Obama or Romney - A Mormon's Doctrinal Choice

The Semi-annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon or LDS Church) has concluded without the Church endorsing Mormon Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States. Mormon Prophet Thomas S. Monson nor any other Church leader has encouraged Mormons to vote for Romney in any way as far as I (as a Mormon) can determine.  For those not familiar with the Church this is in keeping with the Church's doctrine on individual liberty and choice. 

The face of Mormonism in politics today is probably best reflected in two characters - Senator Harry Reid and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. This also reflects a division within Mormonism on politics - Reid, liberal Democrat; Romney, conservative Republican. For the purposes of the presidential race, a Mormon's liberal Democrat choice is President Obama whom Senator Reid supports. The Church does not tell its members how to vote, and there is a strong doctrinal case to be made for that principle; however, the same doctrine supports an individual member voting against President Obama.

The first Presidential debate, 3 Oct 2012, highlighted this doctrinal point. Mormons will seriously consider voting for Governor Romney, not because he is a Mormon, but because he held up "God's" Constitution and President Obama did not. Mormons doctrinally accept that the US Constitution was established by God to protect His children's individual liberty. The Governor specifically referred to these documents and their principles of protecting life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and a limited Federal government. President Obama made no reference to the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution when asked about the role of government. Even following Governor Romney's direct reference to these documents and the role of government in upholding their principles, President Obama made no statement of agreement. 

President Obama's views on the US Constitution may not be well known, but his expressed views are available for evaluation. He has described the Constitution as "fundamentally flawed from its founding", and advocates for income redistribution through extra-Constitutional legislative and administrative means. From a Mormon doctrine perspective, his views concerning the Constitution are not the same as God's stated view. As a faithful Mormon I believe I cannot stand with God while also standing for Mr. Obama as President. Let me explain.

As a Mormon immigrant to the US and as a US military officer with 33 years of active duty service, I have felt it a great privilege to serve under an oath to defend the US Constitution and I wish to do so here. I will lay out the Mormon case for individual liberty and the Constitution, and then against the President who took the constitutionally-required oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and ... to the best of (his) ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

THE "MORMON" CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE US CONSTITUTION

As a young New Zealand citizen and Mormon, I read revelations of God to the Prophet Joseph Smith (detailed below) in which God said "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land (the USA), by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose .... And that law of  the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."

Why would God lay claim that He "established the Constitution"? Mormons know that God's greatest gift to His children is individual liberty or "agency." That gift was given in Heaven, before His children came to Earth. God rejected a plan from Lucifer (Satan) who "sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him" and "there was war in heaven" to preserve that sacred liberty. God knew His children would make mistakes with their liberty while on Earth but "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (Jesus Christ), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). The Savior was required because God preserved the liberty to His children. Furthermore Mormons believe that God "established the (US) Constitution" to reinstate individual liberty in the world in preparation for the Millennial return of His Son.

MY "MORMON" CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA

2016: Obama's America, a documentary movie I highly recommend, is very sympathetic to President Obama. After viewing the movie I can see how he has a genuine interest in the role of government in correcting inequality in society. Many Mormons also seek to see the poor rise and support government redistribution of wealth to achieve this goal. Equal opportunity is empowered by individual liberty as protected by the US Constitution; but equal outcomes are not guaranteed. Doctrinally, care for the poor is accomplished through voluntary contribution by individuals, not through government or even church involuntary taxation or redistribution of wealth. Mormon doctrine teaches that "every needy, naked soul ... their needs and wants" are to be taken care of by "people (who) ... should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God." Nowhere in scripture is forced care of the poor taught. Equal outcomes through forced redistribution can only be achieved through losses of individual liberty. God allows each of His children to achieve their potential through their own actions and the grace of Christ - the "righteous judge" of their "works."

In a 2001 radio interview, Illinois State Senator Obama made his views clear on the "flawed" Constitution and its obstruction to wealth redistribution (follow these links to various segments of the interview - the full interview is no longer available at WBEX.FM). He describes the Constitution as an "imperfect document ... reflect(ing) the fundamental flaw of this country that continues today." From a Mormon's perspective he did not recognize the divine perfection and establishment of that original Constitution. Slavery could not stand against it, neither unequal rights for women. The foundational principles and processes for change and review established by the Constitution, have corrected error in US society and enthroned individual liberty - as God intended. 

