Not So Famous…

Apart from the post I just made a couple minutes ago, I’ve been delinquent in updating my blog.  I’ve started about 5 posts in the last week, but just haven’t felt like completing them.  I don’t really know why.

Part of it is that this whole “economy plus Obama” thing has gotten me down.  I hear some encouraging things from his fledgling administration about how we’re no longer going to be torturing detainees, and that he’s wanting to shut down Guantanamo Bay (though I’m not sure entirely how I feel about that.)  I like that his focus is going to be peace through diplomacy, rather than military action against anyone who feels that they want to govern their country without our “guidance”.

Obama, however, wants to raise taxes, and this is not a good thing.  He claims that he doesn’t want to raise taxes for the middle class, but he’s been slowly eating away at his initial “$250,000 a year” figure throughout his campaign.  Last I heard, it was at $150,000/year and dropping.  Ultimately, he doesn’t appear to want anyone to be TOO successful.  Because success is apparently ALWAYS gained by exploitation.  Regardless, when we create a society where we punish success and reward apathy, we create a society where mediocrity is king, and no one will strive for the highest.

That kind of thing worries me.  I know a lot of people think that Obama’s Newer New Deal is just what we need to pull us out of this economy, and I don’t agree.  A lot of people say “Roosevelt got us out of the first Depression, and now Obama will get us out of this one.”  I REALLY don’t agree.  It’s going to be painful, but the free market will swing up again.  It would have swung up again in the 30’s, and it will swing up again now.

Anyway, I originally wanted this to be an apology for not updating, but it’s turned into another rant.  :)  Looks like I had something to say after all.

First off…I don’t like Obama.  I don’t like his policies.  I don’t like his emphasis on vapid change with nothing of substance.  However…

I don’t think the world will come to an end with Obama in the White House.  Apart from stupid, worthless comments like “Obama is going to change the White House into the Black House”, Obama’s presidency is going to be filled with a great deal of what other presidencies have been filled with:  Striving with the checks and balances in place to get things done.

Obama will not accomplish everything he wants to accomplish.  The world rarely sits still long enough for a president to work on every domestic policy he promised to the American people. Obama’s first term will not be the best for America, no.  But I do think there are some good things that could come of this.

For one, the Republicans might want to look around and see what their pseudo-conservative movement has gotten them over the last 8 years.  Bush gained a lot of power for the government, and the office of President of the United States in particular, and now a member of the opposition party is in power.  Smooth move, Ex-Lax.  Republicans lost this race by forgetting their conservative roots.  However, even if the GOP continues to try to out-Socialist the Democrats, there could still be some good.

If the Republicans stop being conservative, they will outlive their usefulness, and could possibly begin fading away from the political scene.  This will set the stage for a 3rd party to gain some power, and I truly think this is where positive change will come from in America.

With Barack Obama as President, we might actually stand a chance in getting out of Iraq, and getting back to rebuilding our nation.  Granted, with Obama taxing the rich as much as possible, that rebuilding will slow to a crawl, but if he angers enough people, he won’t be back for a second term.

I won’t change anyone’s mind, I know.  I’ve heard the rants about Obama being the antichrist. I’ve heard about him not being a U.S. citizen.  I’ve heard about Obama and his plan to destroy America.  It’s not going to happen, people.  And we won’t likely be able to prove this for sure, because I don’t think McCain will be a viable candidate for president in 4 years, but a McCain presidency carried its own serious dangers.

During Bush’s tenure, he moved us closer to the government having supreme power over all.  He gained more power for the Executive Branch than nearly any other president in the last few decades.  He was NOT good for America.  And while McCain rejected some of these policies, he affirmed others, such as his position on the unnecessary wars, his position on the Patriot Act, and his position on these stupid bailouts.  People, McCain was not the savior, as Obama was not the antichrist.

When Obama fades from the political scene without having brought about Armageddon, however, you zealots for the cause will not remember how terrified you were when he was elected.  You’ll be too preoccupied with the current Big Thing, and you’ll pooh pooh the doom you foretold.  And on it goes….

Aside from the blatant endorsement on my blog, this is what my bulletin board at work currently looks like:

For the record, that picture next to the Gabetopia sign is of a co-worker, who died 2 years ago today.  His gesture in that picture is indicative of his attitude toward a lot of things, but he was a great guy, and we still miss him.

