kitkat24

Fergus Fergus Fergus..... The law says that marriage is for heterosexuals. Yet, you and others would fight forever to have that changed because you claim that it is a moral imperative. Kit Kat

How can you murder a fetus? It isn't a baby. It is a mass of tissues. It is just a ball of cells. It has no human value to it. It is not murder. If it is murder when killed by a doctor shooting a gun, then it is murder by the doctor with the forceps. It is not a law school debate. It is about if it is a baby or a human being or if it is not a baby or not a human being. It is either a baby worthy of life, or not a baby and not worthy of life. You cannot have it both ways. Besides the fact that if a woman has money (the almighty DOLLAR to give to the mutimillion dollar abortion mill industry then it is OK, yet let her give birth at 30 weeks at home to a live baby and if she dumps it into the trash it is murder. :angryfire What defining moment makes it a baby sometimes, and not at other times.

OK, I got one for ya... Let's consider this ethical dilemma, since Fergus commented on abortion again. A woman is 32 weeks pregnant. She has an abortion scheduled for today. On her drive to the abortion clinic, she is struck by a drunk driver and the "fetus" -- "mass of tissues" --- "ball of cells" -- is killed. The now not pregnant woman escapes with minor contusions, requiring over-night care for observation at the hospital. Should the drunk driver be charged with murder? Or, since she was driving to the abortion appointment, should he be charged with drunk driving and sent home with chemical dependency treatment? hmmmmm? I get tired of this debate being off limits. If it is not unethical, and it is nothing to get worked up over, and it is simply the law, then why not discuss it rationally and intently? The above scenario could be entirely TRUE and for all I know has most likely happened before. Kitkat

If you look at the MDH website it will show the statistics about why our TB, and MDR-TB has risen. MN has a high Somali immigrant population. This population has a high rate of TB and multi-drug resistant TB. We treat our immigrants and our refugee population for free, as TB is a true public health threat to all Americans. This is the case for Minnesota, the stats are on MN Dept of Health Web site. kitkat

America will have a difficult time coping, just as will NHS, Canada (SARS), and Australia. We would all have a very difficult time coping with pandemic flus. MDH holds pandemic influenza tabletops to practice, as we all expect another pandemic influenza (that come along every 30 or so years, last one being 1918). I do not think any healthcare system can fully prepare for that or bioterrorism. We also have the PUSH package from CDC and they are putting plans in place now at MDH to attempt to deal with public health threats.

P.S. Fergus, TB programs at MDH are free. We treat free and we perform DOT, which is the WHO and CDC standard for drug resistant, multiple-drug resistant TB. So, I do not think you know enough about MDH's TB treatment programs. Drugs free, treatment free.... for TB. Hey, I can rhyme too! Yowsa !

Fergus, Fergus, Fergus.... I am not saying the US is perfect. We have our problems. Canada has problems. Australia has problems. The NHS has problems. For the most part, the complaints sound similar and then other complaints are different. The problem is that there are problems in YOUR systems too. Yet, nobody can tell me exactly why their problems are any less significant than ours. Because, in fact, they are not less significant. Canadians do not want to pay more taxes, right Fergus? Yet, the only way to decrease waiting lists is to put more tax dollars into the system. This concept seems easy to understnad to me. Interestingly as well, when I post a conservative, supported post you call it insignificant. However, all of your posts and others posts and all of the pro-universal healthcare "opinions" are supposed to be fully trusted and believed. Why should we rid ourselves of our problems do adopt universal care problems? Kitkat

So, for the record: If I have money and I go pay a doctor to kill the fetus inside of my uterus: The doctor is protected by law. He gets MONEY to rid my body of the fetus. However, if that SAME doctor shoots ME killing the baby in my uterus then it is murder. I see, the law is perfectly clear. Interesting concept....

