The current supply of healthcare, consisting of elements such as doctors, hospitals, and nurses, is based on the demand created by the current number of individuals with access to health care. President Obama has stated that the legislation will cover 32 million more Americans, so that 95% of American’s are covered. By making healthcare more affordable for people who could not afford it before, the demand¹ for healthcare goes up. When demand for a good increases, all other factors constant, the price of that good will rise. However, because of the very price controls that enable more people to access the health care system, the price of healthcare cannot rise to meet the increase in demand. Unless the government has a plan to increase the number of hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc, at a pace that meets the demand caused by 32 million new patients entering the system, there will be long lines, and shortages, and in all likelihood, the government will step in and begin rationing care.

Legal mandating the price of a good or service does nothing to increase the amount of that good or service. What provisions in the plan work to increase the amount of available medical care? Where will the doctors, hospitals, nurses, and everything that supports the practice of medicine come from and who will pay for it?

1. demand in the sense of capable buyers, not people who want healthcare

“I don’t see any reason why they should be paying a special tax.” Supporters of the plan to tax the banks “are trying to punish people,” he said. “I don’t see the rationale for it.” “Look at the damage Fannie and Freddie caused, and they were run by the Congress,” said Buffett. “Should they have a special tax on congressmen because they let this thing happen to Freddie and Fannie? I don’t think so.”¹

Buffett held a fundraiser for Obama and advised the future president on economic issues during his campaign.

In addition to levying an additional tax on certain financial institutions, President Obama intends to impart new restrictions on banks. ² These are two factors that explain in part why the “Dow Turns Negative for ’10.”

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPdhurDmpnhE&pos=1
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016983630045768.html

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.¹

The Obama administration has also determined that humans, along with many other animals, exhale this dangerous pollutant, CO2.  Therefore, in addition to widespread taxes on heating, air conditioning, electricity, and other comforts, there will be a cap on how much CO2 an individual will be able to exhale.  Individuals that exceed the quota will be fined.  However, not all businesses or people are upset by the new legislation.  Climate change prophet Al Gore and several of his acolytes have developed a wearable CO2 mask (pictured below) that will trap and store exhaled CO2.  Gore is hailing the legislation as “long overdue,” “what must be done,” “good for business,” and “convenient.”

The mask themselves will cost $1,000, and capsules that store the CO2 will cost $50, these capsules should last approximately 22 hours under normal operating conditions.  When asked if profiting from a global “crisis,” was unethical, and perhaps even capitalistic, the multimillionaire, Gore had this to say:

“I am very happy to be able to offer these masks at a such an affordable rate.  Much of the proceeds will go towards global climate change awareness initiatives, such as when I fly around in my private, fossil fuel burning plane and give PowerPoint presentations.”

The removable storage capsules for the masks, when full, can be returned to Gore’s temple for CO2 storage and capsule recycling.  When asked why Gore did not wear the mask, he stated that he was rich enough to purchase climate indulgences, also known as carbon credits, so that he offsets his carbon exhalation, adding that his firm also sells these indulgences, the proceeds of which also go towards raising global warming awareness initiatives.

*This is a satirical post.*

However, the quote from the Wall Street Journal is real, and Al Gore has profited a  great deal from a “climate change hysteria.”

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews#articleTabs=article

“during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”  ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize))

It is unclear what Obama did to merit the prize.  It is also interesting why he was awarded the prize, while individuals such as Mohandas Ghandi (who led the India independence movement through non-violent opposition), Pope John-Paul II (who, inter alia, was instrumental in the fall of communism in eastern Europe), Irena Sendler (who saved 2,500 Jews during World War II), and Liu Xiabo (a human rights champion in China, who is currently in prison), were not awarded the prize for their efforts.

It seems likely based on the statement issues by the Nobel Comittee², as well as the known political persuasion of the Nobel Committee, that this prize was given to ensure that Obama did not back out on his promises, and he follows through with his agenda.  Thus, instead of awarding the prize for accomplishments, it is instead used as a political tool to influence Obama’s policies.

