Department of Student Activities or Department of Leftist Activities?

For some time now, the weekly email updates sent by the Texas A&M Department of Student Activities to the leaders of student organizations have contained an overwhelming amount of leftist events and programs.  The StuAct Weekly email sent today (click to see pdf) was no exception and even included a Coming Out Monologues Submission Form.  Most of the organizations receiving student fee money lean-to the left, and the adherence to viewpoint neutrality by the department is questionable.

Fortunately, our organization should be able to have events included in these emails in the future, and we hope to help bring about a balance to the activities students are urged to take part in.

Two weeks ago the Department of Student Activities sponsored and pushed “Social Justice Week” which included events such as “White Racial Frame, Past & Present” and leftist speakers like Jessica Pettitt.

Some highlights from this week’s email include:

• 2009 Women’s Progress Awards for those who “promote sensitivity to and awareness of issues that relate to women”  (Put on by the Women’s Resource Center, which is funded through student fees)
• A screening of Food, INC sponsored by two organizations receiving student funds (Aggie Cinema and the SGA Environmental Issues Committee)
• Women Wise up about money (what about men wise?)
• Coming Out Monologues (sponsored by the student fee funded GLBT Resource Center)

Reagan’s Birthday Celebration

The Texas Aggie Conservatives spent the day before President Reagan’s 99th Birthday handing out fliers, giving away cake, passing out Reagan pins, and celebrating the life of an amazing conservative.  Hundreds of students came by the event in the historic Academic Plaza at Texas A&M University.

The fliers informed students of the increased living standards, economic growth, job creation and charitable donations during President Reagan’s time in office. Students got a kick out of the event and enjoyed the free sugar boost on a grey Friday afternoon.

Watching the underclassmen members of the Corps of Cadets eating their cake sitting in the chairs we had around was particularly enjoyable; cadets are not allowed to eat standing up until their senior year. The passersby were happy to witness an Aggie Corps of Cadets tradition, and it put a smile on everyone’s faces.

The event introduced students to Reagan, and they learned how conservative policies improve the lives of all Americans!

Hopenhagen Socialism: "Change the f***ing system"

One would think that the agenda for most of the activists at COP 15 (the UN Climate Change Conference) was to “save the planet” from “global warming”.  However, that’s not why tens of thousands gathered to protest on December 12, 2009.  For the leftist activists, COP 15 and the protest was about changing the system (aka ending capitalism). Climate change is merely an excuse to collapse capitalism and switch to socialists economic systems.

You don’t have to take my word on this…  I’ll let you hear it straight from the lion’s mouth.  This video was taken during the protest in Copenhagen.  WARNING: this video does contain some graphic language.

The chant “Take action, take action, and change the f***ing system” could be heard from several groups during the protest.

Many of the mass distributed posters had sayings such as “CHANGE THE POLITICS NOT THE CLIMATE” and “PLANET NOT PROFIT” showing the true purpose of the global warming movement.

If that wasn’t enough, the “Never Trust a Cop” crowd posted the following video.  “Never Trust a Cop” was made up of mostly members the Black Bloc – an extremely radical (and violent) group (these are the people that got arrested during the protest).  They believe that COP 15 actually promotes capitalism! More on this group in future posts.

Fall 2009 Election Guide

Vote YES to END Red Light Cameras!

Red light cameras are not the only important issue in this election. On November 3, voters will be able to influence policy at the local, state and national level with their votes on key issues. We encourage you to vote as follows in the upcoming election, and to bring this guide with you into the election booth:

Proposition 1: NO

This constitutional amendment would allow the state and local governments to raise taxes to build support infrastructure to military bases. This measure is justified by supporters as a way to keep military bases in towns, but it is really just an excuse to raise taxes. Military bases are in the domain of the federal government, as are any roads and infrastructure necessary for their continued operation. This amendment will raise property taxes if passed.

Proposition 2: YES

This constitutional amendment allows the legislature to prevent cities from increasing the taxable value on land when residence is not considered the “highest and best use” of said land. For instance, if a corporation were buying up land in a city for gentrification and increasing neighborhood land values, they would not be able to drive people off of their property by radically increasing the taxes paid by property owners. This amendment would provide protection to property owners in Texas.

Proposition 3: YES

This constitutional amendment would ensure that smaller jurisdictions in Texas valued their land in a consistent manner. Currently, counties or other tax appraisal districts use different metrics in determining the taxable value of property. A uniform standard across Texas would provide protection to taxpayers.