The Constitution says that we are to provide for the common defense: e.g. Military. The Constitution does not say that we are to provide free healthcare insurance to everybody. I do not know more than our founding fathers, and I do not think that we should change the constitution. Kitkat

The Libertarian Party's Legislative Program Health Care & Health Costs Twenty years ago, health care was a $42 billon per year industry. Today, health care costs Americans more than $2 billion per day, more than 14% of our Gross Domestic Product. These soaring costs are putting enormous financial pressures on American businesses, forcing thousands of small businesses to reduce or drop benefits for their employees. Moreover, health care costs are an increasing burden to already strained family budgets. At the same time, nearly 35 million Americans lack health insurance. The only health care reforms that are likely to have a significant impact on America's health care problems are those that draw on the strength of the free market. The Libertarian Party has developed a comprehensive proposal for health care reform that will reduce health care costs, while extending access to care. Our five-point plan is as follows: Establish Medical Savings Accounts. One key to controlling health care costs is strengthening the role of the individual health care consumer. As part of this process, an individual should be exempted from taxes on money deposited in a Medical Savings Account (MSA), in the same way that he currently pays no taxes on deposits to an IRA. Money could be withdrawn from an MSA without penalty to pay medical expenses. This would increase consumer responsibility, while increasing access and controlling costs. Restructure tax policy. As a second consumer-based reform, taxes should be restructured to establish equity in the treatment of employer-provided health insurance, individually purchased health insurance, and out-of-pocket medical expenses. All health care expenditures should be 100% tax deductible. This will add a measure of fairness to current tax policies that penalize the self-employed, part-time workers, and employees of small businesses, while subsidizing health care for the most affluent in our society. Deregulate the health care industry. There should be a thorough examination of the extent to which government policies are responsible for rising health costs and the unavailability of health care services. America can help lower health care costs and expand health care access by taking immediate steps to deregulate the health care industry, including elimination of mandated benefits, repeal of the Certificate-of-Need program, and expansion of the scope of practice for non-physician health professionals. Replace the FDA. The Food and Drug Administration is clearly an unnecessary burden on the American health care system. There is no evidence that agency offers Americans any real protection, but there is massive evidence that it is causing great harm -- driving up health care costs and depriving millions of Americans of the medical care they need. The agency should be abolished and replaced with voluntary certification by a private-sector organization, similar to the way Underwriters Laboratories certifies electrical appliances. Privatize Medicare and Medicaid.The current Medicare and Medicaid systems have clearly failed. Costs are skyrocketing. Patients are receiving second rate care. And, providers are being shortchanged. The time is ripe for drastic reform. The federal government should begin to restructure the system to give Medicaid and Medicare recipients more flexibility to purchase private health insurance.

