about BO, not about the effects of his policies on the parties involved. His narcissism supercedes any potential damage to the underlying parties.
I would love to have a private conversation with Bibi and find out what he really thinks about BO. I can hear him saying privately to his wife when no one else listens that he is an antisemite, couldn't care less about Israel and that the American Jews threw Israel under the bus by overwhelmingly voting for this radical. Even though I didn't vote for him, I am ashamed as an American Jew that we assisted in getting him into office. My sincerest apologies to my brothers and sisters in Israel.
Show me one action BO has done, not words, that demonstrate that he will be there for Israel when the time comes. By his inactions and negative behavior towards Bibi, BO is quietly giving the signal to the Arabs that their next chance to eliminate Israel is coming up. So not only will he stand by while Israel needs him but in effect, by his current behavior, he is instigating a conflict. The tiniest crack in the relationship between the US and Israel will be exploited by the Arabs.
The only reason BO involves himself with the Israel-Arab conflict is for his own self promotion. His mission is solely to put his name onto a peace accord regardless of the effect on the parties, specifically Israel. Just like in the case of health care he doesn't care about the substance of the legislation he just wants to glorify his name and ego by achieving something that has been elusive to previous administrations. It has always been and always will be about BO, not about the effects of his policies on the parties involved. His narcissism supercedes any potential damage to the underlying parties.
I would love to have a private conversation with Bibi and find out what he really thinks about BO. I can hear him saying privately to his wife when no one else listens that he is an antisemite, couldn't care less about Israel and that the American Jews threw Israel under the bus by overwhelmingly voting for this radical. Even though I didn't vote for him, I am ashamed as an American Jew that we assisted in getting him into office. My sincerest apologies to my brothers and sisters in Israel.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Your Tax Dollars At Work
I just wanted to inform the readers where their tax dollars are being spent. Let me do that by describing a patient who came to see me this past week. I called in a 35 year old man into the examination room from the waiting area. He walked in without any difficulty and as I looked at his chart I noticed his insurance was medicare, a government insurance for the elderly and disabled. Naturally, since he was not elderly I asked him the nature of his disability since I need to be aware of his past medical history which may be informative regarding his current visit. He informed me that he is disabled due to back problems and has had previous surgery for his back and thus cannot work. Let me repeat that he walked into the office without a cane, walker, or wheelchair. He ambulated without a limp, pain, or hunch.
The visit continued by asking him the reason he had come to see me. He told me he was in Mexico and on the airplane ride back suffered pain to his ears which hadn’t cleared since he returned one week ago. Of course, I inquired what he was doing in Mexico and he responded he was on a trip for R&R. My first thought was R&R from what? You are disabled and supposedly do not work. What do you need to rest from? My second thought was if you are disabled to the point of not being able to work, what were you doing in Mexico? Did you go swimming? Play some tennis? Maybe some beach volleyball? And thirdly, how can you afford a trip to Mexico and be on welfare?
Of course, I didn’t express these thoughts to the patient. I diagnosed and treated him as I would anyone else, and he walked out as sturdy and with the ease that he entered. I was curious to see what car he was driving so I watched as he left the office, entered his late model Lexus and drove away. Probably heading to his job where he gets paid off the books.
I am sure there are thousands of people who abuse and cheat the system like this patient. The government is incapable and/or unwilling to police their programs for cheaters. It is much easier for them to just increase taxes or borrow the money from our kids/China. There is no doubt in my mind this man could hold a real job but it is better for him to collect a government disability check, receive medicare benefits, and find a job off the books. I should be able to report him to the government for fraud and receive a whistleblower’s award. This way I can afford to go to Mexico instead of this thief. Just another example of your tax dollars at work.
The visit continued by asking him the reason he had come to see me. He told me he was in Mexico and on the airplane ride back suffered pain to his ears which hadn’t cleared since he returned one week ago. Of course, I inquired what he was doing in Mexico and he responded he was on a trip for R&R. My first thought was R&R from what? You are disabled and supposedly do not work. What do you need to rest from? My second thought was if you are disabled to the point of not being able to work, what were you doing in Mexico? Did you go swimming? Play some tennis? Maybe some beach volleyball? And thirdly, how can you afford a trip to Mexico and be on welfare?
