Is Pornography Bad?

#1 Unnecessary And Inappropriate

This may sound somewhat strange given my personal and moral beliefs, but I don't believe pornography is bad. I do believe that it is unnecessary and in some cases dangerous in the fact the some people are capable of becoming addicted to pornography. I find it unnecessary and inappropriate simply because it's an act that should be shared between two individuals and only those two individuals. Obviously there are those out there who share more explorative ideas when it comes to sex, and I understand that, however i find no reason to share those views or acts with others.

Although, I can't say that the industry of pornography itself is bad the way it is operated. It's a thriving business, something that many Americans dream of achieving. The porn industry simply uses the methods of a capitalistic system to grow, and I don't see how we can fault them for that simply because some people find the product degrading. A numerous amount of people found a way to make money in a legal way, and through pornography, they have been able to make major amounts of money because their product is attractive.

In most cases, the porn industry is not much different from the sports industry. There are those out there who posses certain skills and are able to display those skills in an appealing way which draws attendance. As long as we pay, we will continue to watch, and they will continue to play.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#2 "Whatever Floats Your Boat"

Determing whether something is "good" or "bad" is difficult because I don't really believe anything in the world can be boiled down to such black and white terms. Pornography to me is a vice like any other... As long as one partakes sparingly and it isn't hurting anyone else, my feeling on it is, "whatever floats your boat."

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#3 Pornography Is Wrong

Bodies are a sacred gift from God that are not to be degraded my performing sexual acts for entertainment. As a Christian this is how I view it but, even if I wasn't I just couldn't see how any justification could be placed upon such immoral acts. Even some non-religious people have the same thoughts. Sadly enough, there are some Christians who view pornography or have at one time or another after becoming a Christian. The whole idea behind pornography is just degrading to the people who display themselves and to the people who are watching it. I know Pornography is very enticing to say the least. Especially to Men whom in general seem to have a stronger urge to view it.

Married couples will even Justify it by saying "It will improve our sex lives and give us Ideas, so what's the big deal ?" I'll tell you the big deal is, it's still pornography. If it looks like a duck,walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then guess what........IT'S a DUCK.

Single men will watch it and think "it's no big deal, I'm not married so I'm not hurting anyone", no maybe not but your taking part of something that is degrading. Young men who view Porn especially Teenage Boy's will have this distorted view as to what a real life woman is and is not. Teenage boy's would probably expect there future wife to be like a porn star and go into marriage with unrealisitc expectations and could cause marital problems. You may not agree with my views and that's fine if you don't but that's my perspective.

Submitted by Stefanie Greene.

#4 Its So Much Sexier When There Is Love Involved

Is Pornography Bad? Pure and simple no, almost never. With few exceptions:

When a child is being victimized (I classify this as anyone not of legal consenting age, which is unfortunately only 14 in some parts of the south still). Or when a woman/man is being exploited.

This is the tricky one. I know... you’ll have to let that sink in...

Here's the twist, just because it involves whips, hand-cuffs, and "punishment" does not make it exploitation, for some it's the rush of their life (or that week), and "can" be a healthy outlet for mild flares for the dramatic, or even sadistic or masochistic tendencies - I'm still talking about the porn "stars" and not the viewers just yet, get your head out of the gutter ;)

However, even the most mundane soft-core lesbian pornography, no penetration involved, can be outrageous exploitation, if it's a woman who is being forced to perform by her pimp, someone who was bought out of the sex-trade industry, or if she's homeless and doing it for her next heroine fix. And this is a fact of the porn industry, because it is a fact of life. Getting rid of porn won’t get rid of young women and homeless boys from being sexually exploited every day.

Now, whether or not it is “wrong” for your husband to watch it behind your back, is another topic entirely! And not one for me to postulate on *LOL* However, I (from a marriage therapist in training point of view) truly can’t see anything wrong with a married couple checking out a bit of amateur married porn together once in a while to get some new ideas and spice up the bedroom. Whaaaat?!? The experts say it’s good for you really! But if you want your woman to enjoy it, I’d stay away from the hard core and outlandish stuff, and stick to watching other amateur married couples and sexual technique videos with real couples in them, after all – it’s so much sexier when there is love involved ;)

Submitted by Summer Cartwrig

#5 Cheapen The Human Body And Intimacy

I have a moral objection to pornography, which is based on my faith and religious beliefs. For those readers who don't give a hoot about my faith and religious beliefs, I will analyze further.