Paul Roderick Gregory in his Forbes article, Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution, does an excellent job of summarizing Senator Obama's views expressed in that 2001 interview:

QUOTE (with Senator Obama's statements in quotations):

First: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”

Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments. Obama views the absence of positive economic liberties that the government must supply as a flaw in the Constitution that must be corrected as part of a liberal political agenda.

Third, Obama concludes that we cannot use the courts to break free of the limited-government constraints of the Founders. The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”

Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”

In sum, Obama views the Constitution as a flawed document from which we must “break free.” We need, instead, a “living” Constitution that refocuses from “negative rights” to requiring income redistribution from the Haves to provide “positive economic rights” to the Have Nots. 

END QUOTE

Heather Higgins also does a good job of describing Senator Obama's interview in her US News and World Report article,  Barack Obama's Poor Understanding of the Constitution, The Founding Fathers were correct in the way they set up the Constitution.

Senator Obama's arguments for wealth redistribution are a fundamental infringement on individual liberty. He is correct that the Constitution does not support redistribution of wealth - therefore he seeks extra-constitutional means to enact his plans. The Obamacare redistribution of health care through the government is an example of this approach. In order to achieve equal outcomes it restricts religious freedom. Multiple Catholic lawsuits against the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) are "to protect the conscience rights of health care providers and institutions that do not want to participate in abortion or assisted suicide ...." The Mormon church is clearly in support of Catholics and these concerns as shown in their official website statements on religious freedom. 

To a Mormon, arguments of equal outcomes is similar to the argument of Lucifer in Heaven. His equal outcome to "redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost" could only be accomplished by "destroy(ing) the agency (liberty) of man, which ... the Lord God, had given him ...." Likewise, President Obama acts to change the Constitution which God "suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins (actions) in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another" - not the slave in bondage to the rich as in days past, or the rich in taxing bondage to the poor as our President intends.

To put it in Paul Roderic Gregory's words: 

QUOTE:

The Obama administration has given us a taste of an overbearing majority’s “schemes of oppression” (to use Madison’s words) not decided “according to rules of justice and the rights of the minor party:” the blackmailing of Chrysler bondholders, the transfer of property from creditors and shareholders to organized labor in the GM bailout, the attempted destruction of whole industries, such as coal, through regulation rather than legislation, transfers of income from lenders to borrowers under forced loan renegotiations, and the use of unelected and unapproved economic czars to redistribute income and wealth by executive fiat.

END QUOTE

Add to these the redistribution of Obamacare, the individual mandate of which could only pass Supreme Court scrutiny under the governments power to "tax;" the failure to have the Justice Department defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Court; and the failure to uphold immigration laws.

As Americans we have a great blessing and responsibility to exercise our vote this November. "I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." 

I see President Obama's actions with respect to the Constitution as "evil" in that they do not support God's Constitution of individual liberty. I balance that statement with the observation that by Mormon doctrine we also know that President Obama is one of the valiant sons of God that upheld the principle of maintaining individual liberty in Heaven - had he not, he would not be upon the Earth with a physical body, with the opportunity to exercise his liberty and learn for himself that "wickedness never was happiness."

May God bless the President of the United States, and may we uphold the Constitution of individual liberty that the current President opposes.

The following quotes on the US Constitution are accepted by Mormons as scripture from God:

Doctrine & Covenants, Section 101: 

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

Doctrine & Covenants, Section 98: 

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Doctrine & Covenants, Section 109:

54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

The Equal Outcome Argument and Preservation of Liberty in Heaven:

Moses 4:

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

Revelation 12:

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Care for the Poor:

Mosiah 18:

27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.

28 And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.

29 And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God; and they did walk uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants.

Doctrine and Covenants 104:

14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.

15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

My Logical Case for God

Dear Nephew,

I have viewed with interest your comments on various issues as an atheist. I see that you claim there is no logical case for the existence of God and that religion is just emotion. May I suggest some logical arguments for you to consider?