Of course, I didn’t express these thoughts to the patient. I diagnosed and treated him as I would anyone else, and he walked out as sturdy and with the ease that he entered. I was curious to see what car he was driving so I watched as he left the office, entered his late model Lexus and drove away. Probably heading to his job where he gets paid off the books.
I am sure there are thousands of people who abuse and cheat the system like this patient. The government is incapable and/or unwilling to police their programs for cheaters. It is much easier for them to just increase taxes or borrow the money from our kids/China. There is no doubt in my mind this man could hold a real job but it is better for him to collect a government disability check, receive medicare benefits, and find a job off the books. I should be able to report him to the government for fraud and receive a whistleblower’s award. This way I can afford to go to Mexico instead of this thief. Just another example of your tax dollars at work.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Laundry
My wife was recently commenting about her woes regarding laundry. She said it never seems to end. As soon as one load is washed, dried, folded, and put away another load is waiting to be done. It is a never ending process and I can understand the pressure of constantly having that required chore and never being able to get ahead of it. I compare her statements to the similar situation I have that the supply of patients seems to be endless regardless of the time spent every day. There is always more the next day. I suppose this is a good thing for me as my income depends on the constant flow of patients and my services are desired.
Patients and friends ask me what the effect of the new health care bill, Obamacare, will mean to my practice. Truthfully, I do not know except for the fact that initially as more people get insurance there will will be more patients seeking services. This may actually be a windfall for me and physicians as a group as the government taxes society and transfers the money to me to take care of the additional patients (via medicare, medicaid, subsidized private health plans). Yet ultimately I think it will be a negative. As costs to society rise over the next several years measures will have to be implemented to either ration care, cut payments to doctors or increase revenue to cover payments. There is no way around this, it is inevitable.
So where does that leave me? Like the analogy to laundry my service are a necessity to society. The skill set possessed by specialist physicians are difficult and expensive to obtain and restricted to a small group. These skills are sought out by patients and ultimately these doctors will be paid accordingly. In Obama care it will be the patient that takes the hit, either by rationing of care or by not being able to get a doctor to accept their insurance due to poor reimbursement. If the government rations care then people will have to pay out of pocket for services not covered. For instance, if the government decides they should not pay for me to remove wax out of patients ears then the patient will have to pay. The service is required.
If the government whittles down reimbursements to physicians to low levels then the doctors will not participate with the insurance plan and the patient again will have to pay out of pocket for the service. In either case it is society that will pay the price. This will happen as costs will rise and increasing revenue with a VAT is likely to be implemented.
I suppose another option is for the patient to just live with wax in his/her ears and not seek out a doctor to clear them. He/she would just live with a hearing loss. But this would be analogous in the case of laundry to spending ones life wearing dirty underwear every day. I am not sure which one is worse.
Patients and friends ask me what the effect of the new health care bill, Obamacare, will mean to my practice. Truthfully, I do not know except for the fact that initially as more people get insurance there will will be more patients seeking services. This may actually be a windfall for me and physicians as a group as the government taxes society and transfers the money to me to take care of the additional patients (via medicare, medicaid, subsidized private health plans). Yet ultimately I think it will be a negative. As costs to society rise over the next several years measures will have to be implemented to either ration care, cut payments to doctors or increase revenue to cover payments. There is no way around this, it is inevitable.
So where does that leave me? Like the analogy to laundry my service are a necessity to society. The skill set possessed by specialist physicians are difficult and expensive to obtain and restricted to a small group. These skills are sought out by patients and ultimately these doctors will be paid accordingly. In Obama care it will be the patient that takes the hit, either by rationing of care or by not being able to get a doctor to accept their insurance due to poor reimbursement. If the government rations care then people will have to pay out of pocket for services not covered. For instance, if the government decides they should not pay for me to remove wax out of patients ears then the patient will have to pay. The service is required.
If the government whittles down reimbursements to physicians to low levels then the doctors will not participate with the insurance plan and the patient again will have to pay out of pocket for the service. In either case it is society that will pay the price. This will happen as costs will rise and increasing revenue with a VAT is likely to be implemented.