First question: Is pornography good?

Second question: Who does pornography affect and how?

I will use the second question to answer the first.

Pornography most directly affects the actors or models who are viewed, the business persons who finance the production, and the consumers who purchase and/or view the pornographic media produced. The actors or models are paid (i'm not going to go into unpaid, volunteer porn) a small or large sum to display the entirety of their naked bodies, or to have sex on camera (or pretend to) for the benefit of consumers who are most often men who will use the media for masturbation inspiration. No matter what they got paid, that sounds like almost the most degrading thing a woman (I don't know about men) could do to her own psyche and self-esteem. The financiers make lots of money because lots of people are willing to pay quite a bit of money to view porn. I'm sure the financiers and producers think pornography is wonderful. I think they should get a real job. The consumers are trained by pornography to cheapen the human body and intimacy. This must (in my mind) lead to poorer marital relationships, which leads to more broken families, which leads often to more unparented kids.

The brief paragraph I have written seems to me only a small slice of the negative affect of pornography on society. Is pornography good? Not by a long shot. And in this case, the questions answered also lead me to conclude that yes, pornography is definitely bad.

Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#6 What's The Harm?

I don't think pornography is bad. There, I said it. I think when used for the proper purposes, it can enhance a couple's love life. While that can sometimes be the case, excess in anything is bad. Addiction to porn is bad. Then again, so is addiction to caffeine or television. When used in the right way and with the consent of both partners, I don't see anything wrong with it.

My hang up with porn doesn't lie in the viewing of it, but in the people in the industry and their reasons for choosing it. There are actors and actresses in the industry who chose that lifestyle for whatever reason. There are also those women (and possibly men) who have either been forced into it or are looking for some kind of fulfillment that they think a career of this kind will give them. This is where the industry gets its bad name. And then there are those sickos who think it's okay to use children. This, of course, is never okay. I'm not advocating that in any way whatsoever. I'm simply saying that when all parties involved are consenting adults, what's the harm?

Submitted by Lauri Lenox

Is The Death Penalty 'Cruel & Unusual'?

#1 Compare That With Lethal Injection

Is the death penalty cruel and unusual? In the past that case could certainly be argued. Whether it was death by firing squad, electrocution, hanging, the gas chamber, or beheading, execution was cruel, inhumane, and incredibly painful. Compare that with lethal injection. Being completely anesthetized and then paralyzed hardly seems cruel in comparison.

Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, the way it's typically administered in the US is hardly cruel and unusual.

Submitted by Neal Harkner. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#2 A Matter Of Perspective

Whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment is a matter of perspective. To the accused person's family, I will wager that it is. Try asking the victim's family. I'll bet it doesn't seem so cruel and unusual to them. What's my perspective on the matter? I've always been conflicted about this particular issue. It's not so much that I believe it's cruel and unusual, but it sets a bad example. It's hypocritical. It's like the parent who seeks to teach his child not to hit by spanking him. Really? Is that the lesson we want to teach here? It doesn't seem like we're sending the right message.

While I don't necessarily feel that the death penalty is the right choice, I do feel that there should be an ultimate form of punishment. A crime like murder should not go unpunished, and it should not be punished in the same way as theft. There must be an order to things. Furthermore, it has been shown that not all people who are executed are necessarily guilty. Something as severe as the death penalty should not be enforced unless there is absolutely no question of guilt. Until we have a foolproof system, there needs to a better way.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#3 We Are Capable Of Rehabilitation

I don't consider the death penalty as cruel and unusual, but I don't agree with it either. The death penalty is a form of punishment sentenced to those who exercise actions strongly against the social norm; most common is murder. And while it may seem fitting to end the life of one who insists on ending the life of another, I believe that the majority of abnormal behavior stems from an abnormal psyche. I know there are those who understand and have full control over what they do, even if it's wrong, but there are those who are strongly affected by their abnormalities, and can not help themselves. Various forms of death penalties have existed throughout history, though, I believe these days, we are capable of rehabilitation of the psyche and giving prisoners a second chance of life. I am not naive enough to know that rehabilitation will not work for everyone, but I have strong support for the effort.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#4 Cruel And Unusual By Whose Definition?

