Contracts are pretty simple things really; two or more parties agree on exchanging things. Each side gets something out of the deal. This is called consideration in legalese. When one goes to buy a soda from a vending machine for example, one enters into a contract with the vendor and the soda maker. You agree on a purchase price of X dollars in exchange for Y soft drink. The vendor agrees to provide the soft drink in consumable condition, for said price. The soda maker agrees that your thirst quencher is as advertised and not, say, ripple.

Being the basis of trade, contracts are required for capitalism to function. If there was no assurance that you would get the soda you wanted, would you still put money in the machine? Not likely. On the other side of the coin, do you think the soda maker and vendor could expect to stay in business if there wasn’t a payment? Impossible.

            Contracts are also instinctual, really. Every right-minded person understands the concept of “no free ride.” After all, one cannot realistically expect to be given something that someone else has produced or will produce. It goes against that oft-used word of the left, fairness. “I demand to be given that soda simply because I am thirsty” doesn’t pass the fairness test at all.

Since the recent push for universal healthcare has been adopted, there has been a lot of talk about this need for fairness…the fairness of a caring society and the fairness to cover those less fortunate, for example. There has however, been very little talk of the fairness of demanding free coverage for some while it is paid for by others.

So, to make things fair, we must have a contract. Again, for there to be a contract, both parties must get something out of the deal. For those that get the medical coverage it’s simple; they get the health insurance. For those of us paying the bill, it’s a little more abstract. Our only consideration will be a healthier populace, some additional government employees (I’ll explain in a moment) and the promise that our money will be well spent. Granted, not a great contract but hey, we’re dealing with a government-run program here so one can’t expect much.

Here are some minimums to make a fair healthcare plan fair:

1)                          No smoking. Anyone that receives this service will be banned from smoking. No reason for someone to be playing Russian roulette with my money. Although smokers die younger—which is good for my wallet—they are unfortunately also high risks for very expensive heart and lung ailments.

2)                          No “risky” behavior. This includes but is not limited to motorcycle driving, driving without seatbelts, speeding or having unprotected sex. All of these actions are linked to at-risk individuals and cost billions of dollars a year which I shouldn’t have to subsidize.

3)                          No obesity. Although it seems the poorest among us are also the largest (how does THAT work?), being overweight leads to numerous adverse medical conditions that are mostly preventable. If one carries a few extra pounds, I don’t care but, if I’m paying for one’s healthcare, I have to.

4)                          Tie healthcare coverage to public service. So long as one receives ‘free’ healthcare, a certain number of hours of government service—say 20 per week (with childcare of course)—would be required…preferably in a clinic.

5)                          Private providers will not be mandated to service those on public healthcare; state-run providers will. This will keep the inevitable long lines and poor customer service from affecting those that pay their own way.  

How these contract terms are enforced will require loss of personal freedoms and privacy for those insured of course. For example, monthly inspections to ensure a previous smoker isn’t abusing this free and fair service; a database of those insured that is tied-to the DOT to track speeding tickets; prior approval of any family additions to the family’s free coverage, are just a few examples.

As stated earlier, it isn’t the best contract in the world. But, given that some will get something for nothing while others pay for it, it’s a pretty good deal I think.

I just got back from a long weekend in the UK and thought I’d write a few words about what went through my mind while driving from place to place (we visited London, Stonehenge, Bath, Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea)…

Before I really begin, just a note about driving ‘on the wrong side of the road’; According to the oft derided Wikipedia, 34 percent of the world drives on the left and it may have been the rule of the road used by the Romans and even further back than that. Additionally, there is an argument made that it may be more instinctual than driving on the right (the whole going clockwise and people being right-eye dominate thing). I don’t know about all that, I just know I kept reaching for the stick shift with my right hand and only ended-up grabbing the door handle...

Now, to the point…While visiting some of the most beautiful and awe-inspiring relics of past centuries, I tried to transpose today’s left onto or into scenarios, especially those scenarios concerning war, defense and politics. Here is what went through my mind:

What place would today’s elitist left have had in say, 1300 AD? What positions would they have held? Would there have been a place for their kind?