I suppose another option is for the patient to just live with wax in his/her ears and not seek out a doctor to clear them. He/she would just live with a hearing loss. But this would be analogous in the case of laundry to spending ones life wearing dirty underwear every day. I am not sure which one is worse.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Passover v.2010
As we head into the Passover season I thought I would borrow a theme from the seder to illustrate a point. During the recitation of the haggada we talk about four sons with different qualities and their approach to inquiry regarding the uniqueness of Passover night. Since the retelling of the Passover story is too long I will truncate my rendition to two sons regarding their relationship to their parents. The first son is obedient and the second is rebellious.
The obedient son is caring to his parents and has values very much in common with his parents. He appreciates the sacrifices his parents have endured for him and does not talk badly about his parents either directly to them or behind their back. The son realizes he is dependent on his parents and thus is grateful for what he receives and is very careful about avoiding anything that would upset his parents. When they do disagree the son usually bows to the pressure of his parents.
The rebellious son has no respect for his parents and regardless of what the parents have done or are willing to do for him, he is not willing to engage in a mutually respectful relationship. He has no respect for his parents beliefs and he feels that only his beliefs and practices are correct. His actions are deliberately provocative to his parents as if he is tempting his parents to retaliate. He persists on testing the limits of his parents patience.
What would one expect to be the approach of the parents to these diametrically opposed sons? Obviously, praise for the obedient son and condemnation for the rebellious son. The rebellious son deserves to be scolded and punished for his actions in the hope that he will change his ways. But with dysfunctional parents you might see a scenario where the parents take the obedient son for granted. They know he will always be respectful because that is his nature and temperament and thus treat him with contempt and with disregard. The parents understand that this relationship will always be maintained and can never be severed so they have no problem dictating to their obedient son how he should act even if it is not what the son desires or perhaps detrimental to him.
Regarding the rebellious son, the dysfunctional parents are so desperate to have a relationship with the him that they are scared to repudiate his beliefs and actions in the fear that this will push him further away. They walk on egg shells whenever they approach. They always have their hand out waiting for the son to see things their way and give up his destructive pattern of behavior. They offer him prizes if and when he will change. They fear to place any demands on him with the fear that it will exacerbate the tenuous relationship.
These two sons represent Israel and Iran with the United States as the parents. Instead of support for Israel, the administration is quick to criticize any actions that may be seen as questionable and will not see things from the point of view of the Israelis, a strong and dependable ally. Iran is treated with kid gloves as it proceeds with its march to nuclear capabilities. This is truly upside down and reflects the dysfunctional nature of this administration's policies.
Ultimately, what do the two sons do if this dysfunctional relationship continues? The obedient son finally says I've had it, enough with these parents who do not appreciate me. This son ultimately moves away from his dysfunctional parents as they are not dependable to be there for him and he takes matters into his own hands. On the other hand, the rebellious son continues to become more radical as there is no consequence to his actions.
This administration has turned US middle east policy into one of appeasement towards Iran and criticism towards Israel. This is dysfunctional policy and will ultimately lead to an outcome exactly the reverse of what is in the best interest of this country and the world.
The Passover story is not just a historical remembrance. In it we describe how in every generation forces stand up against us to destroy us but at the end we are saved. It is clear in our own generation who the actors are. Hopefully, in our generation's battle, a similar outcome results in our redemption and the rebels in the bottom sea.
The obedient son is caring to his parents and has values very much in common with his parents. He appreciates the sacrifices his parents have endured for him and does not talk badly about his parents either directly to them or behind their back. The son realizes he is dependent on his parents and thus is grateful for what he receives and is very careful about avoiding anything that would upset his parents. When they do disagree the son usually bows to the pressure of his parents.
The rebellious son has no respect for his parents and regardless of what the parents have done or are willing to do for him, he is not willing to engage in a mutually respectful relationship. He has no respect for his parents beliefs and he feels that only his beliefs and practices are correct. His actions are deliberately provocative to his parents as if he is tempting his parents to retaliate. He persists on testing the limits of his parents patience.
