This week there were disclosures indicating that the federal government has done a lousy job of taking care of the medical and rehabilitation needs of our Veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s an important and sad story, yet it is a subset of an even larger truth, that the Federal government of the United States doesn’t do anything very well or very efficiently.

Let’s look at several examples. How efficiently and effectively has the US Immigration and Naturalization Service processed the influx of immigrants into the United States? What has happened to airport traffic and passenger congestion over the past ten years under the Federal Aviation Administration? How effective was FEMA in handling the Katrina hurricane? How many thousands of people have died waiting for the US Food and Drug Administration to approve new drugs? How good is our boarder security? Do AMTRAK trains run on time? Have you tried to get a passport lately?

Given the fact that the Federal Government does such a miserable job of running everything they touch, how can anyone in this country possibly believe that we should have a single payer, nationalized health care system? Does anyone really want the Federal Government taking care of our health care needs? Can we be that stupid? According to many Democratic politicians, apparently we are.

There is no question that we have significant problems with our healthcare system in the United States. Critics argue that we spend more per capita on healthcare than any country on earth, yet many do not receive quality care. They’re right. We need more providers, less bureaucracy, lower costs, and more freedom of choice, yet more government will not achieve any of these results. Only by having less government and more competition in our healthcare system can we be successful in achieving a higher quality of healthcare for all Americans.

How do we introduce competition into our healthcare system? There are several ways. The excessive costs of our system can be blamed on the powerful insurance lobby, the monopoly power of the American Medical Association and high litigation costs. Instead of using insurance companies, consumers should pay for their medical costs directly. This will put downward pressure on costs, as consumers will be reluctant to overpay for medical services that are coming “out of pocket.” The poor would also pay out of pocket for their health care, with those who don’t have enough income being helped directly via taxpayer subsidies. Medical licensure laws should be liberalized, allowing for large numbers of less-skilled practitioners who handle minor problems like colds and influenza. For example, pharmacists could be given the authority to prescribe drugs when patients exhibit symptoms of common illnesses. The expansion of nurse practitioners and the proliferation of walk-in clinics are also a great step in the right direction.

Finally, if Congress really wants to do something positive about improving healthcare in the United States it should cap medical malpractice awards and make it very difficult to sue physicians. Under our current, litigious medical environment, physicians must order every test and often jump through expensive hoop after hoop to insure that they don’t get sued. This drives costs through the roof. Life is cruel sometimes. Babies are stillborn. Cancer spreads. Fat people become diabetic. This isn’t the fault of physicians. Litigation reform will be difficult, as many in Congress are lawyers. Nevertheless, it needs to be done.

One thing is certain. US healthcare is at a crossroads. With the almost certain election of more Democrats to the next Congress, Hillary and Bill will again push for nationalizing our health care system. There’s only one ironic “justice” about a nationalized healthcare system; it will decimate the influence of physicians, lawyers, and insurance companies. Once we’ve jumped off the national healthcare bridge, physicians will see their incomes drop and their autonomy squandered, as they become de-facto government employees. Lawyers and insurance companies will have far less influence dealing with the federal government than they have under the current system. At that point the AMA, the insurance companies and the lawyers will wish they had let go of some of their political power earlier, by making the system more competitive, but it will be too late. The final results, should we go to a nationalized system are certain; more government, lower quality, less accountability and higher cost.

Dear Barry:

I’ve listened occasionally to sports radio shows over the past few years and have seen you demonized for using steroids to magnify and extend your baseball career. Your supporters point out that no amount of steroids can supply the hand-eye coordination that is needed to break Hank Aaron’s record of 755 home runs. They say you’re a natural and that you’re the best home run hitter that has ever played the game. Your extreme detractors want you kicked out of the game for the use of steroids, despite the fact that such substances have been used by others and God knows for how long.