February, 2004 CEOs Deserve What They Make by Elan Journo As millions of Americans watch the New England Patriots take on the Carolina Panthers, every minute of the game will be scrutinized, from all angles and with action replays. But, amid the cheers of victory and cries of disappointment, you won't hear a whisper of complaint from fans about the players' multi-million dollar salaries--$3.8 million on average for starting quarterbacks, and far more to exceptional players. No one doubts that the players have earned it, that the MVPs are indispensable to their teams, that it is morally proper to reward achievement. But that spirit of justice disappears by springtime, when corporations file their financial statements. It is then that we learn how much America's CEOs got paid last year. In a ritual now sadly as commonplace as Super Bowl parties, CEOs are annually reviled as overpaid fat-cats. Astonished at pay packages as large as that of Dell Inc.'s Michael Dell--America's third-highest paid CEO in 2003--people ask themselves: "How can the work of a paper-pusher be worth $82 million a year?" The answer is that successful CEOs are as indispensable to their companies as Super Bowl winning quarterbacks are to their teams. They earn their rewards. How big an influence can one man have on the fortunes of the entire corporation? Consider the impact of Jack Welch on General Electric. Before his tenure as CEO, the company was a bloated giant, floundering under its own weight. Splintered into dozens of distinct and inefficient business units, GE was scarcely making a profit. Welch turned it around. He streamlined and reorganized the company's operations and implemented a sound business strategy yielding more than $400 billion worth of shareholder wealth. In business, as in football, success requires long-range thinking. But CEOs must project a game plan in terms not merely of a single game or season, but of years and decades. A biotechnology company, for example, may spend 15 years and billions of dollars developing a new cancer-fighting medicine. Success is impossible without the business acumen of its CEO. For years before a marketable product exists, he must raise sufficient capital to sustain the research. What long-term business model will attract venture capital? Should the company accept partial short-term sponsorship from a large drug manufacturer in exchange for a modest royalty on the drug in the future--or risk going it alone and possibly running out of funds? It is on such decisions that a company's success is made--and lives of cancer patients may depend. In order to be successful in the long range, the CEO's strategy must encompass countless factors. He must devise a game plan to grow the business in the face of competitors, not only from its own league, but from all the leagues in the world. The CEO calls the plays, but for a team of tens (and sometimes hundreds) of thousands of workers. All of the actions of every employee and every aspect of the business must be coordinated and integrated to produce the cars, computers or CAT scanners that yield profits to the company. It is the CEO who is responsible for that integration. To successfully steer a corporation across the span of years by integrating its strengths toward the goal of creating wealth, requires from the CEO exceptional thought and judgment. Excellent CEOs are as rare as NFL-caliber quarterbacks. And in the business world, every day is the Super Bowl. There is no off-season or respite from the need to perform at one's peak. Given the effect a CEO can have on a company's success, we can understand why their compensation packages can be so high. One way employers (like team owners) reward excellence is through bonuses. For many CEOs, bonuses amount to a large portion of their earnings. And as with quarterbacks, the CEO's pay package is calculated with an eye on the competition. Companies pay millions of dollars to a valuable CEO, one who they judge will produce wealth for the shareholders, in part so he will not be hired away by a competitor. Americans can see with their own eyes the merits of star quarterbacks. Though the efforts of CEOs are not televised on Monday Night Football, their achievements are just as real and have a profound benefit to all our lives. Just as we admire a quarterback's athletic prowess and understand the importance of rewarding him accordingly; so we should learn to appreciate the work of successful CEOs and recognize that they too deserve every penny of their salaries. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Elan Journo is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

So, the Peterson guy should not be convicted of TWO murders then, right? Laci is the ONLY HUMAN BEING that was murdered in your estimation? Cuz, Peterson killed his wife and that eight month old tissue in her uterus, or fetus, or cell ball..... or whatever you decide you want to call it. So, he should only be charged with one murder then, right? How many sick abortion clinic stalkers/murderers have their been that have killed pregnant women (of whom I believe should be imprisoned for life)? Can you assign a number to them? Cuz, in MN alone we have over 14,000 abortions each and every year with the number rising. And, I did not switch the topic, just for the record.....

Fergus, So you would suggest spending BILLIONS of dollars to change to a system that you can not convince anybody of, with any significant statistics is any better than what we have, and may in fact be worse. You can find bad outcomes in the US. I can find similar stories throughout ALL of the universal healthcare systems. Why change to your bad stories? It doesn't make sense. I did not say that it could turn out worse. I am saying it is worse or just as bad. That does not sound like something to change to. When you guys have a great system with all of your problems fixed, you all let me know and I'd agree to advocate change. How long have all of your systems been in play? Haven't you all figured out how to fix it yet? Why not? I know... they need more money, huh? Until then, forget it. Kitkat