Embrace Gabetopia!

edit: Immediately after posting this, I noticed a spelling error on the sign.  The editorial staff of Gabetopia has been sacked.  Order has been restored.  The sign has been fixed.

I’m sure some of you have noticed the banners and signs on my blog.  If I had the cash right now, I’d have the same signs in my lawn, though we’re often parked in front of that space.  Since this is my largest forum, I’d like to say here, I am voting for Bob Barr for President in 2008.

I am not voting Barr because my vote is wasted in California anyway.  (Obama will take California’s electoral votes, I have no doubt.)  I am voting for Barr because Barr would make the best President of the United States of America.  I am voting for Barr because of a quote I saw by John Quincy Adams:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams.

Oh, you’ve never heard of Bob Barr?  It’s not surprising, really.  The Republican and Democrat parties are VERY keen on ensuring that the only candidates you ever hear about are their candidates.  It’s easier for Obama if he only has to campaign against McCain.  It’s much easier for McCain if he only has to pay for political attack ads against Obama.  (Of course, if each of them are campaigning against the other, who is campaigning for them??)  It is easier if the Demicans and Republicrats have to fight a war only on one front.  Thus, regardless of the fact that it is the PEOPLE who decide who becomes the President, the Democrats and Republicans have ensured that you feel you only have 2 “choices”.

Allow me to ask you this: Are you sick of being in Iraq?  Are you sick of beggaring our own people to prosecute a war that was NOT authorized by Congress.  (And I speak the truth…this war was not authorized by Congress.  They may have authorized troop surges, but they did NOT declare war.  And the President cannot declare war, regardless of what the Congress seems like it wants to delegate to him.)  Are you sick of our young men and women dying, while we continue to make enemies of the other countries in the region and around the world?  Are you sick of a “war” that has lasted for 7 years and has no real end in sight?  Oh, I know Bush is now reducing the troop levels.  Why?  What enormous victory have we won?  What has suddenly changed?  Did the “leaders” over there all of a sudden announce that they’re keen on Democracy, and that they now LOVE the US?  Why is he reducing troop movements NOW?  Could he be trying to recover some lost approval ratings?  Could it be that he wants to be remembered not only as the man who started the failed “War on Terror”, but also the man who helped end it?  Do we need these troops back so we can send them immediately to Georgia???  WHY?  Oh, I’m supposed to believe that all of a sudden, things are peachily, rosily, perfect over there now?  That all of a sudden, there’s peace in the Middle East?  With all due respect to my Commander-in-Chief, bullcrap.

Or, could it be that McCain is simply going to re-ramp the troop levels?  Invade Iran?  THAT will make lots of allies over there, sure.  That won’t strengthen their resolve to see us dead or anything, no….  Could it be that Bush knows that ultimately, this pulling of the troops back home is irrelevant, because McCain will just send them right back, or else to South Ossettia?  How about leaving the Middle East to their conflict, and instead, open the channels of true diplomacy?  Not isolationism, but non-interventionism!  Send ambassadors over there.  With peace, not guns. Go ahead….tell me it won’t work.  Tell me that non-interventionism caused the terrorists to attack us.  I’ll remind you that we were meddling in their affairs over there WELL before 9/11/2001!  Why do they want to see us dead?

And why do we have permanent troops with bases in WELL OVER 100 countries????  Why do we still have troops in GERMANY??  Did WWII never end, or am I missing something? Why are we meddling in every other nation’s affairs with our troops?  How is this NOT empire-building, people?  What business do we have telling Israel, Russia, or anyone else how to run their country?

And why the HECK are my taxes so high????  Why the heck do I have taxes, anyway?  To fund more failed social programs that private organizations could do better?  To fund our bases in more than 100 countries?  How many overinflated politicians’ salaries am I paying?  How much more spending do I have to do on the War on Drugs which has not lowered the drug usage in this country one iota???  In these anti-alcohol ads, anti-cigarette ads, which are jokes?  The best anti-smoking ad I’ve ever seen?  It was an ad where they were selling soda that had TONS more carbonation than the competition.  The soda, when opened, actually exploded soda into your face.  HILARIOUS!  Oh, and somewhere in there, they didn’t want you to smoke, either, yeah.  Whatever!  END THIS STUPID WAR ON DRUGS that has only forced drugs into a black market with hyperinflated prices that gain Colombian drug lords more and more money!  Tell a kid not to drink your soda, and what do you think he will do the moment you go out of the room?  Yeah.  I no longer want to pay for this crap!

