Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Mother Seeks Refuge from ICE in Salt Lake City Church

  Instead of boarding a flight deporting her to one of the world's most dangerous cities, a Utah mother, Vicky Chavez, turned her vehicle around and headed for a church offering sanctuary for her and her two children.
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not normally seek out immigrants in sensitive locations, such as churches. One can only wonder if other immigrants will follow, and sanctuary in Salt Lake area churches will become somewhat common. 
   And one can wonder why it is mothers being caught in the federal agents' net. On Christmas night, Maria Santiago Garcia and her four children boarded an American Airlines flight for Guatemala, being forced to leave America by ICE agents. So, Chavez would have been at least the second mother deported in just more than a month, had she continued to the airport instead of reversing course and heading for sanctuary.
   Court precedence suggests offering sanctuary is not illegal, as long as the sanctuary is not hiding the immigrants by failing to disclose they are there. So, the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City and the volunteers there with Chavez and her two daughters might be safe in providing protection for the family. If ICE does come calling it will break precedence, but not be breaking any statute.

(Note: Reading further news accounts suggests that while Vicky's decision to go to the sanctuary came at the last moment, she might have made that decision before actually starting to drive towards the airport.)

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Trump Trumpets Trump, but the Bells should Ring for Obama

   President Trump credits himself for lowering the Black unemployment rate to its lowest level in history. Pick up a graph of the rate, though, and notice how it has been on the decline for at least six years. It was early in Obama's presidency that the rate was reversed from climbing to falling, and it was during the Obama years that the definite majority of the decline occurred. Not giving Obama his due is not being fair.
   If one person were to push a cart a mile up hill, only to have someone step in just as the top was being approached, and say, "Hey, I'll take it from here," and push it successfully over the top, who would we give credit to? What would we think of the person who just pushed the final few yards if he were to say, "Hey, see what I just did! I pushed the cart over the top! Bless me for what I've done!"

A Leader is only as Great as his Vision, so what of Donald Trump?

  A leader is only as great as his vision. He is only as good as his ability to pinpoint what is wrong and then go about fixing those things.
  Enter Donald Trump. How does he measure, then? What of his State of the Union Address?
  Fixing the infrastructure seems a good thing. I hesitate some, but generally feel it is wise to strengthen our military. I do not like his immigration policies, including those that call for merit-based admittance. Just the same, I do wonder that if you seek to only admit high-character people, it should translate into higher-character people walking the streets of America. I see reason in not extending foreign aid to nations that are not friendly with us, though I consider that if the aid goes directly to the needy, not helping the governments, I might still favor it. I consider the economy, wondering but what he might be returning it to greatness. I don't know. Will his tax plan spur growth? Let us see. ISIS? Has it been conquered? Certainly a big victory. Lowering prescription drug prices? A wonderful goal, and if he succeeds, a wonderful thing.
  Trump perhaps takes more credit than credit is due. Still, there are a lot of positive things that have happened during his first year in office, and there remains hope that great things are yet to come.
 
 

Monday, January 29, 2018

A Man is only the Size of His Dreams, so Dream like Nobody ever has

  Dream a little dream for Salt Lake City, imagining what it could become if we went about tourism like no place has ever went about tourism before.
   Salt Lake City: Where the World Comes to Visit.
   As the tourist steps off the airplane, he walks down Welcome Row, a interactive tunnel where you touch the walls, and they respond with electronic images, swirling and exploding at the touch of your fingers. You speak to the walls and they answer. You say, "Hello," and the image of sailor, or woodsman, or astronaut, or Irishman comes alive on the wall, responding, "Welcome to Salt Lake City, me laddie. Me thinks I have never seen you before." The image then walks along with the tourist, conversing with him till they reached the luggage rack.
   Would this be a high step for artificial intelligence, or could such an interactive wall be built?
   For those not departing directly, there would be a hospitality suite, a full-wall television screen displaying the wonders of Utah - from the national parks to the the exciting offerings right near the airport.
   Yes, stretching west from the airport would be the largest tourism district ever conceived. No city has ever tried the likes. Tourism sites are scattered throughout the town, in most cities. In contrast, Salt Lake would have a massive tourism zone, stretching out mile after mile after mile. Robotic theme parks? There could be a Jurassic Park, or a park with Hansel and Gretel, Rumpelstiltskin, and all the fairy tale figures you would want, or a park where the bright moments in world history were played out.
  Or, all of the above.
 Imagination come to life.
  Pack in the finest of museums. Bring in the best of musicians -- both your own and those you could book from around the world. Have plays and playhouses, comedians and magicians, stores and shops with the exotic, and stores and shops with collectibles.
   Oh, yes, it would be a pricey endeavor, this, to build such a tourism zone. And, I have only discussed the half of it. But, if we were to build it, the world would come, the world would pour into our city, taking tourism to a whole new level.
   Laugh and say it is a silly thing to even consider. I say it is something that could be done. I say, a man is no bigger than the size of his dreams, so dream like no one has ever dreamed.

 
 

Sunday, January 28, 2018

I Consider what Nancy Pelosi Says

A post comes across Facebook quoting Nancy Pelosi as saying, "We should only deport illegal aliens if they do something illegal."
I reply:
"I follow what she's saying, and I agree. Freedoms should not be lost unless you break a law. In this case, they are losing their freedom before a law is even broken. They are told they cannot come before they even try. I'm of a mind to say Nancy is right. Freedoms should not be taken away before a crime is committed. Ours is a nation of freedoms, and we, of all people, should be diligent in protecting them."
I pause, then re-enforce what I am saying with this:
"Freedom to migrate is a freedom until you take it away. If you are free to do it, it is a freedom. You might argue that we shouldn't give them this freedom, but I think you must concede it is a freedom until you take it away. I agree with Nancy that freedoms should not be taken way unless and until a crime is committed. As I just said, ours is a nation of freedoms, and we, of all people, should be diligent in protecting them, whether they are our own freedoms or the freedoms of others."
I think about it overnight, then add this:
  "On second thought, I think I'm wrong on guessing what Nancy Pelosi was saying. I believe the immigrants shouldn't have the freedom to migrate taken away until after they commit a crime. But, I don't think that is what she is saying. I think she is saying simply that if they don't commit a crime in the U.S., then they should not be deported. So, I and Nancy don't have the same thought, after all."