Building a Culture of Character by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Don Eberly, Samuel Gregg, and Joseph Loconte Heritage Lecture #755 August 6, 2002 | | Character and the Destiny of Free Government Matthew Spalding The remarkable generation that built this great nation led a daring revolution against the strongest military power in the world. They declared American independence based on self-evident truths, asserted a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people, and launched an experiment in self-government. Through a carefully written constitution that limits power and secures rights while allowing for change through its own amendment, they created an enduring framework of republican government that allows their posterity to enjoy the many blessings of liberty. Yet for all of their accomplishments, they could not guarantee the success of their handiwork. As he departed the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the framers had created a monarchy or a republic. "A republic," he famously replied, "if you can keep it." In the end, Franklin and the other founders knew full well that it would always be up to future generations to keep alive what they had created. "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government," George Washington observed in his First Inaugural Address, "are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." The success of the American experiment in self-government ultimately depended not on the precision of our laws, the strength of our economy, or the extent of our military power but on the character of our citizenry. The American Founders knew that one of the greatest bulwarks of our character as a self-governing people is our limited government. Limited government is necessary to protect liberty and what we today call civil society, what President Bush has called our communities of character--families, churches, volunteer organizations, schools. But they also knew, following political thinkers back to Plato and Aristotle, that law played a key role in the formation of character, as it shaped the habits and mores of citizens. As a result, although they recognized the need for government to take account of man's self-interest and not rely too much on virtue, they designed laws that would encourage certain virtues and good habits of government. Consider the Constitution. The separation of powers and the system of checks and balances thwarts governmental despotism and promotes responsibility in public representatives. The legitimate constitutional amendment process allows democratic reform at the same time that it elevates the document above the popular passions of the moment, thereby encouraging deliberation and patience in the people. The law inspires caution and encourages mutual checks in our representatives and thereby confines them to their constitutional responsibilities and prevents a spirit of encroachment by government. The people learn from the law-making process to curb their own passions for immediate political change and abide by the legitimate legal process. The demands of good public policy cause the people to be moderate and circumspect. Good opinions in the people, and good government, have a complementary effect on politics. Nevertheless, the Founders did not believe that the new institutional arrangements were sufficient by themselves to define and maintain the type of character necessary for republican government. They knew that a constitution, no matter how well constructed, did not remove the need for good citizens and sound morals. At the end of the American Revolution, James Madison wrote for Congress an Address to the States that concludes with a warning that still rings true: [T]he citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude and all the other qualities which ennoble the character of a nation and fulfill the ends of government be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre, which it has never yet enjoyed, and an example will be set, which cannot but have the most favourable influence on the rights of Mankind. If on the other side, our governments should be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate, will be dishonored and betrayed; the last and fairest experiment in favor of the rights of human nature will be turned against them; and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the votaries of tyranny and usurpation. Hence Franklin's second clause: a republic, if you can keep it. Republican government was possible only if the private virtues needed for civil society and self-government remained strong and effective. The civic responsibility and moderation of public passion also requires the moderation of private passion through the encouragement of individual morality. And the best way to encourage morality is through the flourishing of religion and the establishment of traditional moral habits. "Of all the disposition and habits which lead to political prosperity," Washington wrote in his Farewell Address, "Religion and morality are indispensable supports." Religion and morality aid good government by teaching men their moral obligations and creating the conditions for decent political life. Thomas Jefferson, the great defender of rights and liberty, put it bluntly when he said that the American people "are inherently independent of all but the moral law." And when it came to politics proper, the demands of character are all the more challenging. George Washington, in his First Inaugural address, argued that the constitutional arrangements of republican government depended on virtue and character in the people in general and in our leaders in particular. Making only a passing reference to the Constitution, Washington focused instead on "the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism"--that is, the character--of those selected to devise and adopt the laws. It is here--and not in the institutional arrangements or measures themselves--that he saw the "surest pledges" of wise policy. The individual character of the representative was the best guarantee that "the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality." The simple lesson is that there was no radical distinction--as there is today--between private morality and public character. These realms, private and public, are fundamentally connected and intertwined. Only if we can govern ourselves--restraining our individual passions and wants--can we as a people be capable of self-government. Moral character--understood as the ability to restrain the passions and maintain good habits--is necessary for the preservation of free government, and hence the safety and happiness of the American people. It is this sense that self-government and the governing of one's own passions necessarily precedes free government. At the same time, civil society requires free government (by which I mean the political process by which equal citizens rule and are ruled in turn) because it not only allows and encourages but also provides the stage for and spotlights the fully developed moral character. It is in the nature of man to be political, which is to say that the rational and communicative nature of man requires relationships with others--from families and friendships to active