And what have Republicans or Democrats done about our problems with illegal immigration, American empire building, high taxes, and helping the poor in the last….oh….MANY DECADES they’ve been in office?  Nothing.  Not a thing!

THAT is why I will no longer vote for the “lesser of two evils”.  You still end up being led by evil!  This is why I am doing what I can to let you all know that there are more than two choices.  YOU are not independent of a candidate’s chances.  You CREATE a candidate’s chances!  Sick of the two party system?  Me too.  I have an idea.  Let’s remember that our government derives its power to govern THROUGH US!  Let’s grow a pair and vote for the best candidate.  ALL OF YOU!  If you don’t agree with McCain on some policies, research Barr….Baldwin….SOMEONE ELSE!  If you find that you agree with them, then vote for them!

Let’s MAKE A SPLASH, people!  Let’s DO SOMETHING about our rage!  Republicans want to ignore the enumeration of powers as set forth in the Constitution?  Fine….let’s get them out of office.  Let’s create a world in which no candidate gets anywhere NEAR a simple majority of the votes.  And when we don’t win this year, as we likely won’t, let’s continue to campaign for the next 4 years and show them that we can continue to get the word out.  We can continue to awaken the sleepers who seem content to create a dictatorship using either the Republican party’s philosophy of big government and spending or the Democrat Party’s idea of the SAME THING!

Today, Ron Paul held a press conference where he encouraged the nation to look beyond the false choices of Democrat or Republican.  He stood beside Nader, Baldwin, and McKinney and encouraged all of us to vote for someone who represents our VALUES.  So you’re registered as a Democrat?  Are you fed up with Obama’s position shifting, and ignorance as to the divide he would create when he dissed Hillary Clinton?  Do something about it!  Vote for someone you believe in!  Vote Libertarian!  Let’s get government out of our lives…let’s let them know that we can no longer be forced to live a certain way by more and more laws!!!  Let’s vote for Liberty!!!!!!!

All I ask, people, is that you vote for a candidate with whom you agree!  Don’t make a false choice because you think you have to vote for a candidate who “stands a chance of winning”.  You’re CREATING that candidate’s chances!  You are ENSURING that no 3rd party has a chance of winning.  If you’re going to vote blindly for Obama or McCain simply because he’s better than the other guy, just don’t vote.  Let those of us who WANT a good candidate to win make the decision.

Because your “decision” is closer to apathy than not voting.

I am voting for Bob Barr because of what he stands for.  He is against illegal immigration, and wants to do something about it.  Heck, he can’t do LESS than the Republicans have!  He is against the Federal Reserve, which is creating inflation and these dangerous bubbles we keep hearing about.  The free market is not prone to bubbles or the bursting thereof. He is for privatizing health care.  The insurance situation in this country drives up prices and makes it impossible for someone to go to the doctor without it! Let’s flip the bird to the insurance companies and keep prices regulated by the free market and not ridiculous “cost sharing” plans who balk at paying up when their clients need it.  Barr is AGAINST the government spying on us using the Patriot Act.  Did you know the President has granted amnesty to telecommunications companies who provided YOUR information (their customers’ information) to the government without a warrant???  They denied us our due process, and when the lawsuits started coming, the government pardoned them!  That is unpardonable!!!  I have had my civil liberties violated PLENTY, THANK YOU! (Obama voted FOR the Patriot Act on 3/2/06, people!)

Whether you like Barr or Baldwin, or whomever, please vote your conscience, not because someone tells you that you only have 2 choices.  I am voting for Barr in 2008.

Edit: Yes, I know that Barr snubbed Ron Paul’s press conference today.  I liked Ron Paul, and would have totally voted for him.  However, I think today’s press conference was a waste of time.

At today’s “announcement”, Dr. Paul essentially said “Vote third party! YAY!”  Dr. Paul, I already was voting third party. I ask you, however, why would you “endorse” a couple of socialists who hate the Constitution alongside Barr and Baldwin??  Oh, you weren’t endorsing them?  How can you say that, when the entire point of your press conference today was to say “Vote for one of these 4 people”?? Indeed, you went further than that.  You said “Look at how much we agree!” and released the 4 points of liberty or whatever you call it.