I know that you haven’t been friendly to the media, at least according to the media. Maybe you’ve been a jerk a times, but that’s no crime. Driving drunk, possessing weapons and beating your wife are crimes and as far as I know, unlike many professional athletes, you’re name doesn’t appear anywhere on that list. One thing for sure; you’re a lightening rod and no one is neutral towards Barry Bonds. I watched the All Star Game last week and saw the admiration of your fans in San Francisco. You were genuinely happy and so were they.

On Thursday, July 19, 2007 I attended the 1:20 p.m. contest at Wrigley Field between the Cubs and the Giants. I have never seen you play and didn’t know if you would be in the lineup. I arrived during the third inning, decked out in my cubs gear, and found out that you had hit a home run in the second inning. According to the guy next to me it was a towering drive that cleared the field and landed way out on Sheffield Avenue! It was your 752nd home run and it was the first home run to clear the right field bleachers this season at the Friendly Confines. And darn it, I had missed it! However, I thought, “At least I can say I saw Bonds play.” You came up for the second time. Realizing that I was watching one of the greatest of all time, I applauded. Although you couldn’t hear them through the boos, a lot of other Cubs fans did as well.

Your final at bat was in the 7th, with two base runners. The cubs were leading by 9 to 5. I remember thinking the most selfish thought to myself, and a stupid thought for a Cubs fan; “Gosh, I’d like to see the guy hit a three run homer! He’s one of the best that has ever played this game. Even if the Cubs lose 3 runs off their 4 run lead, I still want to say that I personally witnessed Barry Bonds hit a home run!” The odds were slim that you would hit number 753 for me. I had blown it by showing up late for the game. After all, with a stiff wind blowing in from center field, hitting two home runs in the same game is difficult at best, even for Barry Bonds.

The pitch came. Bonds took one of his graceful strokes. Launched directly into the wind, the ball just barely cleared the “basket” in center field on top of the the wall of ivy. Home run # 753. Two Bonds home runs in one day at historic “friendly confines” of Wrigley field. Final score: Cubs 9, Giants 8.

Thanks Barry!

I was raised in a Mormon-influenced household and our concept of God was pretty much in line with other Christian religions. At age twenty I thought that I completely understood the concept of God. I would have told you about God the creator, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. That’s all there was to it. It was the Christian view of God and it was as simple as that. Now, at age 58, I think I’m a lot closer to figuring out this “God” thing, but my conclusions are a whole lot different that they were 38 years ago.

I was raised in an environment of religious and cultural non-diversity. Protestants and Catholics used to debate the fine differences between the theologies of each denomination. When I was growing up in the sixties I knew Protestants who were convinced that all Catholics were going to hell. I suppose there were a few Catholics who felt the same about the Protestants. Only later in life would I realize that despite the appearance of diversity among Christian denominations, they were actually very similar. Having only been exposed to Christianity, I was not familiar with Hindus, Buddhists or other world religions, nor did I know anyone who practiced these religions. As such, my religious beliefs and concept of God had been formed in an environment of religious non-diversity. In short, I was a product of my Christian, Caucasian neighborhood.

The door to cultural and religious diversity opened to me on a month-long trip to India in January of 1997. I was privileged to stay in the homes of five Hindu families, living in each household for about 5 days. Hinduism isn’t an evangelical religion. Of the world’s major religions, only Islam and Christianity are evangelical. Unlike Christians and Muslims, who try to “convert” you to their beliefs, Hindus don’t care if you accept Hinduism or not. No Hindu will ask you to accept Ganesha (the elephant God) as your lord and savior. If you inquire about Hinduism, the Hindus will answer your questions. If you aren’t interested, that’s OK too. Unlike Christians and Muslims, Hindus don’t believe you’re going to burn in hell if you don’t convert to Hinduism before you die. Likewise, Buddhists are not evangelical.