To frame the discussion, let us start by defining God as a possible intelligent creator of the universe we can see and study. Let us assume that if he exists, he allows us agency or freedom of action. This is a reality we see in little children at a young age, our own desire for liberty, and the existence of good and evil (in a socially generic sense) because of individual choice. Let us also acknowledge that if he exists he has not shown himself to men at large – we do not see him peering down on us from the heavens. The question then becomes, is there a logical argument for an intelligent being that ordered creation and gave us life as free agents?

First – what does scientific man think? The greatest minds of the 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st centuries (Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking respectively) all invoked God in their arguments, i.e., they recognized God and pondered how he had created the universe. Individually they may not have accepted the Gods of specific religions, but they saw an intelligent hand at work in the cosmos. If they acknowledged God, is it not logical that we, as inferior intellects, also acknowledge God? 

Second – what does scientific man observe? The finely-tuned balance of all matter and life in the universe bespeaks an intelligent, ordered design. How many big bangs would it take to create by chance a perfectly operating BMW, yet a BMW is a very simple machine when compared with the operations of a single biological cell? A specific example of fine-tuning I came across recently was in Michio Kaku’s book “Parallel Worlds”. (Michio contributed significantly to String Theory) In cosmology, the value Omega refers to matter density in the universe. Quoting Michio, “For Omega to be so close to 1 so many billions of years after the big bang would require a miracle. This is what is called in cosmology the fine-tuning problem. God, or some creator, had to ‘choose’ the value of Omega to within a fantastic accuracy … (of) 1.00000000000000 one second after the big bang. In other words, at the beginning of time the value of Omega had to be ‘chosen’ to equal the number 1 to within one part in a hundred trillion, which is difficult to comprehend. Think of trying to balance a pencil vertically on its tip … for years!” He points out that if this matter density had not be set so precisely neither the universe nor us could exist. To list just a few other examples of fine-tuning in the universe (including biology) would require volumes. Some people know how to fine-tune materials into a working BMW. Is it illogical to think that an intelligent creator knows how to fine-tune a big bang and the complexity of a single biological cell to create a universe full of life?

Third – if One and Two suggest there could be an intelligent creator, is there evidence a creator has communicated specifically to man in a scientific expression? Yes, as scientists see in the laws of General Relativity and Quantum Physics, but let me use a different more interesting example. The Bible Code may be such evidence. It is the first five books of the Old Testament or more specifically the Torah. It was given to Moses about 1,500 BC. He was instructed to write it letter by letter without punctuation and it was to be copied exactly the same way. Throughout the centuries Jewish scholars suspected something special when they found the names of very prominent Jewish leaders, that lived after Moses, “hidden” in the text. In the computer age, Jewish scholars subjected the text to scrutiny and found the names of 66 prominent Jewish leaders using “equidistant letter sequences in the book of Genesis.” This paper was reviewed by three peers before being accepted for publication in Statistical Science in 1994. Other prominent historic events were found such as details about the Kennedy assassination. Some events were found before they happened, such as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (one year prior but not the exact date), and comet Shoemaker-Levy’s impact on Jupiter and the exact date of the occurrence (a few months prior). The current perspective is that it is a holographic code so complex that it includes all probabilities of all our choices in life. With today’s technology we can find things in the code easily after they happen. We do not have computers powerful enough yet to decipher the future probabilities clearly. How is it possible that Moses was given a program containing all our lives and the probabilities of our choices in 1,500 BC? Who gave this advanced computer program code to Moses? I think we can agree that Moses did not have the knowledge to write it. He that gave it to Moses, said his name was Jehovah and that he had created the heavens and the Earth under the direction of his Father. Given the computer analysis of the code and its evident complexity, which is well beyond our current knowledge, is it logical to accept Jehovah’s claim?

As an aside, one of the great experiences in my life was to visit Jabal Musa (the Mountain of Moses) in NW Saudi Arabia. The layout is exactly as the Book of Exodus describes – unlike the traditional site of Mt. Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula.