I support Barr’s decision to distance himself from communist-endorsed candidates, and am quite disappointed that you would actually present Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney as a valid option for your freedom-loving supporters! I liked Ron Paul, but never said he could do no wrong.  If he were running for President, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. But he’s not. I don’t need to support Ron Paul, because Ron Paul is not running for any office for which I can vote.

Sadly, there is a HUGE Cult of Personality surrounding Ron Paul about as bad as that surrounding Barack Obama. Whatever Dr. Paul decides to do is ok with them.  I’ve seen them say this plenty of times.  I can’t support that.  Because I can’t guarantee that what Ron Paul chooses to do will always be right.

Regardless, this is a sad, sad day.  Rather than unite, this event has only served to cause people to focus on something they see as fractitious.  I’m proudly voting for Bob Barr because he is an advocate for liberty, and does not intend to create some form of anthropo-centric theocracy.

Today, while I was mowing the lawn (and NOT watching the Wisconsin game, sadly) I was approached by a very nice couple wanting to know how we would be voting on Proposition 8, which is the proposition on the California Ballot to define marriage between a man and a woman.  I told them that I didn’t think the State had any business defining it in any way.  They were very cordial, and we parted ways.  I returned to the horrid chore of mowing the lawn.  But I was thinking…

The Republicans have always been for less government and less government control.  However, when it comes to their own personal religious or moral beliefs, they think they have the right to essentially create a state-sponsored set of religious guidelines that all must follow.

What part of “less government control” do the Republicans have a problem understanding? The issue of whether gays should marry is not one the government should have any say in. What do you think, Christians, you’re going to save people by making homosexual marriage illegal?  They’re still going to sleep with one another.  They’re still going to go to hell because of their rejection of the ordained order of things. You’re not going to legislate them to salvation.  How about you try this:

MAKE SURE YOUR CHURCHES ARE PREACHING THE WORD OF THE LORD!!!!!! You need to focus on getting the Word of God into people’s hearts, and when people are saved, the LORD will convict them of their sin.  They will hate homosexuality because the Lord has declared His hatred of it in His Word.  Trying to legislate it is getting to be ridiculous.

I thought the Republican party stood for freedom at one time.  Less intrusive government.  Less government altogether.

Looks like the Republican party has its own double standard with which to contend. They want less government until it comes to something they personally believe in. The difference between them and the Democrats?  None, when it comes to more government.  Just the area of your life which they want the government to control.

Sarah Palin aside, I’ve heard people say that they will never vote for Obama, and don’t really like the idea of voting for McCain. I can certainly appreciate this sentiment.  Both Obama and McCain are for larger government and more power for themselves.  One could argue that this describes every politician, but we’d have to agree to disagree on that one, since I don’t think any of us can say that we know every politician, personally.

Ultimately, however, I would like to remind everyone that there are more choices than just the two that the major parties in this country give us.  You’re not really making a choice between the Democrat and Republican offerings.  You are making the choice between several candidates running for President.

Yes…I’ve heard the “arguments” against voting for a 3rd party candidate, and ultimately, they have no merit.  Let’s look at some of them:

1. “We have a 2 party system, whether you like it or not.  End of story.” - Well, my friend, you’ve just stated the obvious.  Congratulations on that…really.  No one can state the obvious as well as you can. Rhetoric aside, have you considered just how asinine that is?  60 years ago, you could have said “negroes just can’t integrate with white society, whether you like it or not. end of story.” 90 years ago, you could have said “women just can’t vote, whether you like it or not, end of story.” And 140 years ago, you could have said “negroes just can’t vote, whether you like it or not. End of story.” Do you get my point?

Yes…right now we have a 2 party system.  But we ought to consider whether the two false choices we’re given every year are the way things SHOULD be.  If not, how can we change it?  That brings me to the next argument.

2. “You have to vote for the lesser of two evils.” - Well, I don’t really have to refute this.  It’s simple.  Since you have more than 2 choices, you DON’T have to vote for the lesser of two evils.  What’s more, in this election, I’m not certain I could peg which would be the lesser of two evils given the choices of the two main parties.  But the answer to this argument is similar to how I answer the next point.

