That basic question is, “Does every person have a fundamental right to health care/”

 Let’s start by examining fundamental rights.  In our founding documents, we acknowledge that there ARE fundamental rights, or rights that no government can legitimately abridge or deny.  Our Founders even listed them.

 The list was short.  There were only three items.  Life.  Liberty.  The Pursuit of Happiness.    In each, no action was required by another entity to activate or provide the right for the individual.  In fact, the focus was on creating a society in which action would not be taken to keep the individual from exercising those rights.  Government was the protector, but not the provider, of our individual and fundamental rights.

 Now, let’s move to health care.

 Health care must be provided.  Unlike life or liberty or the ability to pursue happiness, we were not born with health care.  We receive it from another.  It is a service.  And services come with a cost – someone must pay for the time and supplies used by the service provider.

 So when someone claims that they have a fundamental right to health care, they are claiming that they have a right to have someone else give them a service at no cost to them.  In other words, saying that everyone has a right to health care is saying that everyone has the right to have some somebody else pay for their health care.

 Who is the “somebody else” that pays the bill?

 It can’t be the rich. If health care is a fundamental right, then it is a right for every person, so wealthy folks would have the same right to have somebody else pay for their health care as poor folks.

 It can’t be the government because if government provided the health care, then government could remove or ration it, so health care could not be a fundamental right. 

 It can’t be the health care professionals.  As people, they would have the same right to have somebody else pay for their health care as every other citizen.  As professionals, requiring them to be the universal providers, bearing all the cost of time and supplies, is enslaving them.  If we did that, there would be no health care professionals.

 It can’t be the taxpayers.  If health care were a fundamental right, no taxpayer could legitimately be required to pay for his health care, through taxes or any other mechanism.  Every taxpayer would have the right to have “somebody else” pay for the care.

 We do need to have a conversation about the future of health care in America.

 But the conversation must be based on the truth about the nature of health care itself.  The reality is that “somebody else” does not exist.  Health care is a service that must be paid for, not a fundamental personal right. 

 If we truly want to improve health care in America, we must base every decision on that truth.

With one exception.

The administration is planning to bring the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 onto American soil and into American civilian courts for trial.  The message is that those who took American lives and destroyed American property cannot get a fair shake if they are tried at Guantanamo in the Courts of Military Justice.

Those courts are unfamiliar to most of us, so on the surface it sounds like the Washington establishment is simply trying to ensure that justice is done. 

That is a false perception.

The Courts of Military Justice are the forums in which every member of America’s Armed Forces is tried when he is accused of a crime.  They include lawyers and procedures that are designed to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected.  They are designed to ensure that the security of America is protected as well.

It is beyond disrespectful for Washington to say that the legal system that is good enough for every person who is defending America is somehow not good enough for the people who are attacking America.

Bringing these people onto American soil is compounding the problem.  The base at Guantanamo is isolated for a reason.  The isolation keeps it from being a target.

The terrorists being brought to trial have openly boasted about their success in murdering Americans and publicly stated that dying a martyr’s death is a goal for them, as long as they kill Americans in the process.  When we transfer their trials to areas that are filled with Americans, we are painting a huge target on the back of every citizen who lives within those areas.

America’s military, both those on active duty today, and those veterans who have completed their service, works to keep America safe from attack.  They serve so their families and their neighbors will not be on the front lines of a battlefield. 

For this administration to decide unilaterally to bring that front line to New York, or southwestern Pennsylvania, or any other part of this nation, is a direct slap in the face of every man and woman who has given blood to protect Americans.   Trying to justify such a reckless and perilous action defies imagination.

The administration has attempted to counter the outrage by saying that they will set aside $73 million to help with security.  That does not begin to cover the additional costs to the local governments.  So not only is Washington proposing to put American lives and property at risk unnecessarily, they are planning to make the American taxpayer pay for it. 

This is madness.  A secure location and an appropriate system for ensuring that justice is served already exist in Guantanamo.  We should use them.

 The good news in this picture is that removing the federal government from a situation in an intelligent fashion can reverse the disasters that Washington interference created. 

 Let’s start with energy.

 We don’t import oil because we don’t have any.  We import oil because Washington has forbidden the states to drill the oil we have.  The same sad reality is true for coal and natural gas.  It’s like we Americans are sitting before a banquet table loaded with a bountiful feast, and are starving ourselves to death. 

