Principle Based Decision Making in Representative Government #2 - Health Care

The Federal Government has no constitutional jurisdiction in mandating, providing, subsidizing or restricting health care. States and communities (including faith-based and charitable groups) have the right if they wish to assist individuals and families with the cost and provision of health care and/or emergency services. Medicare should be phased out or transitioned into a state sponsored and funded system. The Federal Government does have (under the interstate commerce provisions) the responsibility to see that national or multi-state insurance companies do not engage in deceptive or discriminatory practices. They can also regulate the safety of chemicals (drugs) and medical devices sold on a national or multi-state basis.

As they determine what their level of involvement in health care should be, states and communities should keep the following principles in mind.

1. People have a variety of preferences as to what kind of health care they desire. Some are holistic, some prefer chiropractic, some use energy, light or aroma therapies, some use ceremonies or faith/priesthood healing. None of these are fully covered by insurance companies. Individuals have a right to choose what type of health care they get and should not have mandates that force them to pay, not only for their own care but for health care they do not agree with and won't use. Mandates are an abuse of governmental power, no matter what level of government tries to use them.

2. Availability of a medical procedure, device or chemical (drug) does not mean that everyone has a right to have it, even if they need it.

3. Health is a personal responsibility. To a great extent, individuals determine their health by their decisions on diet, exercise and types of activities.

4. Assistance to those who have injuries or disabilities not caused by their own actions are a special case. While it is not the responsibility of the federal government to address these, communities and states can and should marshall public resources to assist those in such need to the extent possible.

5. States and communities can provide with the consent and financial support of the members of those communities whatever level of support they determine to people who can not afford the care they need or want.

6. Foods and naturally grown (unrefined or unaltered) plants including medicinal or any other herbs should not be regulated or outlawed. These items, when sold outside their state of origin, can be monitored and any claims made as to their effects or effectiveness verified or disputed by the federal government under interstate commerce regulation. Any actions taken in case of fraud or false claims should be directed at the sellers of these items, not at removing them from availability.

7. Aging and death are natural processes of the human condition. Just because we can intervene and delay death or minimize the effects of aging does not automatically mean that the public should pay for doing so.

8. The reason that people are hoping the government (taxpayers) will pay for their health care is the incredible rise in the cost of that care over the last 70 years. The staggering increases in the cost of health care have been created by three things: a) extreme court and insurance settlements that create high insurance premiums for doctors, hospitals, drug companies and other health care entities, b) the high cost of educating and preparing doctors and specialists which in turn leads them to charge ever higher prices for their services, and c) unnecessary proceedures which are often required by insurance companies to avoid frivolous lawsuits rather than because they are actually needed by the patient. These issues will be addressed in another paper.

Response to Deseret News article on Romneycare

I agree with Mr. Romney that health care is a State and local issue, not the domain of the Federal government. I do not agree with ANY government (including Massachusetts) mandating that I purchase anything. If I am a person who chooses not to use traditional medicine, then I receive no benefit from mandated insurance even though I end up having to pay for it or pay a fine. People use the example of auto insurance. Good example. If I choose not to drive, I don't have to purchase it. States can (and have) made the decision to provide (or require that providers do so) certain types of care such as emergency services regardless of ability to pay. That is where this debate needs to go. How much and what types of care should be provided either by state taxation of its citizens or by paying clients of hospitals and health care providers or by purchasers of health insurance? One or more of those will pay for it - whether they like it or not. We need to decide as communities what is fair and responsible. The Federal government should not be involved.

Applying Principles to Problems #1 - Illegal Immigration

I am starting with admittedly the most divisive and difficult policy question we face. The solution is complex but easily understood when the principles relating to it are clear.

Here are the principles that I believe apply to this problem.

1. This is a problem that is the responsibility of the Federal Government. If they refuse to take that responsibility, it creates severe problems for the states and the citizens of our country.

2. Every country has the right to protect its borders and determine who to allow to visit, for how long and who should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship

3. People have a right to seek to improve the health and well-being of their families - even if that means moving to a new area or country (unalienable rights to life and the pursuit of happiness)

4. People who demonstrate willingness to reform/repent should be forgiven and be given assistance and opportunity - they shouldn't, however, be given more than those who continue to live in integrity.

5. A Citizen should always have more rights, freedoms and opportunities than illegal aliens and other non-citizens.

6. Economic status and education should not be deciding factors for those applying to enter the country legally. Our country was built by those who had neither, but came here to build a better life through hard work and determination. (Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.)

The Solution

1. Arbitrary quotas on legal immigration must be removed or greatly expanded for a time as we provide an adjustment to the broken system we have been living under. We can no longer state that the country cannot assimilate the 12-20 million illegals living here, because we are doing it now. People wading through the system to immigrate legally are waiting as many as 15 years to complete the process. This makes it impossible for those who need to feed their families now to go through the process legally.

2. Deportation should cease for a period of one year while the changes below are instituted. This does not apply to those who break our laws, especially driving without a license or insurance, violence, theft and other serious crimes.