participation in the political community--for the perfection of the human virtues. But it is the connection between limited, constitutional government and a thriving civil society that is key. Each needs the other, and neither can survive on its own. Together--and only together--is one able to build, or in our case rebuild, a culture of character. This understanding of things, which is encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence, generally held from the time of the Founding through the 19th century. It was toward the end of the 19th century, during what is referred to as the Progressive Era, that it was replaced by a different view. In the minds of the new thinkers this shift marked the end of the old order and the birth of a new republic. The Constitution was alleged to be a reactionary document designed to thwart democratic principles and opinion; the progressives wanted to reinvent the old Constitution as "a living document" capable of change, growth, and adaptation. Their objective was to transform the old constitutional system into a genuine democratic instrument of liberal social reform. What does this have to do with the question of character? The shift from a constitutional system of limited government to an administrative system for the sake of progressive social policy also entails a shift from an emphasis on the moral character of individual citizens to the evolving ideals of the social community. In the old system, character was needed to moderate the passions of human nature and dampen their influence, thereby allowing for deliberate self-government and the thriving of civil society. But with the new system, there is little concern with moral character and little worry about emancipating the passions. This is for two reasons. First, progressive liberalism is built upon the philosophy of moral relativism and thus rejects distinctions between good and bad; the moral virtues--those habits and perfections that implied a distinction between virtue and vice, right and wrong--are relegated to the realm of private opinion and personal values. And second, the problems caused by "bad character" are to be solved--or more precisely overcome--by more democracy, more progress, and more government. It is no longer the purpose of government to restrain the passions and secure unalienable natural rights. Free government comes to mean the value-free pursuit of self-realization, and the new purpose of government is to assure an even expanding notion to civil rights and government entitlements. The progressive argument in favor of replacing the old order (including the old morality) with a liberal state oriented toward social progress has been overwhelmingly successful, and has transformed our politics and our character. Governing has become obscure, incomprehensible, and at the same time petty and small-minded, inviting and encouraging interest groups instead of deliberation and responsibility. The current system encourages habits and forms a character incompatible with republican government by feeding entitlements rather than checking the narrowest passions of self-interest. More important is the effect the new view has had on our understanding of moral character. According to the new version, an unbreachable wall separates private character (which is personal, and value-laden) and public character (which is political, and socially oriented). And there are new value-neutral virtues, such as toleration, empathy, and sincerity. There is a deeper problem as well. Not only does progressive liberalism deny a substantive role for morality in public life, but the extended reach of the state has forced traditional morality--the ground of the old idea of character--into a smaller and smaller private sphere. The sharp distinction between public and private, accompanied by the expansion of the governmental sphere points toward the privatization of morality. If all values are relative, and freedom now means liberation of the human will, it is hard to see any restraints on individual choice. The effect that this combination of things has had on education, religion, and the family--with the rise of illegitimacy and the breakdown of marriage--has been devastating. All is not despair, however. There is reason for some optimism. Gertrude Himmelfarb and Charles Murray--our greatest social observers, who have been skeptical about our accomplishments to date in effecting moral recovery--both point to fragmentary evidence of moral improvement. Murray, for example, has pointed to what he calls "the partial restoration of traditional society" --that is, the return to traditional moral viewpoints that began to be rejected in the 1960s. Specifically, he has called attention to evidence pointing to a rise in educational standards, the onset of a religious revival, and a return to traditional sexual and marital behaviors. Himmelfarb agrees that a reaction is taking place against what she regards as the "dominant ethos" of moral permissiveness. And the reaction--the return toward more traditional, less permissive morality--is taking place "among young people who will shape the culture of the future." The revival of a culture of character is assuredly the greatest task we face today. Looking ahead, if we wish to proactively rebuild a culture of character and not merely wait for trends to turn our way, we must reject the core principles and moral relativism of progressive liberalism. We must also restore the argument of the American Founders that it takes both the workings of limited government and the proper dispositions and habits of the people to form good government and good character. This means that we must break down the administrative state so as to rebuild constitutional government, on the one hand, and actively encourage the revival of the true institutions of civil society--families, churches, and schools--so as to rebuild the moral character of our citizens, on the other. Although it was at a terrible cost, the events of September 11 dealt a significant blow to the philosophy of moral relativism. It is hard to deny that there is evil in the world, and that there is good. Perhaps this moment of resolve can be transformed into a new era of responsibility and the revival of the American character. We must never forget, especially at times like these, that the "preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government," as Washington reminds us, are staked on the experiment entrusted to our hands. How we proceed, as a people and as a nation, will largely determine our future and the fate of free government. Matthew Spalding is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The Role of Civil Society in shaping Character Don Eberly I think we're making a certain amount of headway in helping people understand again the animating first political principles of the American experiment. I don't know that we have made much headway in helping them appreciate the role that sentiments and mores and attitudes and habits had in the design of our Founders. In their minds it was not just important that we had a constitutional government; it was very, very important in their eyes that we had, and should continue to have, a thriving civil society focused on human freedom. But that freedom was understood