Galatians 8:1

  Perhaps no other scripture is used against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than Galatians 1:8. To me, though, that is a scripture that rather than testifying against the church, testifies the church is true. 
  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the most biblical of churches, following the Bible more completely than any other belief system I run across. Not only do its practices and doctrines more closely follow the Bible, but there are scriptures in the Bible that surely seem to be referring to the LDS faith. 
  You are probably aware of one, Rev. 14:6. "And, I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people." Have we any other event since the time of Christ that so fits this description, or even comes close? For, surely, if the Bible said it would happen, it must happen. Do we have anything other than the angel Moroni's visit that matches the revelation? The gospel was restored through an angel, even as the revelation said it would be.
  You might suggest the Bible also warns against an angel from heaven preaching any other gospel, and that is fine. But, it does not overrule the fact that the Bible says an angel would come, bringing the gospel. If the Bible is true, both scriptures are true, not just one. I can tell an angel did restore the gospel, even as it says in Rev. 14. That gospel is going forth unto every nation, and kindred, and tongue and people, just as the revelation said it would. This is revelation fulfilled, scripture fulfilled. The Church of Jesus Christ has one of the most expansive missionary forces in the world, which fits with the prophecy saying the gospel would go forth to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. 
   What of Galatians 1:8, then? "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." It is worthy to note that Paul places himself and the other leaders of the church in the same category as the angel from heaven. "Though we or an angel," he says. We have no more reason to assume the angel Moroni brought a false gospel than we do to suppose Paul preached a false gospel. That Paul named the church leaders of that time in the same phrase as an angel from heaven is significant.  Even as Paul is worthy, so is the angel Moroni. And, even as Paul surely does not lead us astray, neither does the angel Moroni. Did Paul know of the angel Moroni that he should be referring to him? I only say that the angel Moroni is alluded to in Rev. 14. And, I only say that those who quote Galatians 8 say he was referring to Angel Moroni. So, it is of their own admission. 
   Galatians 8:1 seems to me more of a witness of the LDS faith, than it is a witness against it.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

We Spend More Money When the Money isn't Our Own

  When we spend another person's money, we spend more than if we spend our own. That's a principle of economics.
  As our nation looks at the high price of health care, we should notice this principle at work. As long as the insurance is in place, covering the bill, we aren't careful about the expense. We should be, though, for eventually the insurance companies pass along the expense to us, charging us higher premiums.
  Is having a system based on insurance a good thing? I think we should give it thought.

Trump Assaults the Right to Join Family Members

  What Trump is proposing constitutes a major assault on the freedom to immigrate. The right to follow other family members to the U.S. has, from the start, been a part of our immigration practice. He would curb this? He would make it a crime for parents and siblings and older children to join their families?
 To use the Dreamers as a bargaining chip do do away with a segment of family migration is a horrible thing. They are literally being held hostage, with the price of their freedom being that the freedom of their loved ones must be lost.

Friday, January 26, 2018

Freedoms should not be Taken Away unless Crimes are Committed

   "I've got the answer, ma'am," The Immigrant said as his public defender entered his jail cell. "I know what you can argue to get me off."
   "What would that be?" the lady asked.
   "The only time you have the right to take away freedom is when a crime is committed," The Immigrant said. "You punish someone by taking their freedoms away. But, you don't take away  freedoms unless they do commit a crime."
   "Oh, my dear friend, we have already been over this," the lady said, cupping her hands over her eyes as if in frustration. "You know, surely, that you did commit a crime. Crossing into America is a crime."
   "Well, consider this, then," The Immigrant went on. "I hadn't committed any crime when they made it illegal for me to come. They took away my rights before I committed the crime. If we're saying you can't take away a person's freedoms until they commit a crime -- and I am -- then they got a little antsy and did it a little early."
   The lady again cupped her hands, this time holding them waist high. In teeter-totter, or juggling fashion, she lifted one hand while dropping the other, as if her hands were a balance, weighing justice.
   "Well, I will consider this," she said.
   The Immigrant looked at her. "Not all countries do it this way," he said. "Some countries take away freedoms on the whim of their dictators. Kings take away freedoms whenever they want." He paused, then continued. "And, notice this: When they take away the freedoms of others, they usually do it based on what is best for them, and what they want, and what will serve them the best. They hurt others to benefit themselves."
   He paused again, then proceeded again. "Can you see that is pretty much what is happening here? In America, they say I can't come because I'll ruin their economy."
   One more pause, then on he went. "In a free country, you don't take away freedoms unless a crime has been committed. Call it a principle of freedom, because it is. Kings and queens and nations of tyranny can do things differently, but a free nation should be true to the principles that govern freedom. This is one of those principles."
   The lady defender jumped to her feet, and punched her hand forward. It was as if she held a sword in her fist and she was thrusting it forward as if to commence a fight.
   Lady Justice can win those fights.



