In the Shineki Matter, We React no Better than an Arrogant King

   Back in the day, kings would take off someones head off if they were mad about a matter. If nothing else, it just made them feel better.
  Things haven't changed much since democracies replaced kingdoms. The rulers -- sometimes that's us, the people, and sometimes it's Congress -- still look for a head to lop off when something goes wrong.
   Latest head to roll: that of Eric Shinseki, secretary of veterans affairs. I don't know how many congress members called for his firing, but it was a lot.
   The tradition of firing someone when they weren't directly at fault, though they headed the agency, is a little misguided. In this case, I have to wonder but what Shinseki wasn't as good a person as could be found to clean up the problem.

Don't Just Make Heads Roll, Fix the Problem at V.A. Hospitals

   Instead of just anger with the Veterans Administration, shouldn't we be wondering why 1,700 veteran's waiting for care were never scheduled, why some may have died while waiting for care?
   Would seem that part of the problem is that there were too many patients and not enough doctors. Shouldn't we be calling for an immediate change to that? Firing Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki might give us the satisfaction of knowing someones head rolled, but fixing the problem will do more good.
   If we need hospital expansions, do it. If we need more hospitals, do it. If we need to hire more doctors at the hospitals, do it. Fix the problem.
   Too many times we are so busy pointing fingers that we don't even think to solve the problem.

Divorce High in a State Where You Wouldn't Expect That

   I'm surprised to learn Utah divorce rates are higher than the national average. Is this a new development, with Utah once having done better? I do not know, but I read of how in 1870, Utah ranked first in the nation in divorce.
   I wonder if polygamy played into the 1870 ranking. But, what of the current statistics? I understand in some years, Utah has ranked in the top 10.
   One thought is that more people get married in Utah, as opposed to just living together. It would be fairer to study how many relationships end in a parting of the ways, as it seems those who just live together probably part ways more often. Those partnership failures never make it into the divorce statistics.
   And, the divorce rate of those sealed in LDS temples would be interesting, as it is those marriages that would seem to not have as high of a divorce rate.

http://www.salcidolaw.com/divorce-and-marriage-statistics-in-utah/

Could We Take the Entire Medicaid Program Away from the Feds?

   I wonder about the wisdom of taking Medicaid in Utah away from the federal government, entirely, and administering it at the state level.
   Gov. Gary Herbert has suggesting taking the federal funds and administering them through private companies in a program he calls Healthy Utah. I've wondered if that is worth it, as taking federal funds and giving them to private enterprise puts the mask of private enterprise on what really remains a government program. It is possible such an effort might also add a level of administration, since private administrators and government administrators would both being involved.
   But, the significant thing is that the Obama Administration is willing to let Utah do such a program. The feds are willing to let Utah have its own program. It makes me wonder how much Medicaid autonomy we might be given. Currently, Medicaid in Utah is administered by the Utah State Health Department, with the federal funds coming to that agency. California is allowed to slap its own name on its Medicaid program, calling it Medi-Cal.
   You'll remember Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart wanted to reject the federal program and offer a state-funded program for some of those who need Medicaid expansion if they are to have any coverage. Well, could we take that a step further? Could we suggest that while we like Becky Lockhart's idea, we want all of Medicaid, not just part of it? And -- here's the kicker -- could we suggest that while we will pay for the whole thing, it does mean we want federal taxation for Medicaid in Utah to be discontinued?
   Figure out how much of the tax dollar is going to our Medicaid, and no longer collect it from taxpayers in this state.
   I don't know whether the laws governing Medicaid allow for such an arrangement. Nor am I silly enough not to realize the taxes for a state program are going to be significantly higher than if the federal government does the collecting. You have got to be suspicious that much of the federal funding is coming not from taxes, but from borrowing and from increasing the national debt.
   Which is the whole reason for moving the whole kit and kaboodle to the state. The state's constitution requires a balanced budget. So, we have protection against deficit spending.
   It would be better yet if private enterprise were willing to take the whole kit and kaboodle. But, I'm venturing that if Gov. Herbert's proposed program allows them to take federal funds, it might mean private enterprise knows they cannot insure everyone while still turning a profit.

We Best be Careful Healthy Utah Doesn't Just Add another Layer

   Gov. Gary Herbert's Healthy Utah proposal would take federal dollars and run them to private companies to administer health insurance for those now missing out. He is to be applauded for wanting to have private enterprise provide the insurance. But, if the federal government is providing the money, anyway, it kind of feels like we're just putting a mask on it to make it look like private enterprise is doing it. More, we had better be careful we aren't adding another layer of administration, with government administrators still being being there and private-enterprise administrators being added in.
   More administration is not the way to bring down health-care costs. It, already, is largely the problem.

A Gun can Damage Your Heart as Much as the Heart of the Person You Would Shoot

   The gun becomes an enemy to society when it becomes its best friend. When society honors it too much is when it should fear it the most.
   It is an instrument of death; place it not on a pedestal.
   Speak not with pride of how it can rip out the heart of another person, for if you find pride in the act of administering death, the gun has stirred up the dark side in you. An inanimate object? Think not that that means it can weld no power over you. Its power will come as you are tempted to find joy in what it might do to another person.
   If you find yourself expressing joy at the thought of stopping an intruder dead with a shot to his heart, know that the inanimate object does have a real influence and it is welding it for the worse on you. It can change your heart and damage it as much as it can damage the heart of the person you would shoot.
  With the gun, comes the attitude.
   Not always, but too often we start adopting feelings of joy with what the gun can do. True, those feelings are for what it can do to intruders, assaulters and other forms of criminals. But, just the same, it is feelings of hate the gun is extracting from us, if we let it.

Everybody Having a Bomb Would also be a Problem

   "When there is a bombing, we blame the bomber. When there is a drunk-driving accident, we blame the driver." When there is a shooting, why do we blame the gun?" says a meme on Facebook.
   As the first comment on the thread, there's a quote from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
   There is a twist to such comments. When there is a shooting, we do blame the shooter, same as we blame the bomber for a bombing, the driver for drunk-driving, and the swordsman for any killing he does. But, there is also danger in the weapon. Yes, some of us do fear there are too many guns. But, what if it were common for people to own bombs? Wouldn't we begin to wonder if there were too many people owning bombs? Alcohol? Some do blame it for alcohol-related deaths. I know I think it is a factor, to put it lightly.