Enter Email to Receive New Post Alerts:

Public education needs help; I have a solution

January 13, 2010

Most informed Americans believe that public education is not perfect and many believe that it needs major reform. In my opinion, one reason public education needs a lot of help is because unlike most every other industry it provides few opportunities for true innovation.

Admittedly, providing an education for children is quite different from producing iPods or Nissan Sentras; still, public education can learn a lot from these other industries. It can adopt many policies and practices that allow entrepreneurism and innovation to flourish, which will help transform schools in a way that allows all children to get a better education.

I recently wrote a policy brief that discusses how public education inhibits innovation and how we can shape public policy to encourage it. Here’s a link:

Promoting Education Innovation & Entrepreneurship in Utah

What do you think?

A resolution for the new year: self-reliance

January 6, 2010


Photo Credit: Manfred Werner

As the year 2010 begins, most people are making New Year’s resolutions. This time around, it might be a good idea for many Americans to set a goal to become more self-reliant.

Temporal self-reliance — supporting oneself and family on the fruits of his or her labor without government assistance and with minimal assistance from others — is an important principle to follow. Ever since the organization of the Church, the Brethren have counseled Latter-day Saints to provide for their families, to get their houses in order, and to avoid excessive debt. We can usually accomplish these things through a lot of hard work, frugality, and planning, and with adequate education or training in a fruitful field of labor. We might still encounter difficult times, but if we are self-reliant and faithful, then the Lord will help us get back and stay on our feet.

Unfortunately, many government officials, no matter how well-meaning they might be, enact public policies that encourage dependence on government rather than independence and self-reliance. Just in the past year or two, government has offered bailouts for failing corporations, “cash for clunkers,” and more subsidies for housing and tuition, and now it wants to cover health care costs for more people — all without money it doesn’t have. It seems that government leaders could also benefit from setting a goal to become more self-reliant.

The Brethren have warned us not to become dependent on government because doing so decreases our freedom and self-respect. Consider the following story that Pres. Marion G. Romney recounted in 1982:

“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …

“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.

“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ’something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a handout.

“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ’shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?

“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence” (From “Fable of the Gullible Gull,” Reader’s Digest, Oct. 1950, p. 32).

Romney goes on to say:

The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of wealth, possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.

We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even if we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice of self-respect and political, temporal, and spiritual independence (Marion G. Romney, “The Celestial Nature of Self-reliance,” Ensign, Nov. 1982, reprinted in Ensign, Mar. 2009).

The price of dependence on government or on anyone else other than the Lord is much too high. We should do all we can to become more self-reliant ourselves, and we should promote public policies that encourage all Americans to do the same.

What do you think?

——————————————-
More quotes on self-reliance

Elder Ballard–

Too many people in our country today are developing the attitude that government is obligated to care and provide for them. In many ways, government has fostered this attitude, but the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints know better.

Some people who lived through the Great Depression and the period following, when the government bestowed gratuities upon the people, developed a feeling that the world owed them a living. In that climate, the First Presidency said in 1936: “The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1936, p. 3.) (M. Russell Ballard, “Providing for Our Needs,” 1981).

Elder Oaks–

“The doctrine and practice of personal responsibility and personal effort collide with individual traditions and local cultures in many lands. We live in a world where there are large differences in income and material possessions and where there are many public and private efforts to narrow these differences. The followers of the Savior are commanded to give to the poor, and many do. But some gifts have promoted a culture of dependency, reducing their recipients’ need for earthly food or shelter, but impoverishing them in their eternal need for individual growth. The growth required by the gospel plan only occurs in a culture of individual effort and responsibility. It cannot occur in a culture of dependency. Whatever causes us to be dependent on someone else for decisions or resources we could provide for ourselves weakens us spiritually and retards our growth toward what the gospel plan intends us to be” (Oaks, Elder Dallin H. “Repentance and Change,” Ensign, November 2003).