Proposition 4: NO

This constitutional amendment would give $513 million to a National Research University Fund. This fund would attempt to increase some Texas universities to Tier 1 status. Texas A&M and the University of Texas would be banned from receiving these funds. We oppose this amendment not because it would give Tier 1 status to competing universities, but because it is a waste of the taxpayers’ money. Colleges should receive as much money as possible from donors and tuition. It is also a mistake to change the focus of Texas universities from the goal of education to that of research.

Proposition 5: NO

This constitutional amendment would allow two or more adjoining tax appraisal districts to merge into one unit. This is detrimental to the citizens of those jurisdictions because it removes the burden of accountability from the members of the appraisal review boards. This is to the disadvantage of the taxpayer.

Proposition 6: NO

This constitutional amendment would allow the Veterans’ Land Board to write more public debt to fund low-interest loans for military veterans without approval from the state legislature. While we support measures to help the veterans who serve so selflessly to protect our freedoms, we do not want to grant the VLB the power to write public debt with no oversight.

Proposition 7: YES

This constitutional amendment would allow members of the Texas State Guard and other active military force organized under state law to be civil servants and hold government jobs. While we do not support the expansion of government jobs, we do not want to unfairly prevent qualified men and women from holding those jobs simply because they have chosen to join the military.

Proposition 8: NO

This constitutional amendment would authorize the state to appropriate money to VA hospitals in Texas. For obvious reasons, we are against the state government appropriating any money to entities of the federal government, including the VA.

Proposition 9: NO

This constitutional amendment would strengthen the Open Beaches Act. This act has allowed the Texas government to seize the property of anyone whose property, due to forces natural or otherwise, is a certain distance past the line of vegetation on the Texas coast. This act was directly responsible for the loss of many homes in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. The law needs to be struck from the books as soon as possible; this amendment might enshrine it in the state constitution forever.

Proposition 10: NO

This constitutional amendment would allow the governing boards of emergency service districts (for instance, hospital districts) to serve for up to four years at a time, an increase from the two years they serve currently. Since these boards have the power to increase taxes, any increase in term length would weaken the accountability they have to their voters and taxpayers.

Proposition 11: YES

This constitutional amendment would protect landowners from the increased powers of eminent domain recently conferred upon local and state governments by the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision. Under this decision, governments have the power to seize blighted land because the new owners would raise more property taxes for the city. This amendment would remove that power and, in so doing, provide protection to landowners in Texas.  This amendment strengthens private property rights.

Red Light Camera Referendum: vote YES to ban red light cameras

Chet Edwards Town Hall–August 26

From our perspective, the town hall was an enormous success. Even though printed signs and recording devices were banned, we made signs in line at the event and ensured that the voices of those who do not want the government to take over our healthcare system were heard. The questioning was carried out fairly and honestly; by our count, of the twenty questions asked, 13 were explicitly against the H.R. 3200 bill, 5 were for it, and two were undecided or asked questions that were not directly related to the bill.

Obama supporters hold up supposedly banned printed signs

Congressman Edwards himself showed up right on time but was not greeted by a standing ovation as has been reported elsewhere. It is true that many supporters stood to greet him, but they were the minority of those attending. In the minutes leading up to the event, our group and other concerned citizens held up signs and a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag. These signs ranged from criticisms of “Chedwards” to criticisms of the reform package in general (“Obamacare is assisted SEIU-icide”). Edwards answered most of the questions as we expected: he dodged many, twisted some statements into things they were not, and used the entire thing as a campaign event. He must have mentioned the VA clinic in Bryan that he has “saved” after every election about ten times. When asked whether he saw himself as a delegate or a trustee, he answered that he was a “representative.” He kept his cool until near the end, when he was visibly angered at the accusation that he was “allowed” by Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders to vote against Cap & Trade. While we would like to take him at his word, it is very suspicious that he was the second to last person to vote on the bill. Had the bill’s passage rested on his vote, would he have voted differently?

Chet Edwards insists that he has not yet decided how he will vote on this bill. He also made it clear that he had not yet read it during the town hall. Now is the time to make calls and pressure him to vote now. You can call his Brazos Valley office at (979) 691-8797. Make it clear that if he votes for this monstrosity, you will not vote for him in November of 2010.