The death penalty may seem cruel to some, but a life sentence without the chance of parole seems cruel to others. Who chooses? The death penalty is carried out by individuals every few minutes; it’s called murder. So, the death penalty is certainly not unusual. OK, so I don’t think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but I really don’t agree with its use. I’m not saying the death penalty is wrong. Throughout Biblical history, God gave death penalty orders many times. The biggest problem I have with the death penalty in our culture is human error. I am afraid there are too many innocent people on death row while others that are guilty get away with their crimes because of money and position.

Submitted by Donna Buchanan.

#5 The Question My Son Asked

I spank my kids. When they misbehave or disobey, they know that a spanking is a likely punishment. One day, my son asked me, "Why is it OK for you to hurt me, but it is not OK for me to hurt other people?" I answered him honestly with reference to reinforcement and the like. I still spank my kids.

Using the same logic, the death penalty would be the ultimate "reinforcement". They definitely won't commit that crime again...because they are dead. Such a penalty is overtly cruel and unusual because the person/criminal is only considered as a means to executing punishment...with no other purpose. If the punishment is to be understood and comprehended, the recipient must be alive to receive that punishment. Punishment ceases to serve a purpose when the recipient cannot understand it.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 I Can't Wait For The Right Supreme Court Case To Come Along And Ban It

Since we're quoting the Eighth Amendment in discussing "cruel and unusual punishment," I'm taking this as distinct from whether I think the death penalty is "right" or "wrong." I recognize that there are other arguments for whether or not it's right or wrong, but "cruel and unusual" is a legal term, so that's what we're going with.

The Eighth Amendment bans, among other things, "cruel and unusual punishments." Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan wrote in the seminal death penalty case, Furman v. Georgia, that a punishment is cruel and unusual is it falls into one of the following criteria: 1) it is carried out in a wholly arbitrary fashion, 2) its severity is degrading to human dignity, 3) it is clearly and totally rejected throughout society, or 4) it is patently unnecessary.

On the first criteria of "arbitrariness," I suggest one read up on the cases of Cameron Todd Willingham (who was factually and legally innocent yet murdered anyway by the state of Texas) or John Thompson (who after spending 18 years on death row was released because of the death bed confession of an ADA who withheld exculpatory evidence) or Troy Davis (who has been trying to enter into evidence statements from witnesses who were bullied into identifying him as the killer by police for years and whose case was just granted certiorari). Too many of these individuals have been convicted of capital crimes due to notoriously unreliable jailhouse snitches or "eyewitnesses" for me to consider the death penalty as anything other than arbitrarily carried out (especially considering how black men are inexplicably and disproportionately represented on death row).

On the criteria of whether the death penalty has been rejected by society, I guess that depends on what you consider your "society." Do you consider your society your town? Your state? The United States? The World? In terms of similarity and feeling as one "community," I consider my "society" as the civilized nations of the world. And, guess what? The United States is one of the only countries in the civilized world to still have the death penalty. Yep, we're just as civilized as Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Botswana in this respect.

As to whether the death penalty is unnecessary, it is in all respects. It's not a deterrent, and it certainly isn't efficient. In a recent article in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, eighty-eight percent of criminologists did not believe the death penalty was a deterrent to murder. A recent nationwide survey of police chiefs ranked having the death penalty LAST among deterrents to violent crimes. The South, which executes 80% of all people executed in this country, has the highest murder rates of any region. And, honestly, think about it? If someone is so gone mentally as to think taking another human life is okay, do you really think they are thinking about the range of punishments they might receive for doing it? Thinking the death penalty is a deterrent is not only ridiculous, but has been disproven time and time again. Is it then necessary to keep dangerous individuals off the street? No, that's what life without parole is for. But, one might say, "What about prison overcrowding?" I'll tell you what, release the millions of people in prison for "victimless crimes" such as marijuana possession, and we wouldn't have a problem. Plus, life without parole is a hell of a lot less costly than to carry out the death penalty. For example, it costs the state of Texas $2.3 million to give someone the death penalty. By contrast, in Texas it costs less than $1 million to imprison someone in a maximum security prison for 40 years (about the average term of life without parole). Now, does it make sense to spend that extra $1.3+ million on securing the death of a person that, for the most part, I could give two shits about, or does it make more sense to spend that money on improving our public schools or figuring out other ways to prevent violent crime?