3. During that year, those who are here illegally can present themselves for expedited processing. No penalties will be invoked unless they are guilty of serious crimes. We will assist them to return to their country of origin and work with their government to bring them back legally as quickly as is possible, after criminal and background checks are completed.

4. Those in this program will not be placed in line ahead of those who have already applied to come here legally.

5. At the end of the deportation moratorium (1 year), those who have not taken advantage of the program will be considered criminals and treated as such. They will be deported. If they are found in our country again, they will be incarcerated and work at hard labor or domestic/institutional service/maintenance in government institutions such as prisons or to rebuild our roads, bridges and other public works until such time as they choose to return to their country of origin. This will provide them with the room and board they need to survive while acknowledging their status as illegal aliens with no rights except those that other criminals receive.

6. Those who take advantage of this program will be forgiven only for entering the country illegally. For them only, there will be a possible path to citizenship if they are not guilty of other crimes.

This is an example of how applying true principles to problems can help us to arrive at solutions that are creative, sensitive to peoples situations and have moral integrity. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

AmeriCANs Can! Don’t be an AmeriCAN’T

I just finished watching two of the most remarkable comebacks in sporting history. There have been bigger turnarounds, but never in the NCAA basketball tournament. With less than 5 minutes to play, Western Kentucky University trailed by 16 points. Over those last 4 minutes plus, they outscored their opponent 22-5 to win the game.

With a little more than 6 minutes left in the first half, Brigham Young University found themselves down by 25 points. Worse, they had been outplayed, out-hustled and out-defended at every turn. Iona College (their opponent) was on track to score nearly 150 points. Instead, in the remaining 26 minutes of the game, they only scored 23 points while BYU scored 54 to win. What happened? Did a star player for Iona fall to an injury? Did BYU bring a superstar off the bench to save the day? No. Coach Dave Rose saw that what they were doing wasn’t working and decided to make a change. Instead of trying to outrun the very talented Iona team, he decided to turn things around by focusing on defending and disrupting - a total change of direction. It worked. Not only did they stop the onslaught from the other team, they gained confidence and exhibited more teamwork. Coach Rose said "The look in our players' eyes at that time was, 'Game on. We've got a chance here,' “ What he didn’t mention was that he helped them to believe they could do it.

I know that basketball is not life and that metaphors always have limits, but I see truths in all kinds of things. In these contests I see a similarity to the situation we find our nation in today. Over the last 100 years, we have chosen to let our government grow far beyond its founder’s intent. We are letting our representatives in government "run up and down the court" spending our money and taking our freedoms without restraint. As a people, we have thought that, if we give government enough power and enough of our money, they could solve our problems, take care of the less-fortunate and make us safe. What we see today is that we have more problems, more of us fall into the less-fortunate category and we are definitely less safe than we were even 20 years ago. Asking the government to manage our lives has created immense debt. Our current course will make it even worse. We need to defend and disrupt. We need a total change of direction.

We are driving toward a cliff at high speed. The Democrats want to step on the gas and go faster. The Republicans (most of them) just want to go a little slower. I am asking, "Wait a minute. Shouldn't we turn the car around? You people are still driving us off the cliff."

Are we wise enough to determine, as coach Rose did, that what we are doing is not working? Are we courageous enough, as his players were, to believe that our best effort in a new direction can bring us to a better outcome, one that no one else might even believe is possible? I believe that we can save our nation from descending into mediocrity and weakness. I do know that, if we don’t change course soon and put forth out best effort to move our nation in a new direction, it will be too late. Let us all choose to believe we can make a difference. The motto “Yes we can!” is a great one - but only if it is coupled with the principles of truth, liberty and personal responsibility that echo “Yes we should!” Once we have a direction we can believe in, each of us must decide if we are willing to say “Yes I will!”

Be an AmeriCAN. Don’t be an AmeriCAN’T.

Announcing My Intention to Run for the US Senate as a Constitution Party Candidate from Utah

I have frankly tried to find a way to avoid running. It really takes too much time, money and emotion. Especially when I know there is an incredibly small chance of winning or even making a large difference. However, I believe that it is our responsibility to stand up for what we believe in and I am fairly certain that no one else is going to do that in this election. There are those opposing Mr. Hatch in the Republican Party, but their chances of unseating him are not as good as those who opposed Mr. Bennett two years ago. While Mr. Hatch speaks like a conservative, his voting record does not square with the Constitutional imperatives that I believe should be protected and defended.

I do not see myself as conservative or liberal, left-wing or right-wing. I simply attempt to be a principled, pragmatic Constitutionalist. That puts me at odds with some conservatives and many liberals. My thoughts on illegal immigration seem to offend extremists in both camps. It is similar with many other of my stands. I believe that, when we consider our unalienable rights, our duty to consider the rights of others to pursue happiness as well as their rights to life, liberty and property, we can usually find the right approach to legislate compassionately and minimally. We always need to try to serve the dual goals of justice and mercy. If we deny either, we either destroy the rule of law or ignore the growth and peace of our own souls and the souls of the citizenry.