to be fairly narrow. It wasn't something that came easy, and it took a tremendous amount of work. It was not a matter of debate during that time period: freedom required character and virtue. Hence, the famous reply of Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it." Now there's a message we should take to our generation. Wherever you're coming from politically in America, I think it's fair to say that people do care about freedom. But I think we ought to start talking about the demands and the obligations and the personal responsibilities that are required to preserve freedom. We must create, or perhaps we should say recreate, a culture of character. John Adams once said that the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate for any other. The question for our time is not only how do you sustain character but also how do you recover it if it is lost? From the very first American settlement, this work of maintaining character was done--and I maintain that the work of recovering this character will be done--by civil society. America succeeded early on because it created a culture that expected, encouraged, and rewarded virtue and character. Indeed, the first institutions built on the frontier after the land was cleared were schools and churches. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard often says that if history teaches us anything, it is that American constitutional government cannot be taken for granted. Our political order is dependent upon conditions that are more or less cultural in nature, having to do mostly with character. If we're concerned about character--and we certainly are--we must take a deep interest in character-shaping institutions. Character is not something simply that we inhale from the air. It is not something that we teach; it's not just about pedagogy. Character must be cultivated through formative institutions. In fact, if we had time we could get into research on early child development having to do with conscience formation. We as a society are obsessed with freedom of conscience but we have very little idea about the cultivation of conscience. Conscience formation, for example, which requires real institutions to be functioning. Families. Fathers. Functioning schools. Places of worship. Neighborhood groups that care about safety and order and standards. Role models and moral exemplars in the culture and so on. Alexis de Tocqueville is the person among many observers of American life who really did understand exactly the unique moral principles of America, the founding generation, and how they would be or were being, during his period of observation, carried forward on the American scene. He was also a great student of social history. His great observation was that Americans of all ages, all stages in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations of a thousand different types: religious, moral, serious, futile, very general, very limited, immensely large, and very minute. Americans combined to found seminaries, build churches, distribute books. (He was even imagining at the time the Heritage Foundation being built someday!) Hospitals, prisons, and schools took shape this way. If they wanted to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, Americans formed an association. These associations, Tocqueville argued, were absolutely indispensable. All other forms of social and political progress depended upon these unique voluntary associations not only because they served to meet thousands of local practical and charitable needs and help moralize communities when such activity was encouraged, but also because they were little schools of citizenship, and thus helped in the formation of our democratic character. It was in the forming of voluntary associations that we developed our civic habits and defined our character. This is an idea that Tocqueville borrowed in part at least from Edmund Burke, who said that the "little platoon" which we belong to in society is the first link in the chain by which we proceed toward a love of our country and of mankind generally. We start with our love and our loyalty to the little platoon, out of which grows our sense of service and our sense of duty toward persons in the immediate sphere of our lives--such as our own families and in our neighborhoods and local communities. This sense of duty extends to the love of mankind and love of country. These little associations and institutions literally cultivate the kind of habits and sentiments that I think the American Founders were talking about. Burke went on to say that these subdivisions are actually partnerships, not just between those who are living but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to come. They are the spiritual, moral, and political communities--the little transmission belts, if you will--that are absolutely essential to the preservation of our system. I want to be practical about this. Far from being anti-politics, I understand politics as a very noble calling. Citizenship entails important formal political responsibilities. But in a well-ordered society, the lawmaking function is peripheral to much of the pulsing life of society. Too many in our generation have assumed that to improve society, one must first turn to politics, meaning parties, interest groups, coalitions, and the lawmaking process. I recognize that this is part of the answer. But if the big issues of our time have to do with values, attitudes, habits, and beliefs, we will be more concerned about the shape of our character-shaping institutions. In regard to the institutions of civil society, government should concern itself mostly with doing no harm, and where appropriate, empowering other non-governmental institutions to do their jobs better. In my opinion, the greatest model of how civil society can be brought to bear upon one of the most difficult political problems of the time can be seen in the example of William Wilberforce, the British Member of Parliament who successfully campaigned over the course of 40 years to fully eradicate the slave trade. At the time, the slave trade traversed the globe and was as large as today's defense industry. It was ferociously defended by numerous economic sectors that profited from it and permitted by the general moral laxity of the time. The times were characterized by high rates of crime, drunkenness, and general disregard for standards. Public confidence in laws was at an all-time low, and there was widespread political corruption. Wilberforce knew that government action against slavery was impossible short of a massive shift in the moral attitudes and habits of the people, so he set forth two great objects: reforming the manners and morals of the people and abolishing the slave trade. A strategy for reformation that started with lawmaking was guaranteed to fail. Wilberforce was merely acknowledging what others in history had observed. Law has an instructive and very influential role in the course of a culture, but laws to a very large extent are a reflection of the culture. Law, in the end, is downstream from the culture. When the mores shift, the laws almost inevitably shift along with them. Edmund Burke said that manners are more important than laws because upon manners in great measure