Thursday, January 25, 2018

And, The Immigrant Felt a Little Bit Picked on

   Quite aware the arrest of her new client was in the news, the public defender stepped gingerly into the jail cell. "Sir," she said tentatively "I've been asked to come help you."
  The man in the jail cell -- he had come to be known simply as "The Immigrant" -- said nothing.
  "You are being detained for crossing the border," the lady said, brushing her hair back.
   The Immigrant lifted his head. "I did cross that border, didn't I?" he said. "You know why I did it, don't you?"
   "Tell me," she said.
   "I wanted to challenge the system," he replied. His eyes shifted back to the cement floor. "I've done nothing wrong. I'm not a murderer, nor a thief, nor a rapist, and I'm not coming to murder, or to steal, or to rape. Shouldn't freedom be the heritage of those who are law-abiding? As long as you don't murder, as long as you don't rob or commit arson, then freedom should be yours, shouldn't it?"
   "I see," the defender said. "But, actually, you did commit a crime."
   "Did I?" asked The Immigrant. "And, what did I do? Did I wander a little too far to the north? Let me ask you, if you robbed, or plundered, or raped, would they toss you in jail?"
   "Of course," replied the defender.
    "Well, what if you walked too far to the right, or to the left? Would they arrest you for wandering from one place to another? Let's say you wanted to pick where you lived, would they arrest you for picking where you wanted to live?"
    "Of course not," the lady said.
   "That's because those things aren't crimes, not for you anyway" The Immigrant said. "My question is, why should it be a crime for me, and not for you? If something really is a crime, it should be a crime for everyone, not just for those you choose to pick on."
   The Immigrant stopped and picked up a scrap of paper off the floor. "Ma'am," he continued, "you're a public defender, and you defend immigrants. Tell me, have you ever wondered how it can be legal for one person to do something, but not for another? I mean, murder and rape and theft -- those are things everybody has to avoid. There is no law that says you only cannot do them if you come from another country. Crime are crimes, and they don't have anything to do with who you are or where you come from."
   The Immigrant paused. He looked at the scrap of paper he had picked up from off the floor. "I brought this little note with me," he said. "Care if I read it?"
   The lady nodded her permission.
   "It's the definition of the phrase, 'Justice is blind.' It has a picture of Lady Justice, who is blindfolded, of course. So, my little note here reads: 'Justice is Blind. This expression means that justice is impartial and objective. There is an allusion here to the Greek statue for justice, wearing a blindfold so as not to treat friends differently from strangers, or rich people better than poor ones.' "
   The immigrant swung his head to look at the defender. "Ma'am, that definition speaks of strangers being entitled to the same justice as everyone else. I'm a stranger. Lady Justice doesn't look at me any differently than anyone else. So, as long as justice wins the day, I'm going to be okay."
   He wiped a bead of sweat from his forehead."Trouble is, I've got more than Lady Justice to worry about," he said. "Now, ma'am, do you remember how I just picked this note off the floor a moment ago? Now, was that a crime?"
   "Of course not," she said, again brushing back her hair.
   "But, somebody could make a law against it. Then it would be illegal, wouldn't it?" he asked.
   "Well, yes," she said.
   "Sure, they can make anything they want illegal," he said. "So, here's the thing, Ma'am: If I commit murder, or rape, or arson, those are crimes. Everybody can see what a crime is. And, everyone has to answer to crimes equally. But wandering too far to the north -- what's that? Well, just the same, man can make a law against it. If they want, they can say it is illegal for me to pick up a piece of scrap paper. They can say it is their country, and whatever law they want to impose on me, they can do it. Then, when I lean over to pick up that piece of scrap paper, they can toss me in jail."
   The defender brushed back her hair one final time. She winced, and gave him an understanding look.
   The Immigrant sighed. He pursed his lips and shook his head. "Ma'am," he said. "I feel a little bit picked on."
 

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Salt Lake City might could become the Most-Visited City in the World

   Everyone loves a convention, if it is about their hobby. And, the world is full of hobbies: Rock collecting, flower gardening, bird watching, and so forth -- a thousand hobbies are to be had. Anytime a person gets very deep into a hobby, he (or she) is excited to join others, to gather for a convention.
  What if you made Salt Lake City the place to come for your hobbies? More, what if you made it so the average, common, not-rich-at-all person could afford to attend the convention? You might, literally, have the world flocking to your city.
   Salt Lake City has an airport, of course, and it has undeveloped land right close to it. I dare say, you could walk to it. What if you had a convention center next door to the airport? What if you could fly in, attend the convention, then fly out that night, no hotel, no luggage, no taxi needed?
   Tourism without baggage. Tourism on an economy  budget, the the price of an airline ticket in some cases being the only notable expense, supposing some events might not charge more than, say, $15 for participation.
   Chess tournaments, and Wiffle ball tournaments. Monopoly, Clue, Scramble, and Risk tournaments. Piano competitions, mandolin competitions. Violin, saxophone, and harp competitions.
   Oh, make the rest of the city available. Advertise it, including your playhouses (and the Salt Lake Valley has some nice ones), and such. Invite them to come over to Temple Square. Temple Square is free, so that plays into that theme. And, food? They are going to eat your food, so you will have a booming restaurant industry, if nothing else.
   Salt Lake City might could become the most-visited city in the world.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Make Salt Lake City a Place the World Flocks to Visit

   I think of Dubai, and how it has vaulted to become one of the world's most-visited cities. I think of how they built their 160-story skyscraper, opened innovative museums, and created Wild Wadi Water Park. I read of their choreographed fountains, the Dubai Fountain Complex.  I hear-tell how they have the world's biggest natural flower garden, one of the world's largest malls, and a village representing 75 countries.
   Build it, and they will come. Create it, and the world will flock to your doorstep.
   And, I think of Salt Lake City, and of how it could do the same, if it wanted. I think of the mile-after-mile of land stretching out from the airport, along the lake, and of how that land somehow has escaped development. I wonder at how we could put tourist attraction after tourist attraction there, stretching them into a tourist district uncommon, if at all in existence. Usually, tourist sites are scattered about, not brought together into a massive tourist zone.
   Built it, and they will come. Invite the world, and the world will come calling.
   I wonder at having so much land available right next to an international airport, of how, when tourists come, they often come by airline, and of how they need to arrange transportation to get to the sites. I consider how we could make tourism more convenient than perhaps anyone has ever made it, and of how we could even place some of our tourist sites right within walking distance of the airport.
   Economy tourism: Fly in, see your site, and fly out the same day, without even needing to rent a hotel. Tourism without luggage.
   It is said: Location, location, location. Why would that rule not apply here? And, if we can make tourism more convenient than it ever has been, why not take up this opportunity?
   Make Salt Lake City a place the world flocks to visit.
 

Monday, January 22, 2018

The Immigrant Who Walked Right into America

  Standing at the border, on the Mexico side, The Immigrant scanned the audience of journalists at his press conference. Then, he looked passed them, into the reaches of America.
   "Yes, I should be free to enter the land in front of me," he said. "What is freedom if you can walk up to the border of it, but not be free to walk in?"
   His gaze continued to be fixed on the landscape of the new country before him, as if staring into a dream. "I didn't come with this in mind," he said. "But, I think I should like to walk right across this line in the sand. I think I should like to take a walk right into America."
   "You do, and you'll be walking into not just America," cried one journalist, "you'll be walking right into jail."
   "Not much freedom there," The Immigrant responded. "Let's just test and see how much freedom there is in America." With that, he stepped away from the podium, and walked right across the border, right into America.
   And, of course as he did, a border agent greeted him. Whether the agent read him his Miranda rights or not, I do not know, but I know the agent suggested he just turn around and walk right back where he came from. The Immigrant said he wasn't going to do that, and the federal agent hauled him off to jail.
   "Shackles and chains are not the greeting of freedom," he protested, as the agent hauled him away. "A jail cell is not the way liberty welcomes people. If I come to America, is not it a fair expectation that I will find liberty? Why should I, instead, be tossed in jail? I should be freer on that side of the border than I am on the other, but I am not."