3. “A 3rd Party candidate won’t win, so you’re throwing away your vote if you vote for them.” - This is a self-perpetuating problem, here.  If you always convince yourself that you’re throwing away your vote, how can we ever enact real change?  If you continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, you’re perpetuating the problem, here.  How can we ever have a valid 3rd choice if people are convinced that they can only vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning?  What’s more, how can ANY candidate have a chance of winning if no one is going to vote for him.  CREATE the chances for your candidate of choice, people!!!  The chances of a candidate are not independent of the people voting for him or her!  You are a factor in a given candidate’s chances.

Don’t be a part of the problem.  Not satisfied with the “choices” given us?  Do something about it.  Don’t bend to their will.  They rule by your consent!

I’m voting for Bob Barr.  He was a rank-and-file Republican at one time, and voted for some crap I don’t like.  However, since then, he’s left the Republican party.  Now, because of YOUR weenie voting, that has virtually guaranteed that he’ll never hold office again.  it was not a politically expedient move if his goal were to gain more power for himself.  That’s dedication to liberty.  He has recanted of his former positions, and is willing to stake his entire political career on it.  For those who don’t know, Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate, and he stands for freedom….real freedom.  Research his positions. Figure out your own mind, people.  Don’t let the Democrats and Republicans tell you for whom you’re going to vote!

You have more than 2 choices.  Exercise your power.  Vote for liberty, and for a return to governance by the Consitution. Vote against abuse of power by the government.  Vote for the Constitution’s limiting powers on said government.  Let’s return to the intent of the Founders, as evidenced by our governing document, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Don’t be a part of the problem…be a part of the solution.  Vote for the candidate that you feel would be the best candidate, and sleep at night knowing that you did your civic duty for your country.

This rant is NOT anti-military.  This rant is about the absurdity of assuming that an 18 year old is not mature enough to drink, but he’s mature enough to be given a machine gun and asked to die for his country, or even that he’s mature enough to decide who ought to run this country.

Keep this in mind.  I am not saying that 18 year olds are not mature enough to handle machine guns.  I’m asking for consistency in arguments by the anti-drinking Nazi’s.  Either raise the age for all other “adult” things to 21, or else lower the drinking age to 18.  Keeping the drinking age at 21 is getting more and more ridiculous as time goes on.

Kudos to the presidents of these colleges for asking that the debate be reopened; for bucking the tide of popular, theocracy-desiring opinion and asking that we discuss whether the 21 drinking age has had the effect that was intended.  If only they’d do the same for the “War on Drugs”.

Oh, and these anti-alcohol groups like MADD, SADD, BADD, and other *ADD groups, quit being ridiculous and calling for a “boycott” of those schools where the presidents have asked to reopen the discussion.  Assuming that these presidents are personally walking to dorms and handing out liquor is a little…retarded, don’t you think?  They’re going to uphold the law, if for no other reason than they could lose their position and considerable salary by not upholding the law.

They’re just asking that we discuss this, not stating their intention to abandon the law.

Let me ask you this: Has the “war on drugs” lessened the drug abuse in this country? Do speeding laws keep you from speeding when no one’s around? Does telling your child “no” mean that they’re never going to do it?

Making something illegal doesn’t lessen its occurrence.  It merely makes it more likely to happen behind closed doors. It makes the activity more enticing. It gives these young people the chance to “stick it to the man” in one more way.  If you had your way, I know, you’d create another Prohibition Era.  Well, do the research before you conclude that the Prohibition Era was the Golden Era of Morality. It accomplished the opposite of its intent.

Oh, and for those of you Christians who oppose drinking on religious grounds: Jesus drank. If Christ drank wine, and drinking wine is a sin, then you have removed His ability to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  If drinking is wrong, then Christ is a sinner, and His sacrifice on the Cross and subsequent resurrection was a LIE.  And if you start spouting off about Jesus’ non-alcoholic wine, I’m merely going to point you back to the Bible and ask for a shred of proof.  You won’t find it.  You’ll merely reason in a circular fashion and return.  Jesus drank.  The apostles drank. Paul encouraged Timothy to drink. The early church drank.  Calvin drank.  Martin Luther drank.  You’re holier with your lack of Biblical understanding than these men?  Get over yourselves.

The D.C. City Council is preparing to vote on legislation that essentially makes the right to keep and bear arms completely ineffective.  I didn’t talk about it when the Supreme Court overturned the D.C. handgun ban, partially because I knew everyone else already was, but partially because I wasn’t as happy as some might expect me to be.