In the simplest terms, one would have to equate modern celebrities to the court jester, I suppose. The entertainers of then (and now) were not the warriors. They were the weak and survived due to their ability to take their protector’s minds off of important tasks, albeit for short periods. They were not the sword wielders that staved-off the bad guys nor were they the stone masons that built the walls. They were not the blacksmiths that forged the armor nor were they the farmers that sowed the crops. But, they would have survived because of these ‘simple folk.’ Their very lives were dependant upon them. I don’t believe that a jester would have dared to scoff (at least in public) or deride his benefactors in those times. It would have certainly led to a painful and probably public death. After all, the realm could have easily survived without the juggler; the same could not have been said of the ‘simple folk.’

As for other comparisons, there were most assuredly ‘doves’—those that wanted to negotiate, at all costs, or to even bow to the invaders or potential invaders. These types also owed their survival to the ‘beasts’ that protected them when the inevitable siege took place. I can almost see some of today’s peace-at-any-cost-nanny-pansies running for cover behind the Keep when the arrows started flying…all the while fretting, “Why do they hate us so much?!”

Throughout the history of Man, the strong have protected the weak. It enables a preservation of the species. Keeping the intellectuals, the entertainers and others of their kind alive allows for a leveling-out of our more brutish side. It just strikes me as odd that in modern times, those that protect and serve these squishy whiners are often characterized—publicly—as more evil than the enemy.

BTW, here are a couple links to cool stuff we saw on our trip:

            Often, we are told we should care more. We are made to feel bad because we don’t have enough compassion. Honesty and self-preservation are equated to hate and greed. “Giving back”, “helping those less fortunate” and “responsibility” are all talking points for those that insinuate that we don’t feel. That we are somehow mean-spirited.

For those that lament the greater good, I have two short anecdotes:

            -- I own three TVs. It’s great to be able to watch the game in monster HD with Dopey Surround while the ole lady watches her soaps (eating bon bons, of course) and the two little demons sit mouth agape in front of their tube while Elmo sings about his love for trees. Wow, life is great!

Alas, poor ole Ivan down the street doesn’t own a TV at all and can’t watch the game. See, he spent his money on a moped to get back and forth to his job at the toll booth.

How can this be?! Is this fair? Shouldn’t Ivan, who obviously didn’t have the same opportunities as me, be able to enjoy the same great programming as my family? Of course he should! The only way to rectify this situation is to take one (at least one) of my TVs and give it to Ivan! Yeah! That will make things fair! Now Ivan and I can both enjoy mind-numbing programming (although, my wife and I will have a few quarrels). What a great day to be alive--

The above story is not an original thought, I’m sure. And certainly, it is an over-simplified way of looking at socialism. But a true representation none-the-less.

Regardless of what I have and what I do with it, so long as it doesn’t actually hurt anyone else, belongs to me and is none of your business. If Ivan wants to watch the game, maybe he should show up at my door with a smile, a firm handshake and a six-pack.

            -- Dang! Running late again. Shouldn’t have hit the snooze four times this morning…And why is it that on days I’m late, there is always some grandma-blue-hair with her left turn signal “The Club”ed in the ‘on’ position directly in front of me?!? Aaahhhh!--

We’ve all been there. In traffic, stressed and time-challenged. It is a great time to demonstrate the reality of self-interest. At this moment, are you concerned with where the senior citizen is going? Do you even care if she gets there? No. Your main (only?) concern is getting to work on time or at least, less-late. Now, does this make you a monster? Does it make you greedy, selfish or hateful? No again. (Ok, ok, the “grandma-blue-hair” isn’t nice but...) Your self-interest is human. Your lack of caring for anyone you have not chosen to care about is normal. Worrying less about someone else does not equal doing them harm. More poignantly, it does not mean you are lacking or don’t have compassion.