What would one expect to be the approach of the parents to these diametrically opposed sons? Obviously, praise for the obedient son and condemnation for the rebellious son. The rebellious son deserves to be scolded and punished for his actions in the hope that he will change his ways. But with dysfunctional parents you might see a scenario where the parents take the obedient son for granted. They know he will always be respectful because that is his nature and temperament and thus treat him with contempt and with disregard. The parents understand that this relationship will always be maintained and can never be severed so they have no problem dictating to their obedient son how he should act even if it is not what the son desires or perhaps detrimental to him.
Regarding the rebellious son, the dysfunctional parents are so desperate to have a relationship with the him that they are scared to repudiate his beliefs and actions in the fear that this will push him further away. They walk on egg shells whenever they approach. They always have their hand out waiting for the son to see things their way and give up his destructive pattern of behavior. They offer him prizes if and when he will change. They fear to place any demands on him with the fear that it will exacerbate the tenuous relationship.
These two sons represent Israel and Iran with the United States as the parents. Instead of support for Israel, the administration is quick to criticize any actions that may be seen as questionable and will not see things from the point of view of the Israelis, a strong and dependable ally. Iran is treated with kid gloves as it proceeds with its march to nuclear capabilities. This is truly upside down and reflects the dysfunctional nature of this administration's policies.
Ultimately, what do the two sons do if this dysfunctional relationship continues? The obedient son finally says I've had it, enough with these parents who do not appreciate me. This son ultimately moves away from his dysfunctional parents as they are not dependable to be there for him and he takes matters into his own hands. On the other hand, the rebellious son continues to become more radical as there is no consequence to his actions.
This administration has turned US middle east policy into one of appeasement towards Iran and criticism towards Israel. This is dysfunctional policy and will ultimately lead to an outcome exactly the reverse of what is in the best interest of this country and the world.
The Passover story is not just a historical remembrance. In it we describe how in every generation forces stand up against us to destroy us but at the end we are saved. It is clear in our own generation who the actors are. Hopefully, in our generation's battle, a similar outcome results in our redemption and the rebels in the bottom sea.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Individual Mandate
Should each American be required to possess health insurance? Should the government impose an individual mandate and what measures should be use to enforce it? These are very critical questions which cut directly to the core of our society. As a proponent of limited government and personal liberty I naturally lean away from federal imposition into our personal lives. But I believe that mandatory health insurance for every individual should be the law.
People should not have the option of being without health insurance and then if they are in an accident or are the unfortunate victim of a serious disease show up at the emergency room looking for the rest of society to pay for their care. If they want to take the gamble with their own money, fine. But to take a gamble with the money of those who are cautious and do purchase health insurance is unfair and should not be tolerated. If someone decides not to purchase insurance and then gets sick he loses his gamble and either should have to pay for his care or if he cannot afford it not receive care. But since in this country refusing care based on money is not an option he receives care at the expense of everybody else.
Once the mandate is in place, the minimum health plan required should be one that protects society from having to provide for an individual’s unexpected or catastrophic condition. If a person doesn’t want to be covered for obesity treatment, in vitro fertilization, abortion, drug rehabilitation or other similar treatments then he should be able to find a bare bones catastrophic plan that excludes such coverage. Ultimately, he is required to hold insurance not for himself but to protect society from him becoming a burden in the case of illness. This is why mandatory insurance is acceptable. Not to force the individual to purchase something he may or may not want to protect himself but to protect everybody else from having the burden of taking care of that person in case of illness.
This insurance plan would probably be fairly inexpensive, especially for an otherwise healthy 20 year old. My worry is that BO will force people into specific types of plans. In fact, it will be the government that determines which plans are acceptable. This is where I return to my limited government position. The government should mandate that the minimal plan acceptable to be a catastrophic plan that protects society. Once that is covered then anything beyond that is a personal choice.
The personal mandate would not be in place to baby the individual on how government believes he should run their lives. But rather it is in place to protect society from the individual and to not allow the individual to gamble with public money.
It is a mandatory protection of society not an individual mandate to protect oneself.