Talks on self-reliance

-Robert D. Hales, “Becoming Provident Providers Temporally and Spiritually,” May 2009
-L. Tom Perry, “Becoming Self-Reliant,” Nov. 1991
-Marion G. Romney, “Principles of Temporal Salvation,” Oct. 1981
-M. Russell Ballard, “Providing for Our Needs,” Ensign, May 1981

Health care: more of the same

November 21, 2009


Above you see the previous health care bill (1,018 pages); multiply that by two and you’ll have the most recent version (2,047 pages).

The Democrats have rolled out their latest proposal for health care reform. This 2,047 page version closely resembles previous versions and would push the nation one giant step toward a government takeover of America’s $2.4 trillion health care system. To become law, the bill needs to clear a major hurdle tonight in the Senate. For the sake of freedom, prosperity, and all that is American, I hope the bill stumbles and falls flat on its face.

As I’ve written previously, any proposal such as this one that requires individuals or employers to purchase health insurance will diminish individual liberty and distort markets in a way that perpetuates existing problems with the system and even makes it worse.

Despite their good intentions, the authors of these proposals are aiming at the wrong target. Their target is to help every American hold a health insurance policy when it should be to create an environment in which every American can get the health care they need. Health insurance is not the answer, high-quality, available health care is.

Insurance is one vehicle that helps people get needed care, but it is only one of many available and is not necessarily the most effective or efficient one. Forcing every individual to purchase a certain type of insurance is like forcing everyone to buy a vehicle from General Motors. A GM automobile might benefit some people well enough, but it can’t fulfill everyone’s specific needs. And because government is becoming so highly invested in the industry — whether automobiles or health care — those who provide needed products and services will have to answer more and more to government rather than to individual consumers whose preferences and choices should drive industry decisions.

Undeniably, our nation’s health care system needs serious attention. But as I’ve outlined in a previous post, there are far better ways to fix the system than what is being proposed on Capitol Hill today. Almost always, innovative people, organizations, and businesses working together to solve problems are the answer — not government.

What do you think?

Related posts:
-How not to fix health care
-How to fix health care

Should the federal government be involved in public education?

November 3, 2009

Ever heard of the acronyms NDEA, ESEA, EAHCA, IASA, IDEA, or NCLB? All these represent former or current federal laws that did or do regulate public education in the states. What kind of impact have these laws had on state governments, schools, and students? Has that impact been positive or negative?

You can find answers to these questions in a publication I recently wrote called “Federal Intervention in Public Education: Is It Good for Utah?” Just click on the links that follow:

Executive summary
Full report
Press release

What do you think?

*Photo credit: Raul654

Elder Oaks says religious freedom is threatened

October 14, 2009

Yesterday, Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave what the Church is calling “a major address…on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

His speech to BYU-Idaho students is very interesting and important for every Latter-day Saint and every supporter of religious freedom to read. I urge you to read it. Elder Oaks reviews the historical and constitutional context of religious freedom, outlines current and potential threats to religious freedom (E.g., Proposition 8 backlash), and offers “five points of counsel on how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.”

To help give you a flavor of what people are saying about the speech, I’ll post some links and a video below.

Elder Oaks: Religious Freedom
LDS Newsroom: Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened
Associated Press: Mormon leader: religious freedom at risk
KSL News: LDS apostle says religious freedom is under attack (video)
Fox 13 News: Mormon Leader: Religious Freedom At Risk (video)
Deseret News: Freedom of religion under increasing attack, LDS leader says
Salt Lake Tribune: LDS apostle under fire for civil-rights analogy

Here’s a video of Elder Oaks’s response to criticisms of his civil-rights analogy:
 

What do you think?

Related posts:

-Prop. 8 backlash: what would Jesus do?
-Let our voices be heard
-Romney, religion, and the presidency
-The Church on civil unions
-Gay agenda: not about rights

“Look what you did you little jerk!”

