Back in July, I picked up the Sunday edition of a local newspaper, and read a guest column in the opinion section that kind of upset me, it was a piece that tried to justify the need for intervention in healthcare decisions so that families are moved toward "alleviating pain". His insinuation that Doctors and the Medical Industry was needed to be kept in check to defend patients as they faced end of life choices. I was moved to write back and share a bit of my experiences with the death of a close one. Turns out my reply was published in the following Sunday's paper, I never got a copy of the paper, but my letter was published online. I thought I'd share it here as well;
Perhaps I am missing his point, but I felt a sense of dudgeon at his insinuation that our health care system does nothing put perpetuate the misery of being elderly and sick by choosing quantity over quality. The system is not, and should never be, what makes the decisions; the care is not what makes it easier to say goodbye to a loved one.
His most accurate statement was that disease knows no politics, and the hand that feeds the payroll of a health care facility deserves no spot at the table when a family is making these tough decisions.
When my mother passed away last year, it was in the wake of several difficult discussions about quality of life. Many factors and considerations weigh on your soul when determining what is best for a loved one. She was sick, she was not going to get better, and I’m proud to say that my family had the maturity to know when the time for fighting was passed, and the time for saying our goodbyes began.
The question I charge to proponents of creating a committee, medical or not, to assess these decisions: Considering some families need to fight to the end, and some families need to know a loved one leaves us peacefully, but what kind of a system even attempts to shift that power to a third party, away from the family?
--------------------
If you do not know about the IPAB, I strongly suggest you start learning about it, in about 3 years it will be an issue that will be brought up in discussions frequently.
There is plenty of time left until November, and I can't say with 100% certainty that I am going to vote for Mitt Romney, but I am not going to vote for Gary Johnson just to show my disapproval of the two party candidates. Here are few of the top reasons why.
I voted for Bob Barr in 2008, and absolutely nothing changed. Rep. Barr was supposed to be a new type of Libertarian candidate, someone with a real resume, connections and experiences that made him a viable candidate, a break from the list of radio personalities and national political light weights that the Libertarian party had marched out the previous elections. I didn't even mind that he scared me a little bit one the few times he grabbed some airtime on cable news by waiving a copy of the constitution around and not making any real points. But the day after Bob Barr came in 4th place in my home state of Iowa after the '08 election, not one bit of discussion occurred in any mainstream stage during or after the election. Contrast this to Ron Paul running for the Republican nomination, pushing an audit of the Fed and towards financial solvency on a timetable that may actually make it happen in our lifetimes. These things are much more likely in a Romney president. Then we can progress to another set of issues held near and dear to libertarians.
Gary Johnson will not be given a voice, even if a third party candidate obtained a spot on a national stage, such as Perot in '92, it still won't have any lasting effect, and then they would probably just change the criteria to be given. Such as Perot in '96, when they started the 15% polling criteria. There was nothing but regret and resentment in the '96 election towards Perot because so many people looked at him as nothing but a spoiler. The powers that be do not want a third candidate, be it Green party or Libertarian.
We don't need a third party, change can come to a party through other ways. Remember, up until a few months ago, the Democratic President was not in favor of same sex marriages. Change will take time, and I can appreciate the sense of urgency in fiscal policy, or the disappointment that the Republican party is still in the pocket of "Moral Majority" groups that take hypocritical stands on issues like marriage, where the state knows what's best for you in choosing who you fall in love with, but can't possibly know what's better for your families health decisions.
We can't win, I understand the analogy of so what? Just don't show up? Not at all, Let Gary Johnson run, let him bring up the issues that matter and swing some peoples way of thinking, but when you have a football team of high school students and and you are trying to play against the New England Patriots and the Chicago Bears, you don't measure your success by the number of points you put on the board, you write up a plan and you execute it, even it all you accomplish is a couple of first downs you learn from it and get better for next time, maybe even let one of your kids get drafted by the Bears if he's good enough. Taking pride in shaping that team a little bit as they play their "Big boy games". Carry the football analogy with the color barrier, at one point, African Americans where few and far between in football league, do you think that forming an all colored team and then beating an all white team would have made the masses of a closed minded people say, "Well, you got us, I guess we have no choice but to accept you and fully integrate." Or, do you think they would just make up some stupid reason why they can't play with them anymore.
And the last big truth is this, even if some oddity occurred and Johnson won the white house, what would he be able to do with it? Sure, he could balance the budget, bring thousands of our troops home, legalize pot, and half a dozen other things, but what would prevent the next president from undoing everything four years later? Unless the will of a majority of people is for these things, I feel a third party vote is a wasted one. There is a competent business man who is available to vote for, who I feel can at least turn the tides on economic front, who I feel will not look at government as a tool to dictate how we live our lives. A debate on if these last sentences are true is the debate I will have now. But, I will not get dragged into another debate on how there is no difference between an (R) and a (D). The battle towards true liberty in America is not fought from September to October during an election year, at least not any more then when it needs to be fought in the 48 months following a presidential election. And I strive for the day when the Libertarian doctrine is picked up by a majority of Americans, and not just a foot note in the morning after coverage of an election.
Don't forget, Ron Paul is a Republican still, and Gary Johnson was up until December, when he was pursuing the nomination for Libertarian Candidate.
The unlikely, but entirely possible, 269-269 outcome
Got a new Survey up, inspired by my boss who is predicting a landslide for Romney. We'll call it an early indicator and I won't leave it up for very long. But here is a bit of explanation/scenario playing to the options;
How do you think the 2012 Presidential Election will end?
Big Obama Victory - Ohio and Florida go blue and the electoral map looks similar to 2008, the election is all but called before California closes it's balloting pushing Obama well over the 270 mark by 20 + electoral votes.
Narrow Obama Victory - Mitt does well east, getting Ohio and Florida but failing to grab any of the smaller swing states like Iowa and or Colorado, well into the evening the Nevada polls close and the state is called for Obama sealing the deal by just a few electoral votes.
2000 Election all over again - Florida declares a 'too close to call' as Obama needs 10 more electoral votes to Romney's 20, protests over confusing ballots and voter fraud abound and the country is held in a 4 day limbo as the Supreme Court "figures it out".
Narrow Romney Victory - The country stays up til 2 in the morning waiting for Ohio to finalize it's count. A surprising number of 3rd Party votes in Iowa and Arizona squash his chances for an easy victory, but much like in 2004, Ohio exit polling shows that Mitt has won and is the next President.
Big Romney Victory - Michigan goes Red along with New Hampshire and Ohio and Florida, Romney wins with 20+ electoral votes to spare. Didn't even need Ohio but glad to have them aboard.
And just to salt the wound that is my failure to even put Paul Ryan on the Ballot, here is the results of my first poll.
Who would you pick as Mitt's Vice Presidential Running Mate?
Back in July, I picked up the Sunday edition of a local newspaper, and read a guest column in the opinion section that kind of upset me, it was a piece that tried to justify the need for intervention in healthcare decisions so that families are moved toward "alleviating pain". His insinuation that Doctors and the Medical Industry was needed to be kept in check to defend patients as they faced end of life choices. I was moved to write back and share a bit of my experiences with the death of a close one. Turns out my reply was published in the following Sunday's paper, I never got a copy of the paper, but my letter was published online. I thought I'd share it here as well;