As to whether the death penalty "offends human dignity," since the death penalty is arbitrarily carried out, rejected by the civilized world, and is completely unnecessary, what reason is left for its application? The mob calling for vengeance? I consider vengeance anathema to human dignity. Maybe that's just a personal opinion, but to me "an eye for an eye" just seems childish and petty. The cultivation of vengeance as a social value or "justice" pretty much makes me sick and exists nowhere in my definition of dignity of a society or the individuals in that society. No matter how heinouse a crime, no one on this earth is capable of deciding who lives and who dies on the basis of whether "they deserved it." And in the case of the death penalty, if a society is wrong just once, there's no way to fix it. There's no justice in that.

In sum, as society changes, our values change and whether a punishment fits into one or more of the Furman criteria changes. This is why in 1977, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for rape of an adult woman. This is also why just last year the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for rape of a child when the child was not also killed. In all, the death penalty is not so entrenched in the American legal system as one might think, and its "acceptability" is constantly being called into question. I, for one, believe that it is not only wrong in every respect of what is moral and civilized, but it fits into the Eighth Amendments definition of "cruel and unusual punishment." As such, I can't wait for the right Supreme Court case to come along and ban it again.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

Is Space Exploration Important?

#1 Get Control of The Monster

Well, this was something I wanted to write simply based on personal opinion. I imagine that I had dreams like many other children about being an astronaut. All of the movies made over the last decade about space have continued to foster our inner-child as we dream about the unknown. However, our current reality is that we are a nation that is 11.8 TRILLION in debt. We do not need to be spending money we do not have on exploring the “great-unknown.” I like the idea of exploring the universe but in this time of financial crisis we must realize that some things must be cut. Tightening the belt does not mean that when our nation is healthy again we cannot increase our spending again. All of America is being forced to realize that some of their dreams will have to wait. Unfortunately, some of our “inner-child” dreams should wait until our dreams do not continue to increase our debt. So, yes space exploration is important, just not more important than getting control of the monster that is our national debt.

Submitted by Paul Buchanan.

#2 Gotten Out Of Hand

I believe space exploration is important to a cetain degree. I greatly admire those who have the guts to do it, and those who are future astronauts. To be quite truthful, it has gotten out of hand and costly to the USA. I know there is talk about what we can use SPACE for. Is there another form of life, yada, yada, yada...

The discoveries that have been made recently are cool but I think we should just take it easy on fundings for it. There is no doubt that Sapce Exploration is important but it sickens me to know that soooooo much money is being given to NASA when there are critical times on Earth.

Submitted by Stefanie Greene.

#3 So Much To Learn

Absolutely! Space exploration is important for a number of reasons. First, how arrogant is it to assume that Earth is the only planet with life in the entire universe? We are a tiny speck even in our own solar system and not nearly the oldest planet, which leads scientists to believe that life began long before life on Earth.

The universe is vast, which means that the odds that there is more to our reality than meets the eye is very good. Besides, we stand to learn so much about ourselves, our existence, and what else might be out there through space exploration.

There are those who feel insignificant when faced with the expanse of the universe. I have a completely different view. I am excited to find out what else is out there, what other creations exist, what or possibly who we can learn about.

Space exploration is important because it reminds us to never stop wondering, and gives us a sense of humility in the universe.

And then there are all the practical reasons. So much “space exploration” actually teaches us more about life on Earth from medical treatments to botany and improved technologies. The space industry employs so many people, too. To just end space explorations would put hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs and would affect a number of other industries that supply and benefit from space exploration.

And if this isn’t enough to convince you, have a look at this:

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=3971&gid=286

It’s truly amazing…makes my heart race and my eyes bright with excitement!

Submitted by Laura Jung.

#4 Young People Who Dream Turn Into Adults Who Innovate

Space exploration is important for a number of reasons.

One, if we (the United States) don't maintain supremacy in space exploration, someone else will and will end up bombing us from the moon (or somewhere; you know what I'm saying) one day. I'm not a huge proponent of spending billions on military might, but there is some serious military clout in space technology that I'd rather see in our hands than in, say, China's.

Two, space exploration is important because one day we as a human race might find ourselves having ruined this planet and having to move to another. Seriously, that might be an extreme view, but I wholeheartedly believe natural environmental changes, pollution, and overpopulation will have dire consequences eventually. I'd like to have an "out" to survive.