Most members of the Hindu families I stayed with were fairly religious. Some of them would pray to God in the morning, doing their private worship ( known as “Puja”) in a small worship center located in a closet or a dedicated room in the home. While Hindus worship a number of deities, including Hanuman (the monkey God) and Ganesha (the elephant God), they don’t get hung up on which of over 1,000 Gods are worshiped. In the Hindu mind, God is universal. Some of my Hindu friends have told me that there is really one God who is manifest in many images, kind of like the Catholic saints. For example, St. Christopher is the patron saint of travel. Ganesha is the Lord of new beginnings. So as a Catholic might pray to St Christopher before taking a long automobile journey, a Hindu might pray to Lord Ganesha when he opens a new business or moves into a new house.

Religion is a powerful force. It can be used to foster love, compassion, and good works and it can also be used as a rationale for war and hate. In the Hindu families I stayed with, love abounded. It was stronger in some families that others, but all families paid respect to God and felt that God was an integral part of their lives. In this case, religion was a force for good, leading people toward a better understanding of themselves and others. It was a force for tolerance and restraint. It was good for all concerned. I found among three of my Hindu families a degree of love and spirituality that was equal to what I have found in the finest Christian homes. In short, they had “gotten it right”, and Hinduism had helped them get there.

For several years after my first trip to India I thought carefully about the nature of God. I was given to understand that God loves all people of all religions, and he doesn’t play favorites. When a good Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Buddhist leaves this earthly realm, God does not forsake him because he was a member of the wrong religion. At the end of the famous “tunnel of light”, the Christian sees Jesus and the Hindu may see Ganesha. Perhaps the Muslim will see Mohammed. Risking the alienation many of my readers, let me suggest that I have a strong suspicion that these are all the same Guy! We call him God!

How we envision God is a quirk of culture and birthplace. I am a Christian. This is largely because I’ve been brought up in the United States and I had parents who took me to church nearly every Sunday during my youth. When I pray, I invoke the name of Jesus Christ and always will. But I don’t think that God listens to me any more than my Hindu friends who invoke the name of Shiva. You see, the God I worship doesn’t care where a human being was born or about the specific religion in which he or she has been indoctrinated. He loves them all!

About two weeks before the United States invaded Iraq I was visiting some Kuwaiti friends who had an ill relative at the Mayo Clinic.  In the visitor lounge the television was blaring about the potential invasion of Iraq by the United States.  My Kuwaiti friends looked at me and said, “You guys don’t want to go into Iraq.  The Iraqi’s are not worth it; they are a miserable untrustworthy lot and you are crazy to get involved them.”

They went on to say, “When you liberated Kuwait from the invasion by the Iraqi’s, we were grateful.  No American soldier was ever harmed on Kuwaiti soil, but those Iraqi’s will be trouble.”  Not knowing much about Iraqis I politely nodded in agreement, but I remember thinking that it wouldn’t be unusual for Kuwaitis to be upset with a country that had just invaded them.

Now, four years later, the words of my Kuwaiti friends appear sadly prophetic.  There can be no question that the United States made many serious mistakes in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Saddam Hussein’s regime deserved to be overthrown and the Iraqi’s have had free elections, but there has been little real progress or initiative on the part of the Iraqi people or their leaders to secure, solidify, or even appreciate their American-given freedoms.  In fact, it appears that the only one who really knew how to control this nation of madmen was the supreme madman himself, Saddam Hussein!  As horrible as he was, you’ve got to give the man credit; he knew how to run Iraq.  Only coercion, fear, and an iron fist will work in Iraq.  Happily and sadly, the United States didn’t have the stomach for such measures.

It is time for the United States to pull out of Iraq, in a deliberate but steady fashion.  Once we’re gone, let the Shiites and Sunnis kill each other until they get sick of it.  It isn’t our problem and despite what liberal politicians say, it isn’t our fault.  We tried, spilled our blood and spent our treasure in this place called Iraq.  The government and citizens of Iraq failed to take seize the opportunities given them and the blame rests squarely on their shoulders.  Sometime, at some point, the people of every country need to be accountable for the direction of their nation.  That time has come for Iraq.