I will post positions here over the next few weeks so people can see what I stand for. I reserve the right to alter or improve my statements if I can be shown the errors of my ways. I am not a politician and do not want to be. If I am wrong, I will find a better way. If I am unclear I will improve how I state what I believe. I want your input and your criticism. Even if I can't find a way to agree with you, your thoughts will challenge me to consider things and clarify what I think. Thank you for your input.

If you would like to help with my campaign or donate to the effort, please contact me at 435-668-7118.

Principle Based Decision Making in Representative Government

I have long believed that there is a process by which we can find solutions to even the very vexing problems we face now as a nation. It is based on using correct principles of truth to determine the correct and effective path to resolving the problem. It consists of three basic steps.

Analyze carefully and state the problem correctly.
   This requires setting aside politics and special interests. It requires intellectual honesty and being able to articulate accurately what the problem actually is, not what rhetoric makes it seem to be.

Discover and state clearly the principles of truth that pertain to the problem(s).
   Before trying to solve a problem, we must understand all of the principles that should be considered.

Apply the principles to the problem.
   Reject "knee-jerk" reactionary solutions and emotional appeals as a basis for decision making. More bad laws have been created because of emotional response to real problems than any other cause. If a solution does not hinge on the correct principles involved, it will not serve us well in the long run. The law of unintended consequences to "good-intentioned" decisions is one of the most common things that has gotten us into the mess we are in. If we instead choose to take the time to make decisions based on sound principles of truth, we have a good chance of not only solving today's problem, but not creating tomorrow's.

I am aware that there will be some disputation as to what the principles of truth are. However, I am confident if those principles are based on our unalienable rights and the U.S. Constitution, we can come to consensus among most people of good conscience. In the next while, I will be posting what I believe to be reasoned solutions created by this process to some of our more vexing problems and questions. Come along for the ride and comment freely so that we together can refine those solutions and more accurately observe and describe what the problems and principles are that should be considered.

Is Voting For a Third Party or Independent Candidate Wasting Your Vote?

That's what all the major party candidates tell you. Is it possible that they have an ulterior motive for saying such a thing? We have a societal problem in this country - we want to be on the "winning" team. For many, it has become more important than being on the "right" team - or perhaps even being the lone voice in the wilderness that speaks the truth, come what may. It seems that almost every person I respect has as one of their guiding principles some version of the following statement. "My responsibility is to do all I can to affect change for the better. Results are up to God."

I have come to understand that, if no one will step forward and take a chance or take a stand, God will not do anything for us. If we will do what we know or even feel is right, he can help us make a difference. Sometimes that means that an unlikely candidate may be elected through happenstance or intervention by God (or luck if you would rather). More often, it means that a person who does all he or she can will affect the debate, encourage people who are tired of the status quo, or help people realize there is a better way than what we have been doing.

The old maxim that "insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" applies. For at least 100 years we have been sending people as our representatives to Washington D.C. who either believe the government should be bigger, stronger and more intrusive in our lives or soon allow the seductive influences of power, prestige and wealth to destroy the idealism that gave them the courage to run for office. The two major political parties and their manipulation of our representatives is a major reason for this cynicism and infidelity to the principles of the Declaration and Constitution. If you vote for anyone controlled by either of the two major parties, you are continuing to support this particular brand of insanity. There are notable exceptions that seem to be able to stand up for themselves, even as they attempt to steer their party away from the course of destruction that we are on, but they are few and far between and are often in office only one term because their own parties work against them because they are not "team" players.

I propose that voting for anyone who is to any extent under the control of either major party is a vote for the destruction of our liberty and our economy. To me, that is truly "wasting your vote". How much better to vote for someone who actually believes in and will work for liberty and a restoration of freedoms. Voting for the lesser of two evils is actually voting for the evil of two lessers. Voting for either of two groups driving us over the cliff is remarkably self-destructive, even if one of them is driving slower than the other. We need to change course and we need to do it now.

In recent history, every so called "cut" in the federal budget was actually a cut in the amount of increase. The debt keeps increasing as does the intrusion of government into our lives and businesses. The last president to actually try to cut some of the waste and inordinate use of power by the federal government was Ronald Reagan, but both parties would have none of it. They did all they could to limit his effectiveness and his desires to actually do away with unnecessary or unconstitutional segments of the bureaucracy.

We need to send truly independent and constitutionally based representatives to Washington. Even if we only send a few, they could become the fulcrum in swing votes, using their leverage to make changes. Furthermore, they would give courage to others who would like to do something better but don't see many succeeding at it.

If Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Franklin had looked at the odds of their little rebellion conquering the most powerful army and navy on the planet, we would not have our country or our republic. If Lincoln had accepted the two parties that then existed instead of helping start a new one he probably could not have done what he did. Each of us can make a difference, but only if we actually vote for those we believe in. Even if we lose, we send a message that we will no longer support tyranny and excess from either party and we give courage to those of like mind and strike fear into those who would betray our freedoms. Stop wasting your vote!