the laws depend. Plato said, give me the songs of a nation--it matters not who writes the laws. We must conclude, as Wilberforce concluded, that if we are going to change law, we must go upstream to the tributaries of moral beliefs and conduct. In doing so we must understand that this work will not be done by the state but will be done by various voluntary associations within civil society. Over the course of three decades, William Wilberforce personally founded and participated in as many as 67 voluntary associations aimed at the reform of manners and morals. It was his work and the work of those like him that resulted in one of the most dynamic chapters in the history of voluntary reform societies. The President in his campaign declared his desire to bring about changes in social policy grounded in the idea that, in dealing with poverty, we ought to go first to the neighborhood healers. We ought to learn first from those front-line anti-poverty workers who understand how to treat the poor--body, mind, and soul--and who understand how to use neighborhood-based solutions. These people understand that to experience genuine transformation, individuals must be restored as persons and restored once again in relationship to their family, neighborhood, community, and places of worship. Our goal is to reverse the pattern of the prior half century, moving away from the top-down rule-driven bureaucratic approach to one that actually learns from, and is instructed by, and which seeks to capture these transforming elements in the communities of America. The Administration is now involved in the early stages of a major overhaul of how we promote international economic development by developing the fruits of civil society in other countries. For too long, our policies abroad were yielding the same failed dependency-producing results that our policies at home had been producing. Just two weeks ago the President unveiled something called the Millennium Compact, which will bring dramatically new terms and conditions for our programs abroad. First of all, we will withdraw aid from governments that are corrupt and simply refuse to reform themselves. In all too many cases, our own policies perpetuate rather than reverse corruption, and this is a very, very serious problem. We must also link economic progress to democratization and good governance. Our policies should encourage prosperity by increased trade, open markets, increased direct private investment, and expanded entrepreneurship, but they must also advocate American democratic values, the rule of law, open and accountable government, and human rights. In order to do this we need to bypass bureaucracies and international technocrats and work with citizens and local community-building groups--including faith-based organizations--to build local capacity around the world, shifting our emphasis away from what we can do for people to what people can and want to do for themselves. We must treat people as partners in their own development. Every person, every community and every country has untapped capacity--and transformative powers. The rule of voluntary associations must guide our thinking as we look at social policy today, both at home and abroad. American history is filled with remarkable success stories, and this heritage of voluntary action offers important insights into how we might promote cultural renewal. Private voluntary organizations form the very basis of America's remarkable capacity to renew itself. Our policy should be to unleash that capacity to renew our country and revive freedom around the world. Don Eberly is Senior Counselor for International Civil Society at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Liberty and Moral Ecology: The Nexus of Truth Samuel Gregg When it comes to reflecting upon questions such as culture and its implications for the political order, most contemporary commentators continue to be dwarfed by the perennial genius of the 19th century philosopher and French Catholic aristocrat, Count Alexis de Tocqueville. For much of the 20th century, the unique insight of Tocqueville into the importance of culture for a free society was overshadowed by those three great masters of the hermeneutics of suspicion: Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. In more recent years, however, more have begun to recognize that those who are genuinely interested in seeing freedom prevail would be wise to look to Tocqueville's writings on American democracy as well as his reflections on ancien régime France. In these works, we find more than just a sophisticated analysis of the particular problems confronting two quite different societies. Instead, we begin to recognize that it is culture rather than economics that will determine whether freedom will prevail or wither, for, as Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris once observed, it is culture rather than economics that rules the world.1 Perhaps the most telling evidence of the centrality of culture for a free society is provided by those societies that, for many years, were decidedly unfree. Between 1933 and 1939, Germany's moral culture was transformed from one profoundly marked by a Judeo-Christian ethic to one in which there was relatively little resistance to attempts to exterminate entire categories of people. The fact that German law actually forbade many of the actions of the Nazi regime--ranging from its deadly euthanasia and eugenics programs, to the infamous 1941 Commissar order, to the moral catastrophe of Auschwitz--did little to prevent the regime from pursuing such policies. The slow but gradual changes in the moral-cultural environment in which Germans moved, lived, and had their being made real the possibility of such barbarism.2 Likewise, we know that 70 years of Communism profoundly affected the moral ecology of many European nations. For the most damaging aspect of Communism was not economic. It was not even political. Instead, the greatest damage was moral. How do we know this? Part of the answer lies in reflecting upon some of the mistaken presumptions of those Westerners who traveled to Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, confident that the road to the free society lay in the rapid privatizing of industries, the protection of private property, and the establishment of rule of law. In hindsight, we now know that such ideas reflected a certain blindness to Communism's damage to the moral ecology of these nations. The establishment of rule of law, private property, and market exchange are part of the way to the free society. But they cannot and do not suffice in themselves. Indeed, in several former Communist countries, it is not the free economy that reigns, but rather the black market. The rule of law is routinely flouted, organized crime flourishes, and private property rights remain uncertain. In no way can these be called free societies. They border, in fact, upon being kleptocracies. The question thus arises: How do we develop a moral ecology appropriate for a free society? Do we simply expect it to evolve spontaneously from nowhere, or is a more pro-active role needed? To finish reading this article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL755.cfm © 1995 - 2004 The Heritage Foundation