And three (and this may be as important or more so than the others), space exploration reminds us that we're small and keeps our sense of wonder in tact. Who know where we'd be if entire generations of engineers, scientists, and others weren't inspired at all of the possibilities of this world by the Apollo missions or the launch of Discovery after we thought all was lost after the Challenger? I still remember sitting in our school cafeteria in elementary school when they brought us all in to watch the latter; it was magical... Inspiring young people to dream is one of the most underrated priorities of parents, educators, and well, anyone. Young people who dream turn into adults who innovate, and if space exploration does nothing else but help this process, it's certainly important.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#5 Because We Can

Space exploration is important and should be pursued simply “because we can”. Why do we always need an excuse to be stupidly extravagant on something that doesn’t always pan out like anticipated? :) Just stop pretending that “concrete” results are why we keep sending people up into space – really… Who wouldn’t go up into space if they had the chance?

Though we have obviously benefited from space exploration, I don’t think it is worth trying to justify the noble goal through its own merit. We simply do it because we can. I know there are good reasons to explore space, but we should all just quit lying and fess up to the real reason…"Hmm...send people to the moon, why not?"

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 In Comparison To?

Is space exploration important? I would have to say yes, it is. I believe it is important to learn as much as we can about the universe we live in so that we have a better understanding about what surrounds us. It is key to gain all of the knowledge and understanding available to us so that we can teach others everything we know about our universe. Keeping information up to date and current is imperative. Putting correct information in our childrens’ textbooks is certainly significant. That’s one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is this: how important is space exploration? I realize that wasn’t the question at hand, but I believe it should be addressed. It’s important to know what’s around us, what could potentially happen to our planet and our universe, but is it more important than say, education? Cancer research? I think it’s essential to prioritize where funding goes. There is only so much out there that we have the capability to explore, but there are things here on Earth that need our immediate attention.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

What Do You Want To Change About Healthcare?

#1 I Have One Problem: The Federal Government

Surprisingly (perhaps) I have a pretty short answer for this one. Of all the possible complaints and difficulties any American might have concerning how he or she receives healthcare in this country, my biggest problem is the seemingly overwhelming assumption that the federal government should be the entity from whom a solution must come.

There seem to be about a thousand rumors circling as to what the new hypothethical healthcare bill may entail. There are some ideas I don't have a big problem with. There are other ideas I feel I would nearly give my life to protest. But with all of the prospective policies, I have one problem: that the federal government of the United States would institute them.

Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#2 The Snapping Sound Of A Latex Glove

I would like a guarantee that when I go to the doctor I never have to hear the snapping sound of a latex glove being putting while the doctor is standing behind me. Hopefully by the time I am old enough that I need a prostate exam, doctors will have come up with a new way to perform the exam. I could probably go on and on about what I want out of healthcare, but that would take a while. So, instead I am just going to leave short bullet points and we'll see where we go from there.

• I want every American to have access to some form of a healthcare plan, even if it includes a government option.
• I want more for my money. I pay a monthly premium and rarely need to go to the doctor. Why can't I get some of that money back?
• I want my premiums to stop going up every year.

Now, obviously, this topic has to stem from ongoing, hard to ignore, healthcare debate that has been going. Where do I stay amongst the debate? I am for the reform. I have read the bills. I agree with Obama's plans. I am sorry, but I find no evidence validating any arguments from the opposition. I have no belief that Obama is going to kill my grandma because there is nothing in either the House or Senate bills that mention the creation of "Death Panels." I welcome anyone who wants to discuss this.

One final thought. I find it humorous that just a few years ago there was a desperate cry for healthcare reform. Now that there is present progress, we've experienced tremendous opposition. The reason why I mention this is because I am confused what has fueled the rage at these town halls; is it because they have actually read the bills, or because they are just mad Obama is president?

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#3 Too Bad, So Sad...

I can tell you this right now, I DON'T want the Government’s Health Care Plan. What I would like to see happen is congress taking a stand against insurance companies that have no problem taking your high monthly payments and huge deductibles – so much so that you almost can't reach your deductible before anything is paid for by the insurance, so it's almost pointless unless you are to end up in the Hospital.

Healthcare companies seem to have no heart. Pre-existing conditions are not covered on private plans nor is Maternity offered on private plans. Group plans for large companies don't seem too be nearly as expensive as smaller companies’ insurance plans. So its too bad so sad for those who work with a smaller company. The employee will often have his/her insurance for free compliments of the company they work for. What is preposterous to me is more often than not the employee could expect to pay $500+ a month just for one dependent. In some cases the employee has no other option but to put a dependent on the plan if they have a pre-existing condition that a private plan won't cover.