Obamacare is Assisted SEIU-icide

No printed signs, no video recording, will there be free speech?

While Chet Edwards has agreed to three town hall meetings in the coming weeks, it is questionable if these will allow constituents to fully express their opinions about healthcare reform.

On Edward’s website, it states that:   “No printed signs, electronic or recording devices will be permitted.”

If Chet Edwards is so confident, why is he not allowing recording devices?  Might someone ask a question that he can’t answer?  Will someone expose him for what he is: a liberal democrat career politician?  What is he so afraid of that constituents can’t record a government official at a program paid for by the public?  Seems like Chet is at it again to limit your rights.

Edwards told KBTX on Aug 21 that he has not yet made up his mind how he will vote on this bill.  Common sense citizens must show up at these meetings to let Chet know that HR 3200 is not what District 17 wants.

Three Myths About Health Reform

One thing all Americans can agree on is that it is important for health care to be affordable and accessible to the maximum number of people. Since the Obama Administration and Congress began work on health insurance reform, there has been a vigorous debate about the best way to cover the maximum number of people. Many facts and ideas have been advanced by both sides that have little basis in reality; here I attempt to find the truth about three issues in this important national conversation.

47 million uninsured Americans?

According to the Census Bureau’s 2008 figures, the number of Americans who do not have health insurance is now 47 million(1), an amount that has been steadily rising over the past few decades. Many proponents of reform point to this number as evidence of a serious health problem in this country, but it does not tell the whole story. Over the past ten years, 90% of the growth in the number of uninsured has been among non-citizens, mostly illegal immigrants(2). Furthermore, it has been estimated that 25% of America’s uninsured are already eligible for existing public coverage (ACORN should really work on signing these people up) and 20% are able to afford health insurance but choose not to buy(3).

We cannot assume uninsured noncitizens, who account for 9.7 million of the uninsured(4), do not fall into either of the two above groups. This means that there are really anywhere between 16.2 and 25.9 million uninsured US citizens who do not have access to coverage.

Health insurance is a necessity?

One often repeated fallacy in this debate is that in order to be healthy, one must have health insurance. This is not the case. If a person has enough money to pay for any health issue that arises, he should not have insurance at all. On an infinite timeline, a person will pay more to an insurance company than will be spent on his own health, since the company wants to make a profit. Even the government, which does not work for a profit, will have to spend extra money on administrative costs. We buy insurance because, in the real world, most people do not have that kind of money and only have 78.1 years to live(5). An insurance company spreads the risk of a catastrophic accident among a large group of people so that, instead of a few paying exorbitant sums for chance occurrences, everybody pays a guaranteed smaller sum. Unfortunately, modern health insurance has moved away from that concept and toward total coverage of all health expenses, even routine doctor visits. By definition, an expense that is “routine” should not be covered by an insurance company! This would be like having car insurance that paid for the gas bills.

One real solution to rising health costs would be to encourage plans that only cover catastrophic expenses. A young, healthy student who does not smoke might only be charged $29 per month for such a plan(6). Of course, the plan would have a very high deductible, but it would encourage people to shop for the best deals in primary care and routine visits without having to worry about going bankrupt after being diagnosed with cancer. Indeed, many doctors’ offices give lower rates to people who do not use insurance because they do not have to spend time filing with the insurance companyvand because patients can negotiate for lower rates(7).

Incidentally, the House health reform bill would make all individual, private insurance plans, including high-deductible, catastrophic care plans, illegal(8).

Tort reform will decrease costs?

In conservative circles, the establishment of caps on the award judgments from medical malpractice lawsuits, also known as tort reform, has been advanced as a solution to high health costs. In some ways, this is a good idea. Civil courts exist for the sole purpose of the redress of grievances; to include punitive damages in malpractice judgments unfairly skews the court system in the favor of plantiffs. If a doctor does damage to a person that costs a million dollars to repair, the doctor (or his insurance company) should pay a million dollars to the plantiff, plus court costs. It would be unfair to award the plantiff three million in punitive damages, but it would also be unfair for a law to limit the judgment to $500,000.

While common sense would dictate that low award caps would decrease the cost of medical visits since doctors have to charge more to cover malpractice insurance, experience shows that this is not the case. The cost of medical malpractice suits only comes to half a percent of overall health spending(9). According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 1.5% of cases of negligence even lead to a claim, and there is “no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts”(10). The real problem with torts is the high legal expense. The most effective reform would be a “loser pays” rule: it would discourage people from filing frivolous lawsuits, but decrease awards by allowing lawsuit winners to keep the entirety of their awards.