September 30, 2009


Rob Miller (D) and Dave Hansen (R)

Last night, I attended a very interesting forum for bloggers at the Sutherland Institute. The discussion was about civility in politics and included representatives from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

As you might imagine, this debate on civility in politics was extremely civil, which was refreshing in contrast with recent overly-heated debates at town hall meetings and the incessant blabbering and bickering so common among cable and radio talk shows (is that comment uncivil? If so, then I apologize).

You likely encounter incivility in various places — political debate, the freeway, the grocery store check-out stand, sports events, and even in your own home. You and I may even be guilty of uttering uncivil words or performing uncivil actions from time to time.

I have found incivility to be most common and extreme when there is a barrier between two people and, especially, when one or both people’s identity is hidden. For example, put two people who disagree on an issue face-to-face and more than likely a relatively civil discussion will ensue. However, put those two people in two separate automobiles or in their own homes using the World Wide Web to communicate, and their tempers may flare, their word choice degenerate into insults, and their claims become stretched, exaggerated, or false.

I witness this almost daily on the road and on the comment boards of news sites and blogs, including on the articles I’ve written. I also witnessed it in anonymous student evaluations as a teacher at BYU. Anonymity shields us from the possible negative repercussions of our words and actions, which can bring out the worst in us.

How can we raise the level of discourse in our nation, communities, and families? The solutions are easy to identify but difficult to apply. I’ll offer six:

1. Remember that the worth of every soul is great in the eyes of God
2. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes to try to understand their point of view
3. Express disagreement in a way that respects other peoples’ opinions, values, and self-worth
4. Don’t write or say anything you wouldn’t say to a person’s face
5. Don’t write or say anything you wouldn’t say in your mother’s presence
6. Assume that all poor drivers are rushing a very pregnant woman to the hospital

Have any to add? I think that if we could all put these suggestions into practice, then the world would be a better place.

Finally, please consider these quotes on civility from Stephen L. Carter:

“Our duty to be civil towards others does not depend on whether we like them or not.”

“Civility requires that we listen to others with the knowledge of the possibility that they are right and we are wrong.”

What do you think?

Is the Constitution hanging by a thread?

September 17, 2009

222 years ago today, America’s founders signed the U.S. Constitution. Since 1787, this inspired document has been a bulwark of liberty and justice for Americans and a pattern for many governments around the world. We would all do well to re-read and study the Constitution so that we understand it and can defend it.

Now, perhaps you’ve heard mention of a quote attributed to Joseph Smith that the Constitution would one day “hang as by a thread.” Though no one knows for sure exactly what the Prophet said or what he meant by it, many other prophets and apostles have referred to the prophecy and expounded upon it. Orson Hyde, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from 1847 to 1875, offers probably the most reliable report of what Joseph Smith said. Hyde said this:

I believe he (Joseph Smith) said something like this–that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he: ‘If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of this Church.’ I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p. 326)

President John Taylor added his own interpretation later on:

When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations. This is part of the program and as long as we do what is right and fear God He will help us and stand by us under all circumstances. (John Taylor, JD 21:8, August 31, 1879)

There has been a lot of speculation about whether or not the Constitution was once hanging by a thread and was saved or if it is now hanging by a thread and needs to be saved. Declarations that the Constitution is in peril have been common especially lately . Rather than fuel speculation regarding the status of the Constitution’s potentially precarious position, I’ll pass along a prudent statement pertaining to this issue from Rex Lee, former Solicitor General of the United States and president of Brigham Young University. In 1991, he said:

Seven presidents (successors to Joseph Smith) have either used the ‘thread’ metaphor or something like it. But in none of those quotations…has any Church leader ever been very specific as to the metaphor’s meaning. Unfortunately, some members of the Church have been all too ready to offer their own explanations. The only thing consistent about these explanations is that in each instance, it was the Church member’s own unresolved, often very private, grievance that supplied evidence that the thread was beginning to fray, sometimes beyond repair. Among some people, any problem from a tax increase to a failure to collect the garbage on time to a boundary dispute with one’s neighbor is likely to call forth the observation that it is certainly easy to see how the Constitution is hanging by a thread. A companion assertion is that the election or appointment of certain persons, often the person making the assertion, to designated positions provides the key to preventing the demise of our constitutional system.