Sunday, January 21, 2018

I Would Make a Master Map of the Thinking Process

   I would map the thinking process, I would, if I could.
   Actually, I think I could. But it would take a lot of time. At least, I could map a lot of it. I could list the things that lead us to make the decisions we do. One rule: We make choices based on what makes us look good. Another rule: Things that make us look bad, or require too much work, can totally elude our minds.
   I know I am not giving good enough expression to what I'm saying -- not citing the rules of thought well enough tonight. Ironically, this is a night I must write my blog quickly, so I chose this topic. Yet, a good job on this topic would take much more time and effort than usual.
   Our minds are like computers. Some of the same rules that apply to computers, apply to our minds. Computers make default decisions, and so do we. When we make a decision to do something once, next time a similar situation comes up, we are programmed. Take running red lights, or cutting in front of traffic. If we do it once, we are programmed to do it the next time.
   So, some of these rules are things we already have observed. What is the phrase that applies to the last one? We are creatures of habit? Though many of these rules have long been observed, they have never been compiled into a map outlining what decisions we will make in various situations.
  Another rule: We seek to see ill in others. We revel in finding fault in them. It would be interesting to think that out, observing what conditions lead us to wishing ill on others. Not everyone does. What are the rules, then, for those who do not glory in the shortcomings of others?
  What is the mental map for the average person, and how does it very from the map of a saint?

I Still Believe in a Good Government Shutdown, but this isn't it

   If a good shutdown would work, I would favor it. Give me a shutdown that reduces the size of government by, say, 17 percent, and I might take it.  Seventeen percent -- that's what the shutdown in 2013 amounted to (in terms of money being spent), and I would guess this one is about the same.
   I believe government is too big. I  believe the national deficit is too big. If we were to trim the size of government, how much would we cut? I do not believe 17 percent too much. Now, if we cannot stomach a 17 percent shutdown for a few weeks, however are we going make any kind of headway into an $20 trillion deficit? 
   But, there are negatives that come with these shutdowns. To begin with, there is the idea that we are not paying our bills. I, along with others, believe in paying our bills. So, this is the first problem with a government shutdown.
   Next, there is the fact shutdowns don't result in savings, anyway. Despite a portion of the government being down, all the same money gets spent (as best as I can tell). Once the shutdown is over, the employees who were not coming to work are paid retroactively, same as if they had been at work. If we are not going to save money, the shutdown doesn't do any good at all.
   Thirdly, there is the question of whether we want the government employees to go without their income, supposing we didn't pay them retroactively. Have we no compassion for them? Yes, if we are ever going to put a dent in the national deficit, somewhere along the line we  might need to reduce the number of federal employees. But, the more favorable way of doing this would be through attrition, meaning not replacing people when they retire or move to the private sector. Unfortunately, we don't have the option of using attrition during a government shutdown.
   Fourthly, national parks and such are closed. Communities such as those in southern Utah depend on tourism, and the loss of visitors has definite ill effects. On this problem, however, I have heard the parks will remain open during this shutdown, albeit they won't be manned.
   Finally, there is the concern for those on WIC and other programs not getting paid in a timely fashion. I believe those on Social Security are not so affected, as their payments continue even during this shutdown. But, those on WIC and some other programs are not so fortunate. Yes, if we are to reduce spending by 17 percent, some social programs might need to go by the wayside. Still, we must find a way to help the WIC recipients. Could private charities step in?
  I still believe in a good government shutdown. But, until we tweak our shutdowns so they actually benefit us, there is no such thing a good government shutdown.

Friday, January 19, 2018

One of the Most Cherished Reasons for Immigrating Could be Lost

  The immigrant arose from his chair, walked up to the border, and stood at the podium, his press conference ready to begin. "Thank you for coming," he said to assembled media members. "I've an announcement of somewhat importance -- actually, great importance. There is a new assault on our freedom as immigrants. For years, we have had the freedom to cross this border if we had family members on the other side. That freedom in now being challenged. It is in danger. That basic human right -- the right to join family -- is now being challenged. You know what I speak of, don't you? There is a call to end 'chain migration,' which is the practice of allowing family members to join other family members on the other side of this border."
  He pointed to the line in the sand that divided him from the journalists, for he stood on one side, and they on the other.
   "Some speak of DACA," he said. "They speak of extending DACA in exchange for ending 'chain migration.' Should we be compelled to give up one freedom in order to keep another? Should our children be allowed lives in America as long as we promise not to join them? Are freedoms bartered that way? Would you barter your own freedoms that way? If someone said, you can keep your freedom of speech as long as you surrender your right to move about freely, would you do it?"
   He looked deeply at the journalists, his eyes meeting theirs.
   "You shouldn't have to give up one freedom in order to have another," he said, and he again looked searchingly at them. "One freedom should not be held hostage at the expense of another. That's not the way freedom works, is it?"
  "Now. let me drive home the point I came to make," he continued. "We have enjoyed the right to join family members from the start. One family member comes to America to make a way for others, and the others soon follow. It has ever been that way. Taking this away, is to take away a freedom that has been with us from the very start. Taking this away, is to take away one of the cherished reasons for coming here. Till now, joining families was not considered a vile thing, nor a nefarious one. No, it was considered a wonderful thing. It was considered one of the best reasons of all for immigrating."
   He pursed his lips and paused, then continued. "Journalists of America, I think you see why I called this press conference. We need to get word out about what is happening. One of the most basic of immigration freedoms is being lost. One of the most wonderful reasons for coming to America is being threatened. We need you, the press, to report what is going on. Please, I know you are reporting about this chain migration, but you are not reporting why it is significant. You are not reporting why this is such a loss. You are not reporting how one of the most cherished things about immigration is being endangered."
   He looked across their faces one more time. "Please, could you?" he pleaded.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

The Ballad of Rudy at the Border

Rudy, on your way
Rudy, be on your way
You and your type have robbed from me
And, stolen and raped my land
Yes, you've killed my friends
With your bloody hand
Rudy, be on your way
Rudy, be off and on your way

I wait for you at the border
I wait for you at the port
I wait for you with a gun in hand
I wait to shoot you dead in the sand
So, Rudy, be on your way
Rudy, be on your way

I welcomed your wife in Houston
I welcomed your kids in Boston
They came and they stayed
And they never obeyed
They took from us all
In government aid.
They went to our schools
And they never paid
So, Rudy be off with you
Rudy, be on your way
Rudy, be off with you
Please, don't both darken and brighten my day
For if you follow your wife and family
Rudy, you'll make my day

And, as the sun sets down on the desert sand
I see you walking in a hungry band
I level my gun and the shots fire out
I scatter death, and call it a route
I scatter death all about
Oh, Rudy
Oh, dark-faced Rudy
You should have been off
You should have turned 'round
You can't blame me for shooting
Such a dirty hound
Rudy, be off with you
Rudy, be eternally gone
Rudy, be off with you
Rudy, be forever gone