Australia's Public Health Care System The following 'typical' patient case descriptions By your Senates OWN admission this is a TYPICAL patient case description: Joan's throat Joan, a nineteen year old young adult is suffering from a sore throat and after a number of days of discomfort and aspirins discover she cannot swallow and goes to the Emergency department of a public hospital for treatment. She is admitted for two days and treated with antibiotics for swollen tonsils and suspected Quinsy as a public patient at no resulting cost to her. Before being released she is seen by the hospital specialist who warns that if her tonsils again become swollen or infected again she will need to have them removed. Several weeks later while visiting another city, Joan's tonsils again become swollen and so visits a medical clinic where the general practitioner (GP) prescribes a course of antibiotics to control the infection until she can visit her own local GP. The GP refers Joan to an Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) specialist who prescribes another course of antibiotics. After the course of antibiotics her tonsils become inflamed again causing the specialist to recommend surgical removal of the tonsils while classifying the patient as Non-Urgent (category 3). Wait times for category 3 public patient awaiting tonsil removal in a public hospital was estimated between 12 and 24 months. Alternatively, Joan has the option of paying around $2000 to have the specialist remove the tonsils in a private hospital within the next four weeks. Joan began to evaluate her options of risking any side effects of drugs and antibiotics treatment for over a year, or borrowing money for an early operation knowing the private hospital cost and extra billing and balance of the Medicare benefits amounted to an patient out-of-pocket expense (the gap) would amount to approximately $1000. So, Australia separates those who can pay privately and those who cannot and get STUCK waiting. This really is a good respresentation of my point. This does not happen here. We don't have lists to wait that determine whether or not your condition is a priority.....