Fourth – is there evidence the creator has communicated directly to our most intelligent scientists in a manner similar to Jehovah with Moses? Not to my knowledge. I am not aware of any that have claimed such communication. Is it logical to conclude then that an intelligent creator does not exist? Is it logical to conclude, because he has not communicated to our top scientists, that he has not, will not, and cannot communicate with anyone?

Fifth – since I claim a personal experience with Jehovah or Christ – the son of God and creator of our heavens and Earth – is it logical to accept that as valid? Logic says it cannot be denied as possible if a creator exists. Logic also suggests that a creator’s direct communication with the things he creates is entirely possible and probable. My children accept me as their “creator” and we have regular contact. There are also children who do not know their creator parents, but that does not suggest they do not exist. Does your lack of experience with God logically negate or disprove his existence, or does it invalidate my experience with him?

Sixth – my experience with Christ was very emotional, and I did not see him. Does that emotional experience logically negate the interpretation of that experience? First, the experience was shared equally by the man with me – very strong evidence for its reality. But second, let me deal with your issue about religion being just emotion. Emotion is real and it connects us to many things – some very special to us. How do I know I love my wife? How do you know you love your wife? Because you feel the love you have for her, does that logically negate the relationship? What is interesting about emotion, is that it is not limited by distance or time. Of course cell phones now give us visual and audible connection over distance and time, but I think you know my meaning. Scientists have observed for years the connection between twins, even when separated by great distance. Married couples also develop this closeness.

In the age of snail mail I had an experience with Pat that transcended distance by future time. I was in Korea and she was in Hawaii with the kids. I got very sick on a Saturday and knew I would be DNIF (Duty Not to Include Flying) and would therefore not get to join my family in Hawaii as scheduled – I had to complete my checkride in the RF-4C first. On Sunday morning I was in bed, sick enough to not get up for church. The phone rang. It was the Command Post with a letter from Pat, sent two weeks earlier to my friend in Okinawa, to be dispatched up to Korea on the courier flight that had just arrived. I dragged myself out of bed and went to retrieve the letter. In the letter she expressed concern about me getting sick, and counseled me to get a Priesthood blessing, so that I would complete my checkride and arrive in Hawaii on time – she wrote this two weeks prior! I went to church, got a blessing, was healed, completed my checkride on time and arrived in Hawaii on schedule.

Is this emotional connection understandable in science? Yes – in Quantum Physics this is explainable in “quantum entanglement” or “association” and the related “effect at a distance.” In quantum theory, if I create two communications devices and associate or entangle them during their manufacture, I can create what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” If I have one device and you the other, let me send you to New Zealand. When we communicate with the device, it will be instantaneous (not the speed of light) and completely secure. If I send you to Pluto, when we communicate it will be instantaneous. If I send you to the other side of the universe, when we communicate it will be instantaneous. Chinese and American military scientists have already demonstrated these principles – there was a news item about this just one week ago. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) demonstrated such communication over about 30 km at MIT in 2005. The Chinese reported similar success last week. So, entangled twins and couples have the ability to be in communication with each other over great distances – usually connected emotionally or telepathically. Is it illogical to consider that we could be associated with the creator and receive emotional/telepathic communication from him? We could of course, use our liberty to shut him out or ignore him – just as we can a spouse or twin.

Seventh – let us go to Court. The case being considered is this: Is there a God? Can I be a witness for God? Yes, because I claim an experience with him and can describe his attributes and detail the knowledge that was passed to me. Can you be a witness against God? I submit that logically you can not be. Why? Because you have had no such experience and therefore cannot witness against my observations of God – that I am mistaken – he is really someone else who you know as Mr. X. To put it another way, you may have an opinion about Michael Jackson’s doctor being a murderer, but your opinion will never be accepted in court. On the other hand, if you had experiences with the doctor, you could present your experiences as evidence for or against him.

I therefore submit that your atheism is simply a lack of experience – that your experiences are not sufficient to argue against God, or sufficient to negate my experience with God. One day you will be a witness for God along with me and it will be a great and wonderful thing to you.