(Indexes: immigration, story, my stories)




Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Chain Migration is Good Migration

 It would seem chain migration should be one of the most protected forms of immigration. Family members wanting to join other family members? Isn't that as good as it gets as far as reasons for coming here to America?
  But, some people don't see it that way -- including President Trump. They seek to bring an a sudden end to chain migration.
  That we are using the term, "chain migration," these days is interesting. The term is new to you, isn't it? If we were to just call it by another term often used -- family reunification -- its opponents would have a harder sell. How do you oppose family unification? "Chain Migration," on the other hand, is a thing you can oppose. The term even has an evil sound to it, suggesting that one wicked entry is leading to another. I looked the term up, and found it once meant people of a certain community in another country following each other to communities in the U.S. These days, though, the term is most always used just to refer to family members following family members.
   There are reasons for this -- reasons for using the term just to apply to families and reasons for opposing families following families more than communities following communities. When one family member succeeds in coming to the U.S., others are often allowed to come simply because they are related. Admittance becomes somewhat automatic.Thus, those who want to control immigration lose control of picking and choosing who will be allowed and who won't.
   Now, people who come via chain migration have an overall easier time than those who strike out for the border on their lonesome. They have a place to stay when they arrive. And, they have people looking out for them. They are not alone in a foreign land.
  So, what does all this mean if you seek to control immigration? If you don't want too much immigration, you don't want immigration that is easy. So, opponents of immigration seek to slam the door on chain migration so migration will not be so easy and so they can better weed out the immigrants they don't want.
   Now, another thing: Those coming via chain migration are more likely to stay once they arrive. If a migrant comes just to make money working in the potato fields, he will likely make his dollar and head back home to rejoin his family and friends. But, if a person comes to join family and friends, he isn't so likely to go back.
   So, those who don't want immigrants to stay seek to end what to them is a nefarious thing: one arrival leading to a string of arrivals.
   I believe much the opposite. I see "chain" migration as neither a dangerous nor a nefarious thing. I see it as family joining family, loved ones joining loved ones. To outlaw this seems to me almost criminal. If we are to allow any immigration at all, it seems these should be at the front of the line.
 
 
 


Had Trump Used a Clean Word, it Still Would have been Wrong

I am not as offended as some are at President Trump's use of the expletive. It is that he applied that expletive to countries and people. That is what I find offensive. He could have used a clean word, and it still would have been a put-down. It is not the language used, but the put-down, itself, that I find offensive.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Oaths are Protecting Him, and He Would Change Laws to do so, also

   "Deals can't get done when there is no trust!" President Trump tweeted in response to Richard Durbin's contention that Trump spoke of wanting immigrants from places such as Norway instead of from (expletive) countries.
   When Durbin was then asked if he violated a trust when he spoke publicly of what had been said at the meeting in the White House, he replied, "Listen, I didn't take an oath of secrecy when I walked into the White House."
   My memory floats back to those who have taken oaths of secrecy, of how President Trump made campaign workers such as Steve Bannon sign oaths of secrecy to prevent them from saying negative things about him.
   And, my memory recalls Trump's desire to give our libel laws a work-over. What would he do? I don't know. Would he make it so things could not be said if they were not clearly substantiated? If you were just wondering if something was going on, you couldn't say it -- no -- not unless you were fortunate enough to have all the cold, hard facts.
   Oaths to protect this man from truth? Laws to shield him from truth? Is this not an assault on free speech? Are these not attempts to ensure that only the official state version of things gets told? Would Trump silence all other voices so only his official government narrative makes the news?
   I believe in transparency. And, this is not it. Instead, it is something we might call, "Trumparency."

Monday, January 15, 2018

A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned, even in Government

  What if the president were to ask every federal department to cut back on spending? After all, not every dollar allotted needs to be spent.
   Avoid overtime. Don't go out to dinner on the government's expense. Trim deep into travel. Don't buy unnecessary office equipment. Don't replace retiring employees if the positions are unnecessary. Etc.
   Such pulling in of the belt is common in private industry, but I would guess rare with the federal government. Considering we now have a president who was to bring business principles and practices to government, now would be a good time to try this.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Would We Require that Hospital Patients make America Great?

   I have more of an issue with President Trump wanting coming to America to be based more on merit than I do of his using the expletive he did.
   Oh, I do not like that he applied the expletive to Haitians and Africans. I have issue with that. Using an expletive to describe a people is a put-down. We shouldn't be applying an expletive to any class of people.
   I read now how President Trump wants to have a more merit-based immigration system, where you come to America based on your merits. Bless him, the same, but I do not think this is the way we should be moving with immigration. These people are coming here to receive American freedoms, and to chase American dreams. They are coming to escape crime and to escape war and to escape poverty.
  Do we say that to receive freedom, you must show that you merit it? If freedom is to be freedom, it must be freedom for all, without a list of government restrictions to be completed before you can receive it. Do we say that in order to escape war, you must qualify through some kind of merit screening? If a person were about to be shot in a war, and we had a chance to get him out first, would we say, "We will free you from facing that bullet if you promise to go to college once you get here"? What kind of merit system is the president suggesting?
   I do not fault the president if he is suggesting everyone must work once they get here, and must pay taxes, if that is what he is saying. But, I don't think it is. Here's his Sunday tweet:
   "I, as President, want people coming into our Country who are going to help us become strong and great again, people coming in through a system based on MERIT. No more Lotteries! #AMERICA FIRST"
  I question whether the basis of immigration should be what it can do for us. I believe it should be based on what we can do for the immigrants. Making America great again is a great concept, and a wonderful goal, but to suggest you won't accept the needy and won't help the needy unless they offer something that will make America great is a little much. Would we go into a hospital and tell a patient we cannot help him unless he offers something to society that will make it great?
  Isn't that how this treats the immigrants?