In my view, this is another instance in which going beyond what our leaders have said can be misleading at best, and potentially fraught with mischief. Even though we have not been given the exact meaning of the prophets’ statements about the Constitution hanging by a thread, the scriptures do define the conditions on which freedom in the land of America ultimately depends. I am satisfied that whatever else may eventually hang in the constitutional balance, this much is clear: The continuation of the blessings of liberty depends finally on our spiritual righteousness. As the Lord told the Jaredites in the Book of Ether, this is a ‘land of promise.’ and ‘whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity,…if they will but serve the god of the land, who is Jesus Christ.’ If the people fail to keep this covenant, they ’shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity’ (Ether 2:9-12). (Rex E. Lee, “The Constitution & the Restoration,” 1991)

Certainly, I am concerned that judges, politicians in both major political parties, and others are slowly chipping away at the Constitution. As responsible U.S. citizens, we should do all we can to help maintain “the laws and constitution of the people…for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77). However, we need not speculate excessively regarding the “hanging by a thread” statement. The Lord will protect us as we strive to be righteous, and He will fulfill his divine purposes no matter what evil forces arise in opposition.

What do you think?

*To read more quotes about the Constitution from the Brethren and the Founders go here.

Part 3–The Family: The Most Sturdy Structure

September 4, 2009


[Pres. Obama reviews his family tree with Church leaders]

In Part 2 of this series, we learned why the family should be the fundamental unit of society. In this post, we’ll learn why the natural family is more likely to succeed than any other family structure.

The stability of any structure (e.g., building, bridge, organization) depends on the materials that make it up and on how it is built. The same principles apply to the family. In times of adversity — great or small — some families waver and even fall whereas others stand firm. The strongest family structure is the natural family — biological father, mother, and children.

This isn’t to say that other family structures can’t succeed or that the natural family is perfect but that the structure of the natural family is the most likely to stand firm through the inevitable storms of life. Why?

To begin, the complementarity that exists between male and female, or father and mother, provides the best physical, social, and emotional atmosphere for raising healthy, productive children. Dr. Dean Byrd says that generally fathers are more firm and rely more on rules and principles, whereas mothers are more intuitive and responsive and are more willing to bargain or negotiate. According to Byrd:

Men stress justice, fairness, and duty based on rules while women stress understanding, sympathy, care, and assistance based on relationships … no reputable theory or empirical study that denies the critical importance of mothers to the healthy development of children can be found in the professional literature. Recent researchers have concluded that fathers are critical to the healthy development of children as well.

Therefore, children with one parent or with two parents of the same sex do not benefit from the balanced care that comes with this complementarity. Also, children of same-sex parents often experience gender confusion, among other problems. For example, according to Byrd’s research, “lesbian mothers have a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughers.”

When a family has two parents whose gender identities complement one another and the parents love and care for their children, the family can bear greater stress. In the words of Paul Mero:

“The natural family structure is highly elastic. Single-parent homes are not very elastic. That is, the natural family structure can bear tremendous loads of force while bending but not breaking … Larger, more tightly knit, families reaching across generations are able to bear heavier loads. A community of such families will be stronger than a community of families comprised of alternative structural materials and non-complementary structures. On a much larger scale, this same science of elasticity works as well for nations or civilizations. Highly elastic family structures will endure the ages; less elastic family structures will die off through the ages.”

As we have been warned, “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” (Family Proclamation). We should do all we can to create, develop, and encourage sturdy natural families that stretch across generations.

What do you think?