 But what if we unshackled our energy reserves?  What if we told Washington that energy policy was a state issue, and freed the states to develop their energy resources?

 The first effect would be economic.  Reopening existing coal mines and oil wells and creating new ones would create jobs for the miners or drillers.  It would also stimulate all the industries that support those mines or wells.  Industries such as timber, rail, metal workers, and foundries would be positively affected.  The industries that provide safety and drilling equipment would grow.  And growth in industry means growth in the job market, with jobs that don’t depend on the next government stimulus package.

 People with jobs buy things.  So the communities that have been suffering from the closing of mines and wells would once again thrive.

 And the good news doesn’t stop there.   As energy becomes abundant and affordable, the cost of products that are produced or delivered with energy, which is every product, goes down.  That helps to control rising inflation, making everyone’s wages worth more, not less.

 It also affects our trade deficit.  One third of America’s trade deficit comes from our importation of energy.  In the global marketplace, we should be the energy producers of the world, not the energy consumers.  There is a real marketplace for energy out there, and we have lost out on the benefits because we haven’t entered the arena.  Freeing America’s energy gets us into the game, with a winning economic team.

 That brings us to the Middle East.  If America were not only energy independent, but a global energy supplier, the terrorists who fund their operations with oil dollars would find themselves without the resources they need to continue buying arms and equipment or running their training camps.  We would not just stop being a customer to people who use American oil dollars to buy guns to shoot at Americans, we would be competing in the world energy marketplace for all their other customers as well.  The best way to fight terrorism is to bankrupt the terrorists.  And a vibrant American energy industry can be a large part of that effort.

 The final good is the effect on the American dollar.  If we were supplying energy, we could insist that our international customers pay in American dollars.  Keeping the dollar in use as the international energy currency helps to protect us from runaway inflation, buying us time to deal with some of the other areas where Washington has gotten it wrong.

 In real life, removing Washington’s tentacles in one area can stop the strangulation in many.  Let’s make 2010 the year America gets a Washington tentacle-ectomy.

They receive these reports in two basic forms.

The first type of report begins with the words, “I would like to report a crime…”  In this case, a crime has occurred and someone has been victimized.  The police are coming to interview the victim, if possible, any witnesses, and examine the scene of the crime.  Sometimes they are investigating a property crime, but too often they are investigating a crime where an innocent person has been injured or killed.

The second type of report is different.  It begins with the words, “I am calling to report that I have stopped a crime…”  In this situation, there has been no crime because the person who had been targeted by the criminal decided NOT to be a victim.  So the police are coming to either pick up a person who attempted to commit a crime or to gather clues to find an unsuccessful, and fleeing, law-breaker.

In both cases, the phone call follows the incident because the police are not present when a crime actually happens.  They are almost always contacted after the fact.  So they are limited to dealing with the aftereffects of the criminal behavior.  They either see the first type of situation, with a victim, or they see the second type, without a victim.

The police much prefer the second type.

What makes the difference?

The ability of the intended victim to defend himself.

And that ability often involves the use of a firearm. 

It’s sadly amusing that many of those who loudly advocate stripping law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional right to own a gun turn out to be gun owners themselves.  The ownership often surfaces when they use the very gun they complain about to defend their own lives or property from assault.

In the latest example, North Carolina state senator R. C. Soles shot one of two intruders at his home last Sunday afternoon when they attempted to kick in his front door.  The Senator injured one of the intruders, who was hospitalized as a result.  The other ran off.

The Senator made the second type of police report.

But this same Senator has been an active and vocal advocate of removing guns from the hands of other law-abiding citizens in his state.  If he truly believed in his own rhetoric, he should not have owned a gun himself.

But of course, if he had followed his stated gun control position, someone else would have been making the first type of police report on the Senator’s behalf.  Because the Senator would have been a crime victim.    

Thankfully, enough of the Senator’s fellow legislators in the state of North Carolina understood that truth.  So Senator Soles had the ability to defend himself and his home and his family when real criminals tried to do them real harm.  He had a real gun in his hands to stop them.

Let’s hope that he has learned from his experience, and stops trying to take away from his constituents the same rights that protected him.  Let’s hope that he has learned that in the hands of law-abiding citizens, gun ownership is a real deterrent to crime.

The federal government appears to have embraced this philosophy in their approach to dealing with their runaway spending.  Accuracy does not seem to matter.