Sources:

1. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737

2. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_08-20081.pdf

3. http://www.healthaffairs.org/RWJ/Dubay2.pdf

4. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/07/20/daily34.html

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

6. http://www.studentdoc.com/affordable-health-insurance.html

7. http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/haggling.html

8. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/07/16/ibd-individual-private-health-insurance-illegal-under-house-bill

9. http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

10. http://www.justaskourdoctors.com/statistics-detail.asp?id=11

Conservative Coalitions of Yester-Year

They say History repeats itself, and this is best seen through the current events. They saw we were headed towards a great depression, and though this is bad for America, it created one of the best times for conservatives. This may be a very odd statement to say, but those “times that tried men’s souls” created urgency for conservatives to unite and stand against events that were occurring.

After the re-election of Roosevelt in 1936, he not only continued his already established new deal policy’s, btu began to form more. After his attempted court packing, many of his own party became disillusioned. These that strayed from the Fold were mostly Southern Democrats who found themselves without a side in the political battlefield. These were accepted into the Republican Party and created a conservative coalition. Led by a great conservative leader in Robert  A. Taft of Ohio, they stood up to Roosevelt and the new deal. Though outnumbered and beaten many times, the conservative coalition filibustered and fought as long as they could.

Robert A. Taft: One of the first great modern conservatives. Inspired Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan alike.

There were bad times when many conservatives were voted out, but they kept on the road. They were able to see till the rise of Reagan and the “Republican Revolution of ’94″. And though it may appear that the coalition has collapsed after the victory of Obama, I believe we are in a rebuilding mode. The base is solid as it ever has been, but we must build up support from those who straddle the fence to favor us.

The events that led to a conservative coalition being created are eerily similar to those that we are in: a liberal in president office, economic downturn, and excessive spending. These times of necessity demanded action, and the time has come for action today.

Where Efficiency Meets Elegance

Competition is beautiful.  With initial thought, you might think differently, but competition is really where efficiency meets elegance.  Picture a soccer game of twelve-year-olds in a regional championship game.  Whoever wins will not receive any media recognition.  They will not move onto a state championship because there is none.  They will not even receive any money.  All they will receive is a measly 5-inch trophy.  Despite the lack of awards, the kids play their hearts out and finally a winner is decided.  Now, backtrack over the previous few months preceding this game.  Each team put in hours on hours of sweat, grass stains, and sprints to get to where they were at the regional championship.  Even though there was only one final winner, both teams benefited.  Both rose to a level of skill that surpassed others, just as the other teams in the league did the same to surpass other teams.  Moreover, the spectators, who have not had to labor like the soccer players have, benefit as well by watching one amazing soccer game.  Now, anyone who does not agree with such a prospect should perhaps consider acquiring some common sense.  Needless to say, many people who would agree with the above text will without hesitation totally disagree with the following.

And that is that competition in the marketplace is also where efficiency meets elegance.  Still agree?  Good.  But consider this.  Because of the very nature of competition, most, if not all, of common and accepted tax and regulation within the United States economy imposed on by the national government should be abolished.  Ah yes, now you disagree.  Let me explain.  Nothing works better for ALL parties in an economy than true free market competition.  Competition allows both the consumer and producer to benefit.  Take televisions, for example.  LCD TV prices have dropped dramatically since their introduction to the marketplace.  In fact, according to WitsView’s 1Q09 LCD TV retail price survey, mainstream LCD TV prices have dropped 7.5% over the last quarter.  The dramatic drop is not due to some government agency imposing a mandate that TV manufacturers reduce their prices or else.  Quite the contrary, competition is all to blame.  There are at least a dozen mainstream TV manufacturers out there all trying to get you, the consumer, to buy their TV.  What do they have to do to convince you?  They improve their picture quality, increase the number of features, increase the size, decrease the size, improve the form factor, and of course, reduce prices.  They all do this because they must.  They simply cannot survive if they don’t, and time and time again, we see companies that don’t compete well against other companies, whether the reasons lay behind inferior products or inferior prices, and with due time, we never see the companies again (Circuit City ring any bells?).  This is the essence and the beauty of competition.  We all benefit.  The company with the best TV will get the most business, and in turn, the most profit, while we will get the best TV with the best price, and as soon as the other companies come out with better TVs, they will also see the benefits.