Saturday, January 13, 2018

The Values of a President Color the Values of a Nation

  The president you elect will reflect on the people you become. The president will influence your morals and your character and your values as a nation.
  I wonder if his policies on immigration are an example. Do they simply reflect popular sentiment, or are they influencing us to widen the spectrum of those we do not think should be allowed to reach our shores?
   Should we prevent someone from coming into the U.S. simply because they come from a disadvantaged nation, as President Trump seems to be suggesting? Is this a new line of thought? Is the president expanding the spectrum of immigrants who are not acceptable?
   And, what are the values of our nation when it comes to immigration? What are our morals? Are we concerned with helping those who are disadvantaged? Or, do we shun them simply because they are disadvantaged? Are we self-centered, thinking primarily in terms of what the immigrants can do for us, and whether they will increase or decrease our financial well-being?
  It seems clear we have long shunned the economically disadvantaged, but I do not believe we have ever came right out and excluded a person for coming from a country that is disadvantaged. I don't believe it is going to reach the point that we ban immigration from third-world countries, but it does seem President Trump is at least shifting us more that direction.
   Which way is Donald Trump influencing us to think? Is he reinforcing existing ideas and then expanding upon them? Are our existing beliefs moral, while President Trump's latest thoughts stretch outside strong moral boundaries?
   The leader of your nation will affect your beliefs and what you come to believe. Is he doing so on immigration?
    Be careful who you elect, for they might partially dictate who you become.

(A fair amount of rewriting of this blog was done Jan. 14.)

Friday, January 12, 2018

I Looked Back Over My Shoulder at Him, Crying

  "Do you have your ticket?" he asked, greeting me at the border.
  I looked at him, a little dumbfounded. "Ticket? What ticket?" I replied. "It's not like I'm coming to catch a movie or watch a play. I just want to be free. I just want to move to the land of the free."
  "Your ticket," he repeated.
  "I'm not wanting to board a train, or a plane," I said. "What are you talking about -- ticket?"
   A stern, impatient look crossed his face. "Ticket," he demanded.
  "I just want to be free. I seek freedom," I said. "I'm poor. I come with no money to buy my freedom."
   "Exactly," he said. "You don't have any money. If I let you cross into our country, you will make it poor. You will drag us down. You will go to our hospitals, at no cost. You will get on our welfare. You will drag down the wages. Then, after you've raped us of all this, you will send the money you make to your friends back home, and it will leave us and no longer benefit our economy. Our president was right. He said something about 's-hole' countries, and yours is one of them. Now, why do you suppose we would want to bring someone in from a s-hole country like yours?"
   He looked at me, as if to demand an answer. I sighed. "I'm poor. What kind of a ticket do you want?" I asked.
   "Money," he said. "Money is your ticket. If you have it, we'll let you in. What? You think we'll let someone in from an s-hole country?"
   "Please," I pleaded. "I just want to be free. If I have truly reached the border of America, please let me in, for I have heard you are the land of the free, and that this is where freedom begins, so to speak."
   "Not without your ticket," he said. "Not unless you have money. For you, if you cross that border, this is where your freedom will end, for we'll toss your illegal a-- in jail."
   I looked at him, quizzically. "Since when does freedom come only with money? Since when is freedom just for the rich, or the well off?"
   "The days of letting in the poor and huddled masses yearning to be free are long gone," he said. "That never was a good idea. So, these days, if you don't have money, we don't want you."
   I shook my head, slowly.
   "Are you from Norway?" he asked.
   "No," I replied.
   "Well, there you have it, you can't come," he said. "Unless you are from Norway, or Germany, or one of the finer countries, you can't come."
   I turned around, a tear forming in my eye. Whatever had happened to America? Whatever had happened to its ideals, to its sense of justice, to its ability to care for other people? All of a sudden, it seemed all they cared about was whether you could do something to make them richer or whiter. That was hardly the America I had grown up loving.
   I looked back over my shoulder at him, crying, not just for myself, but for America.

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Medical Systems that Must Stretch to Find Customers can be Bad

   Thought a bit more on the profit-motive factor in modern medicine. I see how sole employment, potentially, can be a negative. When a person -- a doctor -- is dependent on attracting new customers, he is more inclined to force a shoe on that doesn't fit.
   More inclined to find illness, if the illness will bring money.
   More inclined to suppose he can remedy something when he cannot, if that will bring money.
   I see how having doctors work for others can have a buffering effect. If he gets $30 an hour, regardless how many illnesses he finds, and regardless how many treatments he gives, he is more likely to honestly appraise whether the illnesses exist and the treatments are beneficial. He doesn't stretch the truth in order to catch another dollar.
   I see how insurance has a benefit -- not saying I like health systems where insurance is involved, but just saying I can see this benefit: If a person has the ability to pay for something, he is more likely to accept the service. Insurance companies expand the customer's ability to pay and, in doing so, increase the doctor's stability of customers. If the doctor has a more stable base of patients, he is less likely to fret about making enough money, he is less inclined to get desperate and sell a service that isn't needed -- he is less likely to stretch to find illnesses and stretch to find reasons to operate.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Since When does Freedom come with a Permission Slip?


  Is freedom a right of first possession? Do the first people in get it, and anyone who comes after must ask for permission to have a share?
   Is that the way freedom is administered in the land of the free? We were here first. We were born here. Now, if anyone else comes, they must seek our approval. Their admittance is up to us.
  Freedom: If you get to it first, you can have it. If you don't, ask for permission and you can still have it -- if they let you.
  Since when does freedom come with a permission slip? Since when does one person have to ask another for the right to be free?
   If freedom can be given, it can be taken. The power to give is the power to take. And, so it is, we suppose we have both the right to grant them to stay, and the right to send them away. Like a king, standing with subjects before him, we either allow their presence or banish them.
   There are a lot of rights that go into freedom, but the right to take away another person's rights is not one of them. Taking away another person's freedom is not a right we have.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