People should not have the option of being without health insurance and then if they are in an accident or are the unfortunate victim of a serious disease show up at the emergency room looking for the rest of society to pay for their care. If they want to take the gamble with their own money, fine. But to take a gamble with the money of those who are cautious and do purchase health insurance is unfair and should not be tolerated. If someone decides not to purchase insurance and then gets sick he loses his gamble and either should have to pay for his care or if he cannot afford it not receive care. But since in this country refusing care based on money is not an option he receives care at the expense of everybody else.
Once the mandate is in place, the minimum health plan required should be one that protects society from having to provide for an individual’s unexpected or catastrophic condition. If a person doesn’t want to be covered for obesity treatment, in vitro fertilization, abortion, drug rehabilitation or other similar treatments then he should be able to find a bare bones catastrophic plan that excludes such coverage. Ultimately, he is required to hold insurance not for himself but to protect society from him becoming a burden in the case of illness. This is why mandatory insurance is acceptable. Not to force the individual to purchase something he may or may not want to protect himself but to protect everybody else from having the burden of taking care of that person in case of illness.
This insurance plan would probably be fairly inexpensive, especially for an otherwise healthy 20 year old. My worry is that BO will force people into specific types of plans. In fact, it will be the government that determines which plans are acceptable. This is where I return to my limited government position. The government should mandate that the minimal plan acceptable to be a catastrophic plan that protects society. Once that is covered then anything beyond that is a personal choice.
The personal mandate would not be in place to baby the individual on how government believes he should run their lives. But rather it is in place to protect society from the individual and to not allow the individual to gamble with public money.
It is a mandatory protection of society not an individual mandate to protect oneself.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Contact Your Congressman
Unfortunately, my house has lost power for the last 3 days and I have been unable to blog. I am writing in the doctors lounge at the hospital and want to copy a letter I just wrote to my congressman, Bill Pascrell. I urge everybody to write, call, email their representative and let them know what they think about this bill. It is our responsibility to let our representatives know how their constituents feel. Please take the time. It only takes a few minutes.
Honorable Representative Pascrell,
As a physician on the front lines,I would like to inform you that I agree the health care system is broken and is in need of significant changes. The changes proposed by the current senate bill will ultimately lead to much higher costs to the taxpayer and likely rationing of care. A yes vote by you will be seen as advocating for big government health care and you will be blamed for peoples future negative experience as they confront the new system as well as its cost. I urge you to consider these issues as you vote. Do you really think the government is the right body to make decisions about a persons health care issues. You know that ultimately government control is the desire of the far left currently in power. Does Pelosi really speak for you? If you fall in line behind her you will be seen as a far left puppet. Be strong and courageous. Do not fall in line behind the far left wing of the democratic party. Demonstrate that you can buck the enormous pressure being put on you to ram this thing through. You will be seen as a free thinker with strong convictions if you vote no for this bill. I strongly recommend you listen to the interview with Warren Buffet when he described the 2000 page bill as nonsense and the real issue is to LOWER COSTS. If that is done the issue of coverage will be easily fixed. Address the cost issue first then coverage not the reverse. This is where the American people are at. If you would care to communicate further regarding these issues please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully, Dr. Mayersquared
Honorable Representative Pascrell,
As a physician on the front lines,I would like to inform you that I agree the health care system is broken and is in need of significant changes. The changes proposed by the current senate bill will ultimately lead to much higher costs to the taxpayer and likely rationing of care. A yes vote by you will be seen as advocating for big government health care and you will be blamed for peoples future negative experience as they confront the new system as well as its cost. I urge you to consider these issues as you vote. Do you really think the government is the right body to make decisions about a persons health care issues. You know that ultimately government control is the desire of the far left currently in power. Does Pelosi really speak for you? If you fall in line behind her you will be seen as a far left puppet. Be strong and courageous. Do not fall in line behind the far left wing of the democratic party. Demonstrate that you can buck the enormous pressure being put on you to ram this thing through. You will be seen as a free thinker with strong convictions if you vote no for this bill. I strongly recommend you listen to the interview with Warren Buffet when he described the 2000 page bill as nonsense and the real issue is to LOWER COSTS. If that is done the issue of coverage will be easily fixed. Address the cost issue first then coverage not the reverse. This is where the American people are at. If you would care to communicate further regarding these issues please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully, Dr. Mayersquared
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