Now I turn to oil companies.  Those nasty, greedy, selfish oil companies.  When we were constantly hearing about the record taxes they were paying, oh wait, I mean the record profits they were earning, I could have thrown up.  All I heard was how the oil companies needed to be taxed more and needed tougher regulation.  First of all, what is wrong with a business making money?  Oh, right, right, because it’s money we can’t have.  But besides that, and bear with me here, what if we actually reduced the taxes that the oil companies have to pay and reduced the regulations that they must abide to.  And I don’t mean just a little, I mean big time.  Just imagine if the oil companies’ taxes were slashed by 75% and regulations were cut drastically.  Uhh… they’d earn even more profit, and we’d lose even more money….  WRONG!  Oil companies, just with all companies, are looking for business.  Right now, they can only invest so much to improving their product and the efficiency at which they produce their product because they must pay an outrageous corporate tax.  With more money to invest, imagine what, for example, gasoline prices would look like?  Do you really think that the companies would continue to keep their prices high, even though they would have lower tax rates?  Just think if that were the case.  One oil company would realize that more people will buy their gasoline if they simply lowered their prices under the competing companies’ prices.  All of a sudden, the other companies that chose to keep their prices high would realize that they should lower theirs as well if they want people to keep buying their gasoline.  Suddenly, what you would have is a domino effect where all the oil companies would continue to strive to make their prices as low as possible (through increased efficiency in the refining process, shipping, etc.) in order to convince you to buy their gasoline.  Again, every single person involved benefits.

This same concept can be applied to anything and everything that exists in the economy, from pencils to credit cards to health insurance.  As long as there is competition, companies will continue to improve their products or services and make profit while the consumer will continue to sit back and enjoy the benefits.  The problem continues on with a tremendous and ridiculous corporate tax rate that discourages competition, as well as erroneous regulations set by bureaucrats over companies that only want to provide the best product for their consumers.   All you have to do is look at countless examples where competition has benefited everybody, like the computer market, internet market, cosmetic market, food market, retail market, sports merchandise market, automobile market, insurance market, furniture market… I could go on and on.  Every single one of those examples contain the most powerful and self-regulating forcethat powers our economy and benefits everyone involved–competition.

Competitively,
Samuel Congiundi ’12

Obama-Patient the New Doctor-Patient Relationship?

The most sacred and unique of all human relationships is that between the doctor and the patient. This bond is based on absolute, mutual trust and faith. Key ingredients are honest communication, reciprocal respect, moral principles, and, ultimately, truth. This relationship is the result of choice; one human freely and willingly chooses to seek medical help from another human, who must then agree freely and willingly to provide such service. In no other relationship does an individual so completely submit to another. In no other relationship does an individual so intimately enter into the body and soul of another. Which requires greater faith and courage, the patient that allows the physician to drill into his skull, filet open her flank, or saw open his chest, or the physician that precisely dissects the tumor from the brain, transfers a kidney from one human to another, or holds a heart in her hands to literally mend it?

While anyone can fill the role of patient, a rare few can fill the role of physician. American physicians have recently been demonized and disparaged by our new President and liberal federal government. Truth be known, physicians are among the most intelligent, hardworking, self-sacrificing, conscientious, innovative, compassionate, charitable, trusted, and faithful servants in our country. Physicians are motivated by good to serve others at great cost and sacrifice to themselves and their families. Physicians devote a minimum of twelve years after high school to education and incur almost insurmountable debt to acquire the required skill, knowledge, wisdom, and courage. Precious few possess the intellect, work ethic, value system, and other traits required to become a physician.  One might ask why any rational person would choose this profession; the answer is- it is a calling. Some of the best and the brightest feel called to serve others, and the primary goal is most certainly not financial gain. As with any profession, there are exceptions to the rule, and anecdotal cases exist of individuals who are not good physicians. Bad physicians are sanctioned or removed from the profession, and, most importantly, the patient has the choice to break the relationship and seek another physician at any time, at will. Conversely, the physician cannot freely leave the relationship at will.