For example, the President told us in his State of the Union address that the government was going to put a freeze on some federal spending – but not yet.  Then he told us that this approach was good budgeting.

So in this New Budgeting, the President’s plan to deal with a debt that comes to over $110,000 for every American household has two parts.

The first part consists of continuing to operate with large deficits, increasing the debt for at least one more year before even attempting to slow down its growth.  To get ready for this additional debt, he asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling, again.  The Senate has already complied, with a bill that will allow Washington to add an additional $1.9 trillion to America’s debt.  Approval from the House is expected shortly.  The approved increase amounts to an additional $18,000 per American household, bringing the total obligation to $128,000.

The second part is defined in the words the President used.  He did not say “reduce” spending.  He said “freeze” spending.  When something is frozen, it remains at its existing level. But Washington’s existing levels of spending are adding nearly $2 trillion to the debt each year.

So the plan is to add to the debt with another budget that includes a huge deficit, and then freeze spending at the deficit level.  The result is a federal plan that continues to build debt, at a rate that adds about $18,000 per year to the bill that each American household will eventually have to pay.

In the process of increasing federal spending, the President announced that the number of people employed by the federal government will rise to over 2,000,000.  This continues the trend of the past year, where the number of private sector employees FELL by 5,900,000, and the number of government employees ROSE by 300,000.

The only place where the government gets the funds to pay its employees is from taxes collected from the private sector.  Even though government employees pay taxes on their own income, the gross wages from which those taxes are withheld came from the private sector in the first place.  And the employer-match for an employee working for the governmentcomes entirely from the private sector because the government is the “employer” in this case and it doesn’t produce any goods or services that generate income other than private-sector taxes.

So in the President’s New Budget, every American household will be obligated by an additional $18,000 in government-created debt each year, and America’s shrinking private sector will be required to sustain an increasing number of government employees with a decreasing number of productive jobs.

The President told us in his State of the Union that this is good budgeting.  And Congress is agreeing by passing the bill that is allowing the debt to rise.

When New Math taught our children that accuracy wasn’t always the goal of mathematical processes, the Washington establishment must have been in the room.

And we met Eddie Haskell, the friend who had a crocodile smile and a crocodile heart.  Eddie was not an idealized character.  In fact, his insincerity caused many of the problems that the show’s other characters dealt with.

Eddie Haskell would have fit right in with many members of the Washington establishment.  They say one thing in their home districts and do the opposite inside the Washington beltway.  And for over thirty years, they have gotten re-elected despite their duplicity.

Their behavior is their fault.  The fact that they have gotten away with it is our fault.

This year, the mood has changed.  Citizens are angry with the establishment, and looking for new faces.  And many new candidates are stepping forward to capitalize on this development.

We need to be as careful of the new candidates as we should have been of the old incumbents.  It’s easy to claim to be a conservative.  But saying the word “conservative” doesn’t mean that the person actually IS one.

So we need to ask good questions, and check the answers we get.  We need to know what the candidate has done to prove that his conservative credentials actually exist. 

We don’t need those who see this year as an opportunity to add the title “Congressman” or “Senator” to their resumes.  We will be able to spot these folks by the fact that they have never lifted a finger to help a conservative organization or candidate before, but all of a sudden they “care deeply” about the state of our nation and want to be elected to do something about it.  The obvious question is, “Why didn’t they care a year ago?”

We don’t need those who have a track record that disagrees with their current statements.  We will be able to spot these folks only by taking the time to dig through their public record.  That will take work, and they are counting on the fact that we are still not motivated enough to check out what they are saying.  These folks are the next generation of Eddie Haskell’s, and they are just as dangerous as their predecessors.

We don’t need those who proudly proclaim that they have no idea whatsoever about how the political process works.  They will be stepping into an arena where every other person DOES know how that process works, so they will either accomplish nothing, or do real harm through their lack of knowledge. 

Our Founding Fathers combined practical political know-how with principled action – we need to do the same.  We wouldn’t get our teeth pulled by someone who told us that he was not a dentist, and we certainly shouldn’t entrust our government to someone who tells us that they do not know how government is supposed to work either.

The reality is that the Eddie Haskell’s of politics will always be with us.  So we need to be as wise as Ward Cleaver in uncovering their insincerity and keeping them from places where they can do harm.

There is a lot of talk lately about being inclusive.  The folks who most often use that word are actually referring to an agenda that excludes issues they don’t want to talk about. 