For one thing, the vote was 5-4 in favor of overturning the D.C. handgun ban.  We were ONE VOTE away from “abolishing the 2nd Amendment”, as the Supreme Court opinion said. That is pretty darn sad, in my opinion, and I couldn’t bring myself to write what I felt.

Also, the opinion, as is usual with rulings of this sort, left a lot of wiggle room for the government to be able to effectively ban guns without actually banning guns.  They stated that “reasonable” restrictions were perfectly acceptable. Now, all that remains is defining what, exactly, is reasonable.

The new legislation proposed by the D.C. City Council is attempting to define what is reasonable:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25685126

A handgun can only be kept in the home unloaded and disassembled or stored with a gun lock.  read: worthless. The linked article mentions just how worthless in this quote from Chris W. Cox of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA’s [Chris] Cox also derided the trigger-lock requirement. “Unless a criminal is calling you before they break into your house, you’re going to be left in [the] same position you were prior to the (Supreme Court) case,” he said.

Exactly.  The point of having guns is not so that you can spend a couple crucial minutes attempting to take the stupid gun lock off, or trying to put it together while a criminal opens fire on you. The point of having guns is to be able to defend yourself against these criminals.  That means shooting first.

Now, I have a problem with gun restrictions at all, since I know that the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t granted to us for hunting.  it was to defend ourselves…against any threats to our liberty. . . . including the government.  Of course, the government doesn’t want that little bit of information to become popular.  Much easier if they just disarm us all.  Then they can pass any kind of legislation they want, take away any of our freedoms, and generally make our lives hell, and they don’t have to worry about us rising up.

Here’s a question that my friend Ryan brought up, and it is definitely deserving of consideration.  If the government derives its power from the people, how is it that they can deny us the right to have guns that they can have?  If we can’t have assault rifles, why can the police show up with them?  If they can have handguns that carry more than 10 or 12 rounds in a removable magazine, why can’t Californians? This principle is somewhat addressed in the 9th Amendment, where it states that explicit rights listed in or protected explicitly by the Constitution do not represent a complete listing:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

Ultimately, any gun restrictions are unconstitutional.  If the government wants to get rid of that pesky, limiting, 2nd Amendment, let them do that, but while it exists, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  There is, however, a legal gray area with regards to the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t appear to limit the states from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms, so the 10th Amendment COULD delegate that right to the states. The wording of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t seem to allow for ANYONE to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, however, so one could argue that since our right should not be infringed…BY ANYONE, the States are not permitted to do so.

At any rate, I’m not happy about the D.C. Council essentially flipping the bird to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. But, as the Campaign for Liberty blog post stated, it was definitely predictable.

Jeff Wright at the Rocky Mountain News has written a great article on what Ron Paul has done for the Republican Party and why this service is so desperately needed.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/26/ron-paul-has-performed-great-service-republican-pa/

Well worth a read.

Now before you leftists get crazy angry at all conservatives, allow me to say that many of us have never denied there is a great deal messed up with our current health care system.  Our point has been that the government, as is usually the case, is not the answer.

The government is not known for making wise spending decisions.  When the government is given a task, it seems that their answer is always to throw more money at the problem.  When they run out of allocated funds, rather than question their current spending habits, they want to raise taxes.  “We need a program.  We have no money. Give us money.”  It’s simple, but not the solution for health care, public schools, or…well…anything else.  I’m not sure I have the answer, but I’m pretty sure the answer involves getting rid of insurance companies.  Let me tell you what happened to me yesterday.

I have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). What this means is when I hit a certain stage of sleep, my throat relaxes so effectively, it closes off my airway.  This makes it rather difficult for my involuntary bodily functions to operate.  The oxygen levels in my blood drop significantly (also known as “O₂ Sats”), which is not good for me. Part of the reason I have sleep apnea is because I carry extra weight.  I’ve modified my eating habits in order to help lose the weight, but the greatest invention to help us OSA-sufferers is the CPAP machine.  (CPAP stands for Continuously Positive Air Pressure.)

