Viet-Justice

Get in shape or pay a price.

That’s a message more Americans could hear if the health care reform bills passed by the Senate Finance and Health committees become law.

This is CHANGE we can believe in.  The Senate is proposing that not everyone is equal in the health care debate.  Pressure will be on the workers to live a healthy lifestyle, or their employer can raise their insurance rate.  That’s right people it’s time to lose weight, stop smoking, and lower your cholesterol.

The proposal is backed by the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.  Opposition includes unions, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Diabetes Association.  No surprise that the unions are against the proposal.  Have you seen all the fat GM workers that were on television when the bail out was at its peak?

The incentives could attack a national epidemic of obesity. They also cut to a philosophical core of the health care debate. Should health insurance be like auto insurance, in which good drivers earn discounts and reckless ones pay a price, thereby encouraging better habits? Or should it be a safety net in which the young and healthy support the old and sick with the understanding that youth and good health are transitory?

Health insurance should definitely be like auto insurance.  It is a hedge against a potential bad outcome. If you are doing all the right things then you should be rewarded.    Instituting a system where those who are contributing to society and not over consuming are rewarded will make for a better world.

Valeo is a company that has some good ideas with regard to implementation of health standards.  You may get an insurance discount if you submit to tests proving your health.  If you choose to be anonymous then you pay a higher premium.  This concept is no different than drivers who allow their insurer to put a GPS in the car for a discounted premium.  Basically the message is everyone pays a certain price, but if you jump through hoops then you get a discount.

We are facing 10% unemployment, along with the rise of robotic factories, and information technology that reduces the need for manual labor.  A few less people would bring the labor market back into equilibrium. It would continue transforming the world workforce into intellectual laborers.  This would be progress from the industrial revolution where everyone labored in dirty factories.

What about the safety net for the old and the sick?  Since death is inevitable it would be illogical to expend resources on individuals where there would not be significant benefit.  The old have had their time in the spotlight and need to step off the stage of life and let a new generation take over.  The world belongs to the young and the ambitious, not the old, fat, and lazy.  This is not to say that we should stop research into life extending technologies.  If new technologies can extend the useful lifespan of the brain and body, thereby extending productive life years, then such research is welcome.  Research has shown that obesity and Alzheimer’s disease are related.  This shows that fat people will continue to be a drain on the system by taking up space in nursing homes at an earlier age.

What kind of world would your eyes prefer?

There should be some benefits for the obese.  We need a biodiesel commodity on the futures markets so that fat people can sell futures contracts to deliver a quantity of blubber for processing.  Considering that these people are irresponsible with how they live their lives today, they would probably sell more futures than they could deliver safely.  Which would mean that we would have to send some repo men to “collect” on the contract so the rest of us can drive our fine German or Japanese automobiles.  This is a good way to reduce unemployment, carbon emissions, and Alzheimer’s disease in one simple step.

There would be economic benefit from a futures market in fat.  Funeral homes could be transformed into biodiesel reclamation stations to provide our future energy sources.  This would be an economic shift and allow petroleum companies to get into a new market, thus creating jobs.  We could have Valvoline Haus or The Penzoil Home for the Obese as nursing homes for our large friends.  Monsanto could buy McDonald’s to create a new form of genetically engineered fast food for our livestock that will fuel the economies of the future.

McDonald’s macht Kraftstoff!

According to a new study 50% of gun deaths are not homicides, but suicides.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That’s good to know that the recent Supreme Court ruling is not going to affect 50% of the people that are shot. Since we are supposedly having a recession (I’m not convinced), then fewer people mean more jobs and wealth for the rest of us. Fewer people also mean less pollution. If the Democrats want to prove that they are the environmentally friendly party then they should strive to put more guns on the street. That’s the kind of environmentally friendly platform I can go for.

According to Mohammad Omran drought, climate change, and pollution is caused by not following Allah. Now that we have a religious figure to clarify that fact for us, I say it is time to go hug some trees and take action. What should we do? First we need to stop blaming SUVs for climate change. Sheik Omran has stated that Allah is bringing climate change to us. So, I propose that we stop trying to ban SUVs and instead ban Allah. Think of all the animal species Allah is killing. Think of all the coastal land that Allah is going to destroy by melting the polar ice caps. This is something the environmental movement cannot ignore any longer!

Found on Digg. President Bush is authorizing the sale of up to 200,000 acres of National Forest land, mostly in California. Already the tree huggers are going nuts while cool capitalism is set to prevail.

“I am outraged, and I don’t think the public is going to stand for it for one minute,” said Wilderness Society policy analyst Mike Anderson. “It’s a scheme to raise money at the expense of the national forests, the wildlife, recreation and all the other values that Americans hold dear. It’s the ultimate threat to the national forest.”

Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said the proposed land sales make sense.

“Private property will end up in the possession of those who value it the most,” Taylor said. “That is an iron law of economics.”

Being a Libertarian I’m going to have to take the side of the Cato Institute here. Being an environmentalist I’m also going to have to take the side of the Cato Institute. One problem I have with the environmental movement is it places too much emphasis on the Federal government in protecting our natural resources. In the case of ANWR the government can rightfully order drilling for oil. It’s their dirt and they can do with their dirt as they please or they can sell it to other people. Hell, they can turn it into a nuclear missile test range for all I care. It’s their dirt. In this case The Wilderness Society and Mike Anderson really need to get on board with modern economic realities.

Governments fail.

Governments run out of money.

Government priorities shift.

The key to preserving the planet is private or local ownership, not national ownership. This should not be National Forest. It should be California Forest. It should be Colorado Forest. I’m sure you get the idea my fellow tree huggers. Schwarzenegger is probably going to do more to protect the forest than Bush. The tax payers of “Colly-Fornia” are probably going to support initiatives to spend their tax money on buying some of that National Forest and making it California Forest. That is the great thing about this entire issue is that the Federal government is putting up National Forest for sale for State, County, and City government to own. And let’s not forget ownership by logging companies, home owners, or non-profit environmental conservation agencies. Yes, Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and Greenpeace I’m talking to you. Your membership can buy this land that is for sale and donate it to you as a gift. You do accept land and property as estate gifts at time of death, right? So, why not accept land that you can manage directly? Why not invest in mutual funds and take the profits to buy the environment rather than lobby Congress? Politicians will serve their own needs. If you truly believe in protecting the environment then do something on a small level. When thousands of like minded individuals come together anything is possible.

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter said Thursday he will support public hunts to kill all but 100 gray wolves in the state once the federal government removes the animal from Endangered Species Act protections, and that he hopes to shoot a wolf himself.

Here is a prime act of barbarism and sneaky too. Gov. Otter is certainly not a stupid redneck. The government conservation office of Idaho says they can get away with killing 550 of the 650 wolves in the state. This will leave 100 remaining which would leave them under state protection rather than federal protection. Opponents to the hunt claim that wolves do not affect elk and other big game herds.

I can say that in my opinion Gov. Otter is an idiot redneck. He is overlooking the advantages of wolves in a protected area. First you train them to like human flesh. Then you release your felons into the wilderness ala Running Man and watch the fun. Other possibilities for entertainment include legalizing the hunting of domestic dogs since they are related to wolves. I would prefer the legalizing of hunting any animal in Idaho, including what I call advanced primates. For those that don’t know what those are please look up homo sapiens.