Not everyone in Norway agrees with the controversial decision.  Siv Jensen, leader of Norway’s Progress Party, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

“It is just too soon.  It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results.”  She said that the decision to bestow the award on the president was the most controversial she could remember and was one of a number that had moved the prize further away from the ideals of Alfred Nobel.³

Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 was also quoted as stating,  ”So soon?  Too early.  He has no contribution so far,” ”He is still at an early stage.”  Bestowing this honor upon President Obama so early in his presidency is a disservice to the former Chicago Senator as well.  Awarding the prize so early, without providing the former Chicago Senator with an opportunity  to prove the impact he can make on the world, diminishes the prize to a “call to action.”  Nobel Peace Prize recipients have been controversial in the past, and the current decision affirms that the prize is not an award for accomplishment, but instead, a political tool.

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html
2. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html

Most Americans are lukewarm at best regarding Obama’s healthcare reform, according to a recent Gallup poll: “Americans on Healthcare Reform: Top 10 Takeaways.”  Of note: 84% of adult American’s have health insurance, and most are satisfied with it; additionally, there is “No Groundswell of Support for Healthcare Reform.”  We should focus on the 16% without health insurance, and not break a system that is working for 84%.

So what are some alternatives to ensuring that all American’s have health insurance? In the Wall Street Journal, Arthur B. Laffer outlines a viable alternative to “Obamacare,” “How to Fix the Health-Care ‘Wedge’.”

Congress needs to focus on reform that promotes what Americans want most: immediate, measurable ways to make health care more accessible and affordable without jeopardizing quality, individual choice, or personalized care.

No American wants the Government to make their healthcare decisions for them, the elderly do not want to be refused expensive treatments because they are “too old,” we should reform healthcare, but Obama’s plan will leave us worse off.

The United States has the best health-care in the world in terms of quality of care.  It’s simply a fact.  Foreign dignitaries and other elite from across the globe come to the U.S. for medical treatment.  Unfortunately, the U.S. health-care system has two major problems:

1) Not everyone is covered

2) It’s expensive

The government, led by our aforementioned rulers, are ostensibly trying to resolve these two issues.  Whether their solutions are good or bad is up for debate.  The Wall Street Journal has an article: “Ten Questions on the Health-care overhaul,” that provides a good base for understanding the issues.

I appreciate our law enforcement community looking out for us, but this is just absurd.  The next thing you know they will be getting search warrants to enter our homes to tell us to brush our teeth.

You have spoken out against abortion in the past and articulated the importance of furthering the Gospel of Life.  In fact, on the diocese of Peoria website you speak of the increased importance of  witnessing to the Gospel of Life as a result of the election of a pro-choice president:

This year’s march took place two days after the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Bishop Jenky said the election of a pro-choice president made the witness to the Gospel of Life in Washington, D.C., especially necessary this year.¹

Despite asking the members of your diocese to take a stand for the Gospel of Life, you have failed the Diocese of Peoria and The University of Notre Dame.  As a Trustee of The University of Notre Dame, and Bishop of the Diocese of Peria, you have a responsibility to stand up for what is right.  You have failed by choosing not to join the courageous Bishops who have publicly spoken out against President Barack Obama’s visit to Notre Dame.² Passive consent to the conferment of an honorary degree upon a radical supporter of abortion, President Barack Obama, is not acceptable.

We pray for you at every Mass, and I hope you will rise to the calling of your office and publicly condemn President Obama’s invitation to the University of Notre Dame.

Respectfully,

John Telthorst

1. http://www.cdop.org/post/PostArchiveArticle.aspx?PublicationID=37&ArticleID=642
2. http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/04/round-up-bishops-who-have-responded-to.html

These two candidates experience and familial obligations are very comprable, and yet Barrack Obama is not questioned where Sarah Palin is.  This is clear evidence of reticent sexism that exists in the mainstream media; and the double standard that still exists.