Love,

Uncle Neil

9-11 and The United Sharia of America

9-11 reminds me that there is a significant Islamic population that believes our Constitution of liberty is contrary to the will of Allah. They fight our liberty as a false religion. The Creator’s gift of liberty is evident in every young child’s celebration of independent action. It is enshrined in our founding documents for all humanity to follow. While it is true that some of our liberty has been corrupted by excessive government, it is also true that Islam’s original message has been corrupted by multiple religious dictators who place themselves between man and God. Their goal is to continue to deny liberty and to bring us to submission to their view of God, or defeat us by all means. In their mind a Mosque near Ground Zero is both a sign of their 9-11 victory and the beginning of our submission. I am not prepared to give up the liberty we have been granted by God, and is upheld in our Constitution, in favor of a United Sharia of America. How about you?

May God bless those who have lost loved ones in the fight against radical Islam in Beruit, in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, at Al Khobar Towers, the Riyadh Military Mission, the US Embassies in Africa, on the USS Cole, on 9-11, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Mindanao, and at Ft. Hood.

I hope it does not take another 9-11 to finally secure our borders.

Health Care Restoration

Health Care Restoration – in short – get the Feds out of the industry and let us back in!  

First the facts ... (then the solutions):

1. The US free enterprise market has produced the greatest health care system in the world – look at all the people in the world who flock here to get surgery, etc. Our family experienced this system when I was retired from the military and worked for Boeing – it was awesome!

2. The US has lots of experience with government-run health care. It is these medical programs that have problems – so why are the Feds taking over health care and why are we letting them?:

a. Military, Veterans and Native health care – as I described last week in “Standards for Neglect.”

c. Medicare, which is going broke – so, pay more taxes! Doctors in Anchorage have been refusing new Medicare patients for a couple of years, because Medicare doesn’t pay our bills! When I retire from the military, we get Medicare, but because of the Anchorage situation, all military retirees are seen at the “Standards for Neglect” military hospital. And get this – to fund the new health care program the new law CUTS MONEY OUT OF MEDICARE – what does that say to the fastest growing segment of our population – the aged! “Hurry up and die!”

d. Medicaid, which is also having problems – so, pay more taxes! Actually, I hear this program is much better than Medicare. My Mother-in-law, who has Medicare as part of her coverage, gets worse care than her illegal-on-welfare neighbors and relatives who are on Medicaid.

3. The Supreme Court has ruled that the new Federal "Affordable" Health Care Act is constitutional as a (massive) Federal tax program. 

So, is the solution more government-run health care?

Absolutely not! Government-run systems have a monopoly on our health care “business.” With no competitors, there is no incentive for them to be efficient and to keep us satisfied. With no profit being generated there is no ability to expand services when demand is up other than to increase taxes. What happens is rationed care, i.e. managed neglect.

The very best health care is found in the competitive, free-enterprise marketplace, where profit drives services based on demand, and a satisfied customer is job #1. That is the health care we all want – right?

OK – so how can we access the best system in the world?

Being financially independent is the best way, i.e., make enough money and buy your own health care plan.

Yes! Yes! I know! It is too expensive for some, and pre-existing conditions keep others out because of higher premiums.

So how do we solve the access problem?

PHASE ONE  - Make Medical Access More Affordable

1. Remove the Insurance Monopolies:

Break up the State insurance monopolies by allowing insurance companies to compete for business in all 50 states. Significantly increased insurance competition will drive down costs and stimulate efficiencies. Regulating inter-state commerce is one of the constitutional roles of the Federal Government – in this case they need to regulate it by first ALLOWING inter-state commerce to occur! Get out of the way Feds!

2. Make Insurance Personal and Transportable:

Medical insurance should be owned by us and travel with us where-ever we go – just like our car insurance. Pat’s Mom is tied to Hawaii by her insurance – away from Hawaii for more than three months and she is out of coverage! How many of you have insurance tied to your company, and what happens when you lose your job?

3. Give us Personal Digital Medical Records:

A digital copy of our medical records should be with us. Some of my key medical information is on a chip on my Military ID. Doctors should not have to rediscover our health details – when we are unconscious.