Mr. Obama’s goal throughout his July 22^nd press conference was to garner support for rushing through radical healthcare reform which will drastically increase government participation in healthcare. Mr. Obama stated that currently physicians can and will choose treatment for their patients based on financial reimbursement. He gave the example of the possibility that a physician who needed cash would choose to perform a tonsillectomy on a child rather than prescribe antibiotics for a sore throat. This is an appalling, unfounded accusation. Mr. Obama is not a physician and is not qualified to practice medicine. He is in no uncertain terms implying that his expanded government plan must be passed so that the government can dictate the treatment plan, because the physician might decide on treatment for the patient based predominantly on monetary gain. The government practicing medicine is a frightening and unethical prospect. It would be far better to have no healthcare coverage whatsoever than government controlled coverage, which empowers a group of nonmedical bureaucrats to dictate medical treatment. Mr. Obama might be surprised to discover that the Medicaid reimbursement to the surgeon for the tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy in a child is only $270.00 for a surgical procedure which carries the risk of hemorrhage and death. This absurdly low reimbursement most likely does not even cover the physician’s overhead. In fact, physicians routinely subsidize government insured patients with other income sources. While he is busy villainizing physicians, we are too busy, too overworked, and too perilously trusting to defend ourselves, naively clinging to the shred of faith that justice will prevail and good will conquer evil.  The very physicians he accuses of greed and targets to squeeze even further are routinely providing charity care to countless patients who are illegals or who simply cannot pay. Not only do physicians treat these patients without receiving any pay, in fact, we commonly have to come out of pocket to provide medical supplies such as sterile gloves, instruments, and suture to treat the uninsured. Physicians do this by choice as we seek to help the human in need, often at great personal sacrifice and medicolegal exposure. We do this of our own volition, because we are called to serve others. We are not primarily motivated by financial gain as Mr. Obama contends. Sadly, this is a concept foreign to many politicians.

Dear American citizens, do not believe what he is saying. It is not the truth. Why does he lie? He lies because he is incapable of knowing the truth. He is not a physician. He has never been the doctor part of the doctor patient relationship. The methods by which physicians practice medicine are completely counterintuitive to him, so there is no way he can understand that the physician will actually choose to do the right thing for the patient. The key ingredients for the doctor patient relationship are foreign to him: mutual trust and faith, honest communication, reciprocal respect, moral principles, and truth are as foreign to him as words from a language he has never heard spoken and therefore cannot comprehend.While he preaches hope and change, he is oblivious to truth and trust. The unquestioning faith a patient places in the physician, the bond, is not a bond politicians can relate to.  While a physician will provide medical care to patients for government established fees which do not even cover overhead, the politician or ruthless business person might instead choose to administer the anesthesia, crack the chest open, and then wake the patient up unanesthetized to renegotiate the fees before finishing with the surgery. The government must not be allowed to practice medicine.

The United States has the best healthcare system and the best physicians in the world. Medical miracles are performed and medical advances are occurring at exponential rates. Why are we recklessly changing the best healthcare system in the world and demonizing our doctors? Most Americans have health insurance, and most Americans are happy with it. Of those who do not have it, many choose not to or do not qualify because they are not United States Citizens. We are told there is a crisis: the system is broken and will bankrupt the country. In reality, the government run part is the part that is broken, in debt, and financially unsustainable. The privately run part is working and, in fact, is subsidizing the government run part. Why should we expand the broken part, the government run part? Medicare, Medicaid, Military Hospitals, and the Veterans’ Administration Hospital System are examples of the government run parts. Contrast Medicare, Medicaid, and the V.A. to the private insurance companies and, for example, the Mayo Clinic. It makes more sense to decrease or eliminate the broken, government part and expand the private part- the working part, the part that makes us the best in the world.

The inherent problem is that the physicians and the Washington bureaucrats cannot communicate. Their basic value systems and languages are different.  Which will it be? Care over cost or cost over care? Doctor-patient relationship or senator-patient relationship? Will the most sacred of all human relationships cease to exist as the U.S. federal government practices medicine? In this crisis driven pursuit of change for the sake of CHANGE, what do we HOPE to get in exchange for freedom of choice, free will, honesty, respect, morals, truth, trust and faith?  In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have”. We must not allow the federal government to take over healthcare. If their consideration, understanding, and knowledge of their own bill is any indication of the way they will practice medicine, I shudder to think what will happen. Call and fax your congressmen. Act now.                                                                                                                               Sincerely,                                                                                                                                          Kristin Story Held, M.D.