The Great American Social Club, and the Unfairness of Having One

Is freedom only for those who get here first? Is it something you can put first dibs on? Is our freedom only for those born in America, with rights and privileges above those born abroad?
Is freedom only for those who raise their hands the highest, by showing they are more educated, or that they are willing to work in certain industries?
Is it something that can be given to too many people? For, we say, if we open our borders, too many will come.
Is freedom only to be given to those who are economically advantaged? For we surely suggest they should not come if they are going to end up on welfare.
Who is freedom for? Is it only for the privileged? Is this a social club?
Freedom, by its nature, should firstly be for those who need it -- those who have needs. Those who have money and station and influence can use their money and station and influence to get what they want. Freedom means less to them. Rather, it is the poor, the unwanted, and oppressed who need the protections of freedom. It is for those who would be jailed on a whim, instead of for cause. It is for those who cannot buy their way out of the prisons. In other words, it is for those sent to deportation jails for no more reason than not being born here, and who have who have not the money to buy the most high-powered of attorneys, but must settle for public defenders.
If we would give freedom more meaning, we would give it to those who need it most. We would give it to those who otherwise would be tossed in jail for no more cause than not having paperwork. If we were to give freedom more meaning, we would make it free. We would not have a list of restrictions, and prices that must be paid, and things that must be done. If we were to give freedom more meaning, we would give it to all, including those from abroad. Liberty and justice for all means no less than this.
Is freedom something that cannot overcome an unfortunate starting point, and, if you are born outside of freedom, you cannot move within it?
If we reduce freedom to something that can be obtained with an education, or purchased by taking a job in a privileged industry, we reduce it something that can be bought and sold, as if to the highest bidder. I think of the slaves, when we had slave trade, and of how they were sold to the highest bidders. Is freedom to be bought and sold the same way slavery was bought and sold? What a mockery of the word!
What should we compel them to do, that they should be free? Shall we force them to speak English? Oh, we are the clever ones: We make the restrictions so difficult, they are not able to come here, then we tell them all we want them to do is to come legally. "Do this, do that," we say, and we use the art of oppression to paint over their picture of freedom.
Freedom is lessened when you put a wall around it, when you think to protect it by keeping others from having it.
Freedom, by definition, should be free. Why we, as Americans (of all people!) seek to change the definition of how it is to be obtained, I do not understand.
   Freedom knows no borders, and we yet we suppose to impose borders and walls against it. We draw a line in the sand, call it a border, and say, "Enter the land of the free at your own risk, for we will strip you of those freedoms. We will toss you in jail just for being here. Take another step, and you cross into a land where all freedoms are ours and none are yours. You may suppose your rights are inalienable, but we will take them away from you. Ours is the power, and your only right is the right to return to where you came from."

Monday, January 8, 2018

Bundy Should Pay the Grazing Fees

   And, Cliven Bundy walks free.
   He let his cattle graze on public land for 20 years, it is said, without paying the grazing fees. Is this true? Or, did he try to pay?
   I believe if he did fail to pay a valid bill, there ought to be consequence. I see how the judge dismissed all 15 counts against Bundy, his sons and the militia leader who supported them. Was failure to pay grazing fees one of the charges? I don't know. The story doesn't say. I don't know what all the charges were for, and don't know that I would agree with them.
   But, I agree with the notion of prosecuting Bundy for non-payment of grazing fees, if, indeed, he had failed to pay that bill. If the feds do appeal the case, I wonder if they ought to clip most or all of the other charges.
  Bundy has said he will likely do more of the same in the future. I would say, next time, don't try to remove him, and don't try to remove his cattle. Just go to court over the non-payment of fees. If the law doesn't provide for jail time for not paying the fees, but only assesses further fees, write a law that makes failure to pay a prison-able offense.
   Wrong is wrong, and failing to pay for grazing fees is wrong. If the BLM has been charging too much, as a judge, rule it was excessive. Then wait and see if Bundy at that point will pay. And, if he doesn't, take him back to court.

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Would be Wonderful if there were More People Like This

  I read a wonderful story of Facebook about a man in Chicago who was arrested for taking in the homeless. Well, it was wonderful in that it told of him doing it, but not so wonderful in that it reported they made him quit.
   Housing code violations.
   But, what if there were more like him? What if people took to making their homes into homeless shelters?
   I posted my comment on Facebook:
  "Most of us (me included) are not in position to take the homeless into our homes. And, supposing a person does, they take the risk of bringing in someone who could harm them. Still, I cannot but think how wonderful it is that this Chicago man did what he did. And, I wonder at the thought that if there were enough people like this, we would not have people living on the streets. I wonder that I have not read of so much as one person being a crusader of this nature in the greater Salt Lake City area. This is a city that cares for the poor and the homeless, as is evidenced by the media attention. Still, no crusader to take in the homeless? Would be wonderful if there were a number of them."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-man-ordered-stop-homeless-slumber-parties-article-1.3735142?cid=bitly&utm_content=buffer297dc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Saturday, January 6, 2018

We Should Consider How to Throddle the Profit Factor in Medicine

   What problems, ye ask, do we encounter by having a capitalistic health-care system, instead of a socialized one?
   Is not there danger that doctors will seek unnecessary surgeries, if they stand to profit by having those surgeries? I suggest, this is a danger -- a definite danger. If a doctor makes his money off having surgeries, and the more he has, the more he makes, yes, there is going to be an incentive to rationalize that patients need surgeries when perhaps they don't. 
  Indeed, if a doctor -- say, a cardiologist -- makes money off regular office visits, then it is to his financial benefit to keep patients even though they might recover. You might argue that doctors don't do that, they don't keep patients coming back long after they have healed. You might argue that the insurance companies prevent it, by having standards that must be met before doctors can run stress tests, or whatever the test might be. 
  And, you might also argue that even though a person has healed, doctors should bring them back a couple years later to ensure there is no relapse. I would agree on that point. We need to have more check ups, not fewer.
   I think of a dental procedure I had, and how there were two post ops, not one, and of how I called in to cancel the second, not wanting an unnecessary x-ray, and of how they talked me in to keeping the appointment, saying it was free and could be minus the x-ray. I wondered if it was free, as in it was covered by what I had already paid, or free as in no out-of-pocket since the insurance company would cover it. If the insurance was covering it, there was still an expense.
   What about medications? Are we left on medications sometimes after the need has ended? If the pharmaceutical industry profits more when it sells more, isn't there incentive to keep you on drugs, or to sells drugs when they perhaps aren't necessary?
   The profit factor also plays on the other end. Not only can it lead to too much treatment, it can lead to not enough. If a patient has a medical problem, but has no way to pay for it, the incentive for the medical practitioner is to find reason not to give the treatment. Sometimes, whether you have a procedure comes down to whether or not you have insurance.
   These are things we need to correct in our medical system. Whether we tweak our process while remaining in a capitalistic system, or switch to a socialistic system, we should fix what is broken. And, we should be open-minded enough to at least consider whether the problems would be rooted out if we swung to a more socialistic system. We should consider both the benefits and problems of moving more socialistic.