If they really wanted to be inclusive, they would be endorsing the people of America, inviting them to be the decision-makers in this year’s elections and giving them every opportunity to hear from and interact with all the candidates without interference from the self-appointed experts.

But instead, the political elite is once again telling the citizens that they should be quiet and accept its wisdom.  The political experts are also telling the citizens to support their choices financially because while citizens’ opinions are not welcome, citizens’ wallets are. 

It’s time to change these rules.  It’s time to let the people who care enough about the future of America to get involved in the electoral process actually be the decision-makers in that process. 

Because the active involvement of Americans is good for our nation. 

It forces candidates to earn the votes of the citizens.  It promotes the consideration of multiple ideas through dynamic discussion.  It encourages involvement, helping to heal the disconnect between our people and our government.  It lets more people see running for office themselves as a possibility. 

In America, in the days leading up to a major sporting event, whether it be the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, or the Kentucky Derby, we hear the predictions of the experts, who tell us repeatedly who the winner will, and even should, be.  

But what if the experts not only had the ability to predict the outcome, but could also control the game based on their predictions.  What if, for example, once they decided that Team A would, and should, win the game, they could keep Team B from getting practice time on the field or training equipment for the team members? 

The screams of protest would be deafening. 

Yet that is exactly what is happening in the primary election process in Pennsylvania this year.

Party experts are predicting the individuals who they think will, and even should, win each election.  And they are working to ensure that any candidate not on their preferred list will be denied the opportunity to engage in a fair and open competition.  If the party experts had their way, the game would be canceled, and the statements of the experts would be accepted as the outcome.

We would never tolerate such behavior in any sport in America.  We should certainly not tolerate it when we choose those who will represent us in the halls of government.

In sports, we insist on fair competition because we have learned that the experts are not always as wise as they would like us to think they are.  How much more important that we insist on the same standard when we are determining the leadership of America!

Particularly at this moment in our history.

A delivery business, for example, would define success as a set number of packages accurately delivered each day at a rate that made a profit.  They would then develop a strategy that they thought would result in meeting their definition.  It might include a system to label and track packages, the job descriptions of the necessary personnel, the equipment they would need to purchase and operate, and a price structure for deliveries.  They would begin to implement their strategy, making changes as necessary to ensure that they met their defined goal.

The federal government has defined health care success as Medicare.  The health care overhaul even calls for expanding Medicare programs to include those aged 55 to 64.  So, using Medicare as the model, what are the elements of what the federal government considers a successful health care program?

Medicare participants across the nation received their new premium rates for 2010.  Premium rates rose, some by as much as $800+ dollars each year.  For folks on fixed incomes, this constitutes a large jump in costs.

Co-pay rates rose.  Some co-pays doubled.  Others included a larger deductible before any co-payments could occur, and raised the ceiling a participant would have to meet before getting additional assistance. 

So those receiving Medicare are paying more money for less insured health care. 

At the same time, hospitals and doctors are reporting that Medicare reimbursement rates only cover about 50% of the costs of providing services to Medicare patients.  So they lose money on every Medicare patient they care for. 

As a result, an increasing number of them are refusing to accept Medicare in their practices.  The physician group at the Mayo clinic in Arizona announced on December 31 of 2009 that they would no longer be accepting Medicare patients, citing an annual loss of over $120 million because of the low reimbursement rate from the government.  These patients were invited to either begin paying cash for all medical care, or to find other health care providers.  That is not as easy as it sounds as more doctors are forced to stop accepting Medicare if they want to stay in practice.

So those receiving Medicare are paying more money for less insured health care while simultaneously being required to pay for uninsured care.  

Additionally, due to the laws surrounding the billing of health care services, doctors must charge these patients at the rate at which they BILL health insurance providers, not the rate which those insurance providers actually pay.  Those rates can vary by hundreds, and even thousands, of dollars, depending on the health service being provided.

So, those receiving Medicare are paying more money for less insured care while simultaneously being required to pay for uninsured care at the highest rate.

Seniors trapped in this situation are skipping follow-up visits, halving prescription medication levels, refusing to get new hearing or vision aids, and not participating in any preventive care programs to try to fit their health care costs into their often limited budgets.  

And this is the approach to health care that the federal government defines as “success”.

It makes a reasonable person wonder, doesn’t it?

We need Sergeant Friday to be on the case today, insisting that those intent on remaking American society to avert the crisis of global warming stop their emotional outbursts and stick to the facts.