We have lost over three thousand brave American soldiers in this effort, with many more injured and maimed.  Had this suffering produced some permanent improvement in Iraq, those losses would be more acceptable.  We have cast our pearls before swine too long.  The United States is a noble, good place.  We are not perfect, but we have given with noble intentions our literal blood to the Iraqi people while they have mocked us.  No Iraqis should be able to come to the United States as refugees.  They should stay in their own country to work out their own problems. As my Kuwaiti friends told me over four years ago, plain and simple, the Iraqi’s aren’t worth a damn.

After two years of unemployment, Roy Pearson finally won appointment as an Administrative Law Judge in the District of Colombia. Today he deserves to be fired. In my opinion he should also lose his law license based on irrational behavior unbecoming a public official and excessive use of coercion against a fellow citizen. While I’m not a psychologist, it seems to me that for his own sake a complete psychological evaluation might also be in order.

Not long after his appointment, Judge Pearson went into Custom Cleaners in the District of Columbia and paid $10.50 to have his pants altered. The establishment is owned by Jin Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung who legally came to the United States from Korea in 1992. Pearson claims that the alteration job wasn’t finished on time and that he received a pair of pants that belonged to someone else. The Chungs deny this. Pearson demanded $1,150 for a new suit and the Chungs refused.

Pearson decided to sue the Chungs. The suit claimed that Pearson should be paid 10 years of weekend car rentals so that he could patronize another dry cleaning establishment. According to the law suit Pearson also claimed $500,000 in emotional stress over the incident, along with legal fees of $542,000 (of course, he represented himself). Then Pearson claimed that the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” signs displayed at Custom Cleaners were fraudulent, which entitled him to damages of $1,500 per day under D.C. Consumer Law. He multiplied a hypothetical 12 violations by three hypothetical defendants by 1,200 days and sued the Chungs for $65 million which he later reduced to $54 million.

The Chung’s, humble, struggling small business owners, must have been perplexed. This had to be the pair of pants from hell! Harassed by a $54 million law suit filed by Pearson, who is both a lawyer and judge, residing in a new country and overwhelmed by their own legal fees, they finally offered Pearson $12,000 to go away. Twelve thousand bucks is a lot of money in the dry cleaning business, where excessive competition keeps markups low. Pearson refused and continued with his lawsuit. The Chungs must have wondered if this was all a bad dream.

This week, following a two years of legal fees that have drained them financially, the Chung’s had their day in court. After a two day trial, Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff dismissed all charges against the Chungs, ruling that Custom Cleaners did not violate the city’s Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Pearson’s expectations of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign that appeared in their window. The also court ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of the defendants. Pearson has an opportunity to appeal the ruling and may be forced to pay the Chungs’ legal fees.

From a small business perspective Pearson’s irrational lawsuit demonstrates the potential abuse that the legal system can exact on decent and reasonable human beings. It is doubtful that the Chungs built their business cheating people $10 at a time. Everyone knows that repeated dishonesty on the part of the Chungs would have inevitably cost them their customers and ultimately their livelihood. It is not plausible that the Chungs would want to upset any of their customers. In fact, despite the legal costs and stress incurred by the Chungs during this ordeal, when asked by the Judge if they would accept Pearson as a return customer, they replied, “If he wants to continue to use our services, then yes, we will accept him as a customer.”

Pearson’s lawsuit doesn’t even come close to passing anyone’s reasonable estimate of damages for the alteration of a pair of pants. $54 million for a pair of pants! It is unfortunate that this almost comical case couldn’t have been dismissed prior to causing hard-working new immigrant entrepreneurs such incredible stress and legal fees.

If I were the Judge in this case I would dismiss the suit, make Pearson pay the Chungs’ legal and court costs, plus $100,000 damages for the Chungs anguish, push for his firing as a Judge, attempt to get him stripped of his legal license, and require him to work two weeks in a dry cleaning establishment.

If Pearson isn’t insane, he’s incredibly stupid. Jesse Jackson could have taught Pearson that if he wants to extort millions of dollars from a business he should pick on companies like Toyota, Quaker Oats, or NASCAR. Getting $54 million from the Chungs is like extracting blood from a turnip!