4. Tort Reform:

Limit malpractice awards to reasonable amounts set by independent and elected State health commissions (Federal standards could also level the playing field for all the States). Doctors pay outrageous amounts for malpractice insurance – that bill gets passed on to us one way or the other. I cannot sue the Military health care system, so I have no protection from mal-practice. The right to sue for redress of wrongs drives quality in the commercial system – awards are simply out of control.

These Phase One reforms mean that fewer need help obtaining health care – YEA! Lower taxes!

PHASE TWO: Get the Federal Government out of Health Care (except in their limited Constitutional role of regulating inter-State commerce in support of Phase One)

1. Transfer Care for the Poor and Unemployed to the States:

This step keeps the Federal Government in its limited Constitutional role and puts care for the poor closer to home – in the States. Best practices will naturally migrate from State to State, improving the whole – an advantage a Federal program lacks.

2. Set up State Voucher Systems:

Provide the poor with State vouchers that can only be used to buy insurance that meets State and Federal standards. Adjust the vouchers based on need: those below the Federal poverty line (or State poverty line if it is higher) get a 100% voucher. Those above the poverty line would receive lesser amounts (e.g. 80 – 60 – 40 – 20 – 0 percent). The significance of this step is that this is NOT government-run health care. It is the poor buying commercial health care with a government voucher. We choose the insurance that meets our needs.

3. Pre-existing Conditions Vouchers:

Coverage for pre-existing conditions (including those from birth) can also be provided through the State voucher system based on need.

That’s it! What are we left with – America’s exceptional free-enterprise health care system for all of us – unfettered by Federal over-regulation, interference, and monopoly!

A closing question you may have thought of: what would I do with the military health care system? Keep only that portion required to support military combat operations. We need health care professionals in the war zones – not at home.

Standards for "Neglect"

Ha! Ha! I have to laugh at my family and friends that think government run health care is the way for America to go. What fools.

As a USAF fighter pilot, I enjoyed health care for the elite – the Flight Surgeon Clinic was for me and my family (Military health care is government run heath care). When I went off flight status, we were relegated to Family Practice – oh joy! We have endured that, and celebrated every time we were referred to commercial providers who are so much more efficient, thorough, quick, etc. They have to – if they don’t do it right, the customer goes to someone else – competition – what a concept!

Now we have “Obama care.” Yes – some parts of the law have already kicked in!

One part in effect is “Standards for Care.” I call them Standards for “Neglect” – you will see why.

Two stories: (1) My military health care experience and (2) My neighbor’s private commercial care. Surprise! Surprise! His care is affected by new government standards also!

(1) My story:

Knee pain cranks up while I am visiting New Zealand. I get back to Alaska, 10 June, and the pain is not going away. I have a physical fitness test due and I cannot run.

I schedule a doctor appointment – I get seen in about one week. He puts me on a “Profile” – no running test for me.

He orders an X-ray.

“Doc, how about an MRI, this seems to be a soft tissue injury to me. The Median Collateral Ligament (MCL) is where the pain is.”

“Sorry – I have to order an X-ray first.”

About a week later I am expecting a result, but no call. I call on a Friday.

“The Doctor has up to 72 business hours to get back to you” – that is sometime Wednesday, next week!

No response! Remember, I am an active duty military officer who is required to maintain physical fitness for military deployment.

OK, I become a pest!

By 1 July I have a referral for Physical Therapy (PT) “ASAP” – still no MRI. At PT I am told they have no room for an “ASAP” – too many injured soldiers to deal with. OK – that’s fair, so I go up to Referral “Management” (Won’t you love your health care being managed). The young Captain nurse tells me they will NOT refer me to a commercial provider. Why? Because the Standards for Care say they have 30 days to provide me with PT. She schedules PT for me on 29 July!

“That is not my Standard for Care!” I exclaim, “That’s a Standard for Neglect!”

She doesn’t budge and the Doctor, whom she trumped, confirmed to me later that, “Yes, the Standards for Care is part of the new health care law that is in effect – and we have to live within it.”

A week later the pain has become worse and now my hip is becoming involved. I go to the PT Clinic. There are three technicians (Airmen) sitting behind the desk chatting.