Let’s start with the facts about carbon dioxide. 

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  It is a natural, and necessary, part of our atmosphere.   We breathe in oxygen, and breathe out carbon dioxide.  Plants take in the carbon dioxide, use it to fuel their growth, and emit oxygen.  It’s the respiratory cycle of life.  If either side of the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle is eliminated, life on this planet ends.

If we follow the facts, we find that abundant carbon dioxide levels stimulate plant growth.  In 279 published experiments, plants, such as wheat, which were fertilized with carbon dioxide showed enhanced growth rates even though the water levels or soil contents were less than ideal.  So carbon dioxide is actually proving itself to be an effective fertilization tool that would help the growth of plants over larger geographic areas, increasing the food supply across the world.

The same effect is found in forest growth.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service reports that inventories of American hardwood and softwood timber have grown by 40%, and are increasing by 1% per year.  This increase has led to a corresponding increase in the animal population that feeds on plants. 

The facts show that there is no correlation between temperature and levels of carbon dioxide.  There is a correlation between solar activity, such as sun spots, and temperature change.  That is why the temperatures of Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Neptune’s moon Triton , and Pluto are rising at about the same rate as those on Earth. 

The lack of connection between man-made carbon dioxide levels and temperature is not hard to establish.  The Sargasso Sea is a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean.  Scientists have measured, with isotopes, the marine organism remains at the bottom to find the average temperatures of the earth going back 3,000 years.  This is actual data, not a computer model. 

They found that the average temperature on Earth has remained within a range of 3 degrees Celsius over 3,000 years.  The warmest times occurred around 1,000 B.C., 500 B.C. and 1,000 A.D.  This latest period is known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, when records show that farming occurred in Greenland and grapes grew in England.   The period ended at about 1300 A.D., and temperatures have not reached that level of warming since. 

The twentieth century is right in the middle of that 3 degree temperature range, making it exactly average in temperature levels. 

 If man-made carbon dioxide were causing, or even connected to, rising temperatures, the twentieth century would be the warmest.  But it’s not even close.

As Joe Friday would say, let’s, “Stick to the facts, just the facts”, and leave the emotional outbursts behind.

Their questions were usually harder.

One night, one of my sons asked why God let His Son be born in a stable.  I said that they were in a stable because there was no room at the inn, and started to talk about making room for Christ in our own lives.

He interrupted me, saying that it was mean for God to let a baby be born in a stable when He had the power to have Jesus be born anywhere.  Didn’t God love His son very much?

I don’t remember what I said that night, but it certainly changed the way I looked at the setting of the Christmas story.   Because obviously the stable was not an accidental setting in a birth that had been planned from the beginning of human existence.

So why a stable?

In first century Israel, shepherds were the lowest class of people.  They lived with their smelly sheep, and were themselves considered unclean.  Shepherds were not allowed into palaces, or manors, or even simple inns.  If Christ had been born anywhere BUT in a stable, the shepherds could not have come to see Him.

Stables in those days were not like today’s barns.  They were usually small caves with low doorways.  The small space and low opening helped to keep the interior warm in the cold desert nights at a minimal cost.

To enter the stable, an average person would have to bow his head.  It would not have mattered if you were a lowly shepherd or a reigning monarch, you could not get into a stable without bowing.

And since the stable wasn’t overly large, you couldn’t bring much stuff into it.  You might fit, but a trunk full of baggage wouldn’t.

So we have the almighty God placing His Son’s birth in the only setting where the Savior would be accessible to everybody.   It was in a setting where every person who entered the presence of this newborn King would have to bow.  And to reach the Child bringing the gifts of peace and salvation you would have to put down whatever else you were clinging to.

It is no longer the first century, so it is easy to overlook how important the setting of the Christmas story is.

The stable tells us that not one of us is too lowly to be welcome.  This Savior came for each and every one of us, no matter how “unclean” we may think we are.

It reminds us that we are in the presence of a King, so acknowledging His Lordship over our lives is a necessary part of reaching Him.

It challenges us to put down all the stuff we are clinging to, both material and emotional, to open our hands and our hearts to receive the gifts He offers us.  Gifts that are as real and life-changing today as they were on the first Christmas morning.

Christ was not born in a stable because God didn’t love His Son, He was born in stable because the Father who sent Him loved us, and was telling us how to respond to that love.  In over 2000 years, that message hasn’t changed.

Merry Christmas!