Rambling Thoughts on Socializing Medicine

   What if government ran our hospitals, but left it to consumers to pay for the services?
   Before you jump me for supporting socialistic medicine, let me suggest the goal is to come up with the best health-care system, regardless which of the two boxes it fits in, socialistic or capitalistic.
   And, let me note it can be argued that a true socialistic system, the person doesn't pay the bills, the government does. We can't afford that. America is  $20 trillion in debt. The government cannot afford to pay everyone's medical bills.
  So, let the citizens pay their own bills.
  Now, let me also suggest that as I set down to write this, I am only exploring what the proposal would mean. I believe if we want to make the right choices, we have to consider the options. We cannot just reject something without giving anymore thought to it than to say it is socialistic. Instead, we should say, "Here's what will happen, and here's why can or cannot do this," with little regard to whether it is socialistic.
   Truth matters more than labels.
   So, what would happen? Would we lose some incentive for medical advancements? I consider that we might. An individual is inclined to want acclaim and profit. Those are incentives. In terms of developing new medicines, new devices, and improved techniques, it helps if the person is able to see something for himself (or herself) in it.
   What about ownership of a business? Doesn't that give you a sense of pride, and a desire to excel? Aren't you, for example, more inclined to do everything it takes to succeed if the venture is your own? I suggest you are.
   But, note that most people are employees. Whether they are working for the government or for a private entity, their incentive to do well is about the same. I note that there are two types of people, those who seek to do well, and those who seek only to put in the hours in order to get their paychecks. They would sit back and read a book while at work, if they could -- and they sometimes do.
   And, here is the big question: Which provides a better way to keep costs down -- private or government? Under a private system, competition can drive prices down, but greed can drive them up. So, if you can harness competiveness while controlling greed, private enterprise might work.
  A government ran system has the advantage of setting prices. It can look at the expenses in an MRI, and simply say, "It doesn't cost $2500, so we aren't going to pay $2500. One hundred dollars is all you'll get."
   But, a government system can also be blind. People just interested in pulling their paychecks aren't inclined to hold prices down. They seek the easy way out, and often that has nothing to do with keeping costs down.
   Well, it is late for bed, and I can see this is not an overly polished blog, or at least not one written in an interesting fashion.
   I do end with a tentative conclusion (if you will pardon the contradiction of terms). Government-ran systems might do well once we have celestial people. Good people will seek to do good regardless. Ordinary and imperfect people, however, need financial incentives and incentives such as glory and honor.
    A socialistic system might do well in a celestial society, but a capitalistic system might be necessary as long as society clings to traits of laziness and pride.

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Insurance Companies Often Stand in the Way of Good Health Care

   I would guess there is no medical system in the world that is organized properly. Certainly, the health-care system in the United States is not.
   We have a wondrous array of medical tools available in our day. Some, such as the MRI, are common and well-known. Others, such as the EMG, are not. But, it does no good to have such modern advancements if they are not utilized. If you have an insurance system that screens out what it terms as unnecessary procedures, doctors are not going to be able to run the tests except when there are clear indications there is a need for the test. So, the test is only used to verify what is already suspected, instead of to find problems that otherwise remain hidden.
 In other words, early detection is not served. How wonderful it would be if we used these devices regularly. Many maladies would be detected earlier. False diagnoses would be less likely to happen since vastly more information would be on the table.
  Modern medicine would take a giant step forward.
   We need to organize our medical system so that insurance companies are not setting up road blocks in front of beneficial treatments and tests. Whether we get rid of insurance or just organize it so it does not stand in the way, we need to make testing much more available if we are to have a well run health-care system.

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

National Debt Deserves a National Investigation

   Is there a doctor in the house? Is there an economist, or an auditor, or someone who can analyze our national debt?
   Is there someone who will pick it apart, dissect it, and tell us what has happened and what is happening. Of all the investigations we ought to be having, surely this is one. Let us investigate how we are spending more, where we are spending more, and how it has come to pass. How much have medicaid costs increased? How about government grants? Which ones are new? Is there an inflation factor in military spending? How much? Which increases are due to legislation? What bills have been the most expensive? What programs do we have in 2018 that we didn't 20 years ago?
   Actually, a lot of such an "investigation" could be done right on line, by you and I. But, a lot of it couldn't. We could surely find how much spending has increased for the Department Health and Human Services, but could we find out why it has gone up and in which areas the spending has increased?
   If the national debt is a crisis, we should be analyzing it, and seeking to determine how we have come to run up bigger and bigger bills. We investigate everything from airplane accidents to government corruption. Is not the national debt a major worry? Is it not a matter that has gone wrong.
   It deserves an investigation, a big investigation.

Monday, January 1, 2018

A Tentative "Hurrah' for Trump Regarding the National Debt

  Did the national debt actually sink during the first months of President Trump's administration? I read how it declined from about $19.9 to about $19.8 trillion from Jan. 20 to July 27.
   I also read something suggesting payments have been delayed, and when the payments are made, the debt will go up. Right now, I believe, the debt is at $20.5 trillion.
   If the debt is going down under Trump, he is to be commended. As president, I would expect he has some influence on how much is being spent.

Three Steps to a Better Health-Care System

   Health care: It just might be one of the social problems where we could make the most improvement immediately. I'll list three things that could make a difference, each of which could be instituted right away, and you tell me if they wouldn't bring significant improvement. You tell me if we couldn't do these things right away.
  1. Invent integrated medicine. Actually, "inventing" this is a misnomer. We once had an integrated system, but we wandered from it. I would bring all the medical specialties together under the same practice. Each clinic would have an endocrinologist, a foot doctor, a spine doctor, a cardiologist, etc, and they would all fall under the umbrella of a general doctor, who would run the show. When you scheduled in with the general doctor, the scheduler would also leave windows of time with the specialists should the thought be that you might need to see those specialists. And, if something came up during the visit that required a specialist that wasn't scheduled, you would be taken into that doctor, on the spot. That would push back other patients, making the wait in the waiting room longer, but it would make for a better system.
  One-stop medical care: No more would you have to run all over town, wondering which specialists you ought to be seeing.You wouldn't have to make an appointment with the general that required a 10-day wait, only to be referred to a specialist requiring another 10-day wait. And, there would be fewer misdiagnoses because all the doctors would review the symptoms if there was a chance it might involve their specialties, thus better ensuring that things would not go undetected.
  2. Greater and quicker and more comprehensive use of the MRI. Every patient would receive an MRI on a regular basis. And, you wouldn't be referred across town for the MRI, which requires one waiting period, only to have to go back to your doctor to get the evaluation, thus requiring another wait period. The MRIs would be done right at the clinic. The results would be announced right with that visit. And, instead of just focusing on the body area in question, the whole body would be filmed, the whole body would be analyzed -- detecting problems that otherwise would go undetected.
   3. You probably could replace a lot of doctors with computers, placing the patient's data (blood d s work results, MRI results, questionnaire answers, etc.) in the computer, and letting the computer do the diagnoses. But, if you like, keep the doctors, and just let the computer give preliminary analyzes that are reviewed by the doctors. The computer could look over the case histories, the symptoms, and so forth, and not only give the doctor a diagnosis to review, but a determination of which specialists should be pulled into the diagnosis.