What this machine does is blow air up my nose all night, keeping my airways open. Sounds uncomfortable, and there are some people who really can’t get used to it, but I love this machine for several reasons.  First off, it helps me breathe.  Anything that helps me breathe is good in my book.  Second, it’s white noise.  Not a lot of noise, mind you, but enough that it definitely helps Kim and I sleep.  When I’m not there, she has a hard time sleeping without the noise.  Finally, I’ve conditioned myself in sort of a Pavlovian manner with this mask.  When I put the mask on, my body knows it’s time to sleep.  Used to take me hours to get to sleep.  Now, I don’t know how long it takes me, but my guess is approximately 20 minutes.  I love this machine, and have had relatively few problems with it, even when we went to Scotland.

However, things do wear out, no matter how awesome they are.  My molded plastic mask is one of those things.  It’s cracked in a couple places, and since I’ve had it for about 4 years, I think it’s time for a new one.  I call my insurance company, and they tell me I need to see my Primary Care Physician to get a prescription for a new mask.  No problem.  I go see him, he congratulates me on my impending fatherhood, and I get my prescription.  No muss, no fuss.

The doctor’s office steers me toward a certain healthcare provider, to whom they fax my prescription, and tells me I should wait for a call from them.  I get the call from them, and they’re asking me which machine I wanted to order.  This sort of takes me aback, since the prescription was not for a new machine.  I don’t need a new machine.  Most importantly, I don’t want to pay the 50% copay for a new machine!  I just need a new mask, I tell her.  She is sort of surprised, but switched gears pretty fast.  She wanted to know what model of mask I needed, and what model of machine I had, so I could be sure I got the correct filters.  I had to call her back the next day so I could find the information on my CPAP machine.  When I let her know everything the following day, she let me know how much this was all going to run me with my 50% copay for durable medical equipment.

$113.

Now, what this means is that they’re going to bill me $113, and then will turn around and bill my insurance company $113.  For those with the same public school education I got, I’ve already done the math.  The cost for a mask, a hose to connect it, and 3 filters (2 disposable, 1 reusable) is $226 total.  Doesn’t seem too bad, right?  After all, this thing helps me breathe.  You really can’t put a price on that, can you?  No, but others can.

In my research to figure out which model of mask I already had so I could just get a replacement, I discovered a site that seemed to be an online store for CPAP machines and accessories.  The mask itself cost $69.99 from this online store.  I checked with their policies, and they don’t even deal with insurance companies.  I was sort of flabbergasted at this.  I went through the site and found everything I was planning on ordering from the healthcare provider and added it all to my shopping cart.  The filters were the same but came in a 2-pack for the reusables and a 6-pack for the disposables, and the hose I was getting was one of the top-quality hoses with less internal friction resulting in less noise.  So I’m getting better and more, and the total cost was……get this…..

$108.

That’s right.  Not $108 for me, $108 for the insurance company.  $108 total!  Now, explain to me how a company can sell the same equipment, brand new, for twice the cost like this?  Simple, insurance companies.  Because no single person is bearing the cost of this equipment, companies like this healthcare company feel they can make a LOT more money by marking up this equipment to ridiculous amounts.  Obviously, the free market would dictate a much lower price for this equipment.  After all, the online store from whoch I ended up purchasing my equipment is still making a profit.  It’s not like their motives are entirely altruistic.  (They do have an information forum they maintain as well as a 1-800 number for anyone to ask questions about CPAP equipment on for free, but they are still in it to make money.) Ultimately, I’m going to do everything I can to avoid going through healthcare providers that deal with insurance companies, to see if the free market will net me the same equipment for lower prices.

As I said, I ultimately bought my new mask, hose and filters from this site, which is http://www.cpap.com. I’m saving money by going through them, and so is my insurance company.  I’m making the request today to be reimbursed for my out of pocket expenses, but I saved them over $50 on the deal. They shipped my order the same day, and I should have it by the middle of next week.

I’m all for getting rid of insurance companies, but I still don’t think government is the solution.  If I don’t go to the doctor in 5 years, I shouldn’t have to keep paying insurance premiums, which go to someone else, just so my insurance company can balk at paying claims when I do need them.  I’ll save my monthly premiums and pay for my own healthcare when it comes to it.  I know this doesn’t address people with chronic and costly problems, though I wonder whether saving the insurance premiums and gaining interest on this money would be a better solution for them as well.  I’m not purporting to have the answer, but this price gouging is ridiculous.  Government, however will just be another form of insurance companies, only it’ll be illegal to not pay their premiums, because they’ll come in the form of huge taxes….bad solution.