Related posts:
Intro-The Family
Part 1-The Family: How to Define It
Part 2-The Family: The Fundamental Unit

How to fix health care

August 12, 2009


1,018 page health care bill

I think we can all agree that America’s health care industry needs help. Costs are rising quickly, the system is riddled with inefficiencies, and many people aren’t receiving needed care. Getting people to agree on what is causing these problems and how to fix them is harder than breaking the land speed record on Lake Michigan. In my previous post I described what I believe some of the problems are and argued that President Obama’s plan will do little to fix them and may even aggravate them. In this post, I offer some alternative solutions.

But before we can talk solutions, we must first paint a picture of a better health care world. Consider the following hypothetical story that illustrates the kind of health care system we could have:

Herbert, a 33 year-old mechanic, does not get health insurance from his employer; in fact, nobody he knows does. Instead, he went on-line, researched various options with companies in four different states, and purchased a “catastrophic” insurance policy that costs only $500/year for himself and his family. He uses this insurance to cover only major medical expenses such as long-term hospital stays, high-tech laboratory tests, and surgeries. For all other expenses like routine checkups, prescriptions, and dental work, he uses money he invests in a health savings account (HSA).

Herbie and his family know that doctor visits might cost a little more than today’s $10-30 co-pay, so they make sure to eat well, exercise, and avoid hazardous situations. When they do need professional care, however, Herbie can afford to pay for it because his insurance premiums are low and medical costs are not exorbitant. Why are costs not exorbitant? Because doctors compete with each other for individual customers rather than answering mostly to insurance companies and the government.

Herb chooses any doctor he wants, even specialists, based on the quality of the services they provide and the prices they charge for them. When he needs to fill a prescription, he shops around various pharmacies to find the best value available. When he is dissatisfied with a product or service provided, he goes elsewhere. This shopping around forces medical providers to offer the best products and services they can for the lowest price possible.

One year, Herb lost his job but still paid his medical bills the same way because his insurance wasn’t connected with his job. Although unemployed for a year, he was able to survive using funds in his HSA. Toward the end of unemployment, his HSA was exhausted and he was low on cash, but he was able to receive charity care at a free clinic in his neighborhood. Once he found a job, he started replenishing his HSA.

In Herbert’s world, health care is high-quality and affordable. He has the freedom to choose what products and services he wants and knows exactly how much he pays for them. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and insurance providers are accountable to customers who hold purchasing power.

Herbert is very familiar with this type of system because it generally mirrors his work as a mechanic. He charges his customers specific prices for basic repairs and only deals with insurance companies when a customer has had an accident. Government’s involvement is limited to simple regulations regarding safety and emissions and some guidelines to keep insurance companies honest. This system is much like every other market for any product or service. In most cases, the best way to get it to work is to leave it alone.

To help America develop a system this efficient would require some major reforms and many years. But here are some specific initiatives government can take to get started:

1. Eliminate the employer-based system. For now, money spent on employer-sponsored health insurance is excluded from federal income and payroll taxes. Government could stop encouraging employers to offer insurance as a benefit by removing this tax break.
2. Encourage HSAs. Government could offer a limited tax credit for money spent on insurance and HSAs. It could also encourage individuals to participate in a guaranteed medical loan program to help fill any gaps between HSA savings and insurance coverage. This reform would give individuals more opportunity to pay for their own medical expenses.
3. Reduce government intervention. The federal government could gradually phase out Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other programs that fund health care for specific populations. Doing this would help make doctors and insurance companies more accountable to patients which would reduce costs. If nothing else, the feds could at least reform these programs so they don’t go bankrupt in the next decade or two.
4. Reform medical malpractice laws. In most states, patients can sue medical practitioners for unlimited amounts of money for mistakes made and often for “frivolous” claims. To be sure, doctors should have some liability for mistakes, but excessive legal awards drive up the costs of health care. State governments can help reduce excessive awards and false claims through various reforms, such as putting caps on damages awarded for malpractice.
5. Eliminate state barriers. For now, people can only buy insurance from companies approved by their own state. Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would help lower costs and give individuals more options.