“Excuse me, do you have any cancellations?”

All three laugh (at a Lt. Col.) in unison, “Noooo.” OK – I am miffed!

“Well, I need a cane NOW.”

“Sir, we can set up an appointment.” Note: I’m starting to get respect – not as a customer, but as an Officer.

“No. I need a cane NOW. I have had knee pain for more than one month and now the pain is going to my hip. I am not a doctor, but I think I need to get weight off my knee by using a cane. I tried my wife’s cane this morning, but it is wood and has been cut short. I need a cane NOW. Who has the authority to get me a cane NOW?”

Within a few minutes I was given a cane, but the first time PT evaluated my knee was 29 July – about 45 days after seeing the (powerless) Doctor. They ordered an MRI which I got on 2 Aug. The MRI confirmed an MCL injury and swollen bursa sacks above and below the knee cap.

Welcome to rationing through process management, based on Standards for Neglect! Ha! Ha! You fools!

(2) My neighbor’s private, commercial, government-directed health neglect, story:

I told my neighbor my story. To my surprise he trumped mine!

He took his son in with an obvious infection/fever. To his surprise he was not given any anti-biotic or anti-viral. Why? The doctor told him that the new health care law does not allow him to prescribe a medication until the patient has been sick for more than seven days – you read it – more than 7 days.

Next time they have to go in, “Doc, Johnny’s been sick for 7 days. What can you do for him?”

Ha! Ha! Go ahead – turn your life over to the government health care professionals – they do such a GREAT JOB!

My thoughts on health care solutions, next week.

Why I Voted for Joe Miller

Lisa Murkowski was appointed a US Senator, December 2002, in a nepotistic move by her father, then Governor of Alaska, Frank Murkowski. I was angered by this move – it was clearly corrupt. One of the other candidates under sham consideration was a former 4-Star General that I had worked for – Joe Ralston. He was far more qualified in my view.

A few months after Lisa was appointed, I was on a Northwest Airlines flight to Washington DC, and was surprised to see Lisa sitting across the aisle from me in Coach. It was a long flight, so I wrote down my three top concerns on an envelope, then leaned across the aisle and passed it to Lisa. I suggested that if she had any questions to just ask me.

My note introduced me as a US citizen originally from New Zealand and an Alaska resident. I was a retired USAF officer who had returned to active military service immediately following 9-11. I was stationed in Alaska and was known by my fighter-pilot call sign as “Kiwi.” My three top concerns related to national defense:

1. Win the war against radical Islam by continuing to engage them in their home

 – not ours

2. Secure our borders

3. Extend the obscure 1997 law that allowed the Department of Defense to (voluntarily) recall retired personnel that were experts in skills that were short. This was the law under which I returned to active military service and it was to expire in 2003.

Lisa did engage me in conversation and we spoke for about 45 minutes. I found her very gracious and a good listener. She was not aware of the law I referenced, so I acquainted her with that. I told her bluntly that her appointment was an act of nepotism, and that I was opposed to it. From my perspective she would have to work very hard to get my vote. She acknowledged the nepotism and recognized an extra responsibility to prove herself to Alaskans.

She did work very hard and she got my vote in 2004. So why did I not vote for her in 2010?

The United States is clearly in decline. The housing, education and healthcare bubbles have all been caused by the Federal Government’s take-over of major portions of these industries. As these bubbles are bursting the corrupt politicians in Washington are plunging us into bailout debt that even our grandchildren will not be able to pay. But these "thieves" were elected by "we the people." Therefore we have asked them to steal for us - whether we be the poor or we be the States. "We the people" need to see our own corruption and vote for good and honest representatives who will follow the principles of limited Constitution government.

Part of this corruption is the seniority system and earmarks that bring home the gravy and keep us voting our senior representatives back in. I saw Lisa as a career politician intent on keeping herself in power by supporting that gravy train. I can no longer support that system and the only way to exercise term limits is at the polling booth. I put a term limit on Lisa Murkowski in the hope of restoring limited Constitutional government.

Joe Miller, if you do not pursue limited Constitutional government, I will term limit you also!

Kiwi