These reforms won’t fix everything, but they will put us on a path to productive change. Remember that people are the answer to most of our problems, not government.

What do you think?

Related post: How not to fix health care

How not to fix health care

July 22, 2009

Ever been pressured by a salesman to purchase something immediately or risk losing a sweet deal? That’s a tell-tale sign that something behind the deal will cause you grief later on and you should just walk away. President Obama is the latest salesman knocking at your door. He’s trying to rush through Congress a health care reform bill that someday (sooner than later) Americans will regret buying into.

What’s wrong with the Obama-Democrat health care proposal? Space will allow me to address only four major problems with the 1,018 page bill.

1. Employer mandate. Most employers (payrolls of $250,000+) would have to provide insurance for their employees or pay a tax (8 percent of payroll). This idea is probably the best way not to fix health care. Employers began providing health care in the 1940’s when government imposed wage caps on companies. Since they could not pay their employers as much as they wanted to, employers began to offer “fringe benefits” such as health care. Later on, Congress made employer health care benefits tax deductible. Since then, Americans have come to expect health care as an employee benefit rather than purchase it on their own.

This employer-based system encourages people to spend more than necessary on health care and to overuse insurance by tapping into it for basic medical procedures rather than just for emergencies or major procedures. It causes doctors to be more accountable to insurance companies than to patients. It usually forces employees to open a new insurance policy every time they change jobs (non-portable). All these problems have contributed to skyrocketing health-care costs. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever to require employers to provide health insurance because doing so will only perpetuate and exacerbate the problems we are trying to solve.

2. Individual mandate. Under the Democrats’ plan, every American would either have to purchase health insurance or pay a tax (2.5 percent of their income). This idea is disturbing because it uses government to force people to do something they may not want to do or be able to do. For example, almost one-third of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 19 and 29 and are likely healthy and don’t want to buy insurance or don’t have enough money to pay for it. President Obama recognizes this fact and still wants to force them to pay up because their cooperation might help other people obtain insurance.

Actually, the Democrats’ plan is an ingenious way to dupe Americans into adopting entirely government-run health care: require every individual to purchase insurance and every employer to provide it, then when millions of Americans still don’t have insurance, which will be illegal, government, in its great benevolence, will have to step in to help them. As government so often does, it creates a problem and then steps in to save the day by “fixing” a problem it created, which ends up creating more problems to be fixed. As the Washington Post has astutely observed, “in a nation that prides itself on having freedom of choice, it is striking that such a wide and diverse coalition has formed around the individual mandate.”

3. Public option. Again, the public “option” is government’s way of slowly transitioning the nation to a government-run health care system without you noticing. Certainly, insurance and pharmaceutical companies share in the blame for our health care woes, but space does not permit to describe how government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and many others have distorted the health care market. Government health insurance is not the answer.

4. Rising health care costs. The main objective of the Democrats’ plan is to help insure people who can’t afford the escalating costs of health insurance. Unfortunately for them, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reported that not only will their current plan not contain costs but could cause them to rise even more. And according to CBO estimates, Congress would spend at least a trillion dollars to help insure 69 percent of the uninsured for 9 years at a cost of $27,000 per person, or $3,000 per year, and 17 million Americans would still be uninsured. Today, most people can buy decent health insurance for $1,200-2,000/year.

In the end, all this bill does is shift the exorbitant costs of health care from the private sector to government and restricts the liberty of Americans to pay for their health care in a manner best suited to them and their families. As someone wise once told me, “never make an expensive purchase without taking ample time to think about it first.” Our chief executive and representatives in Washington might want to sleep on this health care proposal — for a long, long time.

What do you think?

*My next post will offer some alternative solutions to our health care problems.

This speech by Ronald Reagan is particularly pertinent to today’s health care battle:


Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here