Hospitals overcharge for services. You pay for every cotton swab and cotton ball that is used – or so it seems. If the Hospital didn't charge so much for their services then they would probably see more patients paying their bills. For some people, going to the ER for a simple sinus infection or urinary tract infection or whatever else – can be seen by a Doctor to take care of. I do like the new Nurse Practitioner locations such as Minute Clinic where its more affordable to be seen. I for one am a fan of Minute Clinic and similar facilities and think there should be more. This is just my brief take on things.

Submitted by Stefanie Greene

#4 We're Paying For That

What would I change about healthcare in 250 words or less…can we make it 25,000 words? For one, I’d change the way health insurance is distributed. Think about your car insurance policy. Do you file a claim every time you get a door ding? No. Why? Your deductible for one - you’d have to pay most of the cost out-of-pocket. Your rates would also rise, and eventually your insurance company would cancel your policy. Why can’t health insurance be like that? Many people in this country use health insurance like a discount plan. Every time you pay that $20 co-pay, the insurance company has to work with the doctor to pick up the rest. In many cases, what the insurance company pays the doctor’s office doesn’t cover the doctor’s expenses. As a result, private practitioners across the country are closing up shop. Why not incentivize health insurance so that those people who make healthy choices get lower rates and incentives for seeing the doctor for preventive care. Get rid of unreasonably low co-pays and put the onus for taking care of one’s self back on the individual.

Secondly, the cost of prescription medications is outrageous. Ask yourself why a pill made at a factory in Canada costs pennies on the dollar when compared to the exact same pill manufactured in the US. There is no need for drug companies to spend tens of millions of dollars directly advertising medications to the general public. Most folks, me included, are tired of the endless ads for cholesterol and erectile dysfunction pills. We’re paying for that. Additionally the drug companies overcharge us to cover their research and development and litigation costs because our insurance industry will pay for it.

From a technological perspective I’d like to see stricter enforcement and modernization of HIPAA guidelines related to the electronic exchange of health-related data. Get rid of paper records and antiquated mainframe systems completely. Create a modern set of standards for all medical software companies to adhere to.

These efforts, combined with common sense (a trait that is sorely missing in legislative halls across the country) will help to make healthcare more affordable.

Submitted by Neal Harkner. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#5 Healthcare Equity System

I'd like to see insurance companies pay 100% of the bill to doctors/hospitals/labs/etc. – immediately and up front. Then, they should bill me the remaining portion that is due from me. Simply put, insurance companies should pay the providers, so providers don't have to become bill collectors. If physicians spend less time worrying about receivables, then they could spend more time providing care.

This would inevitably create problems for insurance companies - as they would become the bill collectors in the healthcare process. But because people already have financial arrangements with them, collecting payments (and making payment arrangements) would be much easier for insurance companies (in comparison to any other intermediary in the process).

Finally, the concepts of equity and financial incentive should be available to the consumer. Because if healthiness paid financial dividends, we'd be healthier... An example of a rudimentary Healthcare Equity System might look like this...during months/years where no major medical expenses occurred, the premiums we pay toward health insurance should operate like cash value of life insurance. In future years, when healthcare expenses may be higher, the cash value of the previous years' health insurance could be applied toward medical expenses that exceed the standard coverage amounts.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 The Worst Kind Of Harm

I would change a lot of things about the U.S. healthcare system. And, unsurprisingly for those who have read my posts on this blog, expanding government-subsidized "public option" health insurance coverage would be one of them (and I say "expanding" because, hello people, this is not a new idea; Medicaid and Medicare have been around since the Social Security Act of 1965). But, before everyone pulls a Glenn Beck on me and starts calling me a Communist, I'd like to emphasize that this is hardly the focus of what I would change about the healthcare system. The United States spends more on healthcare than any other developed country yet we're also among the least healthy citizens of of any developed country. There's no excuse for that. Creating a public option won't cure the problem of rising healthcare costs, so I'd like to see more energy spent on combatting the costs rather than simply increasing access to a flawed system. I mean, increasing access to healthcare is vital, but eventually if we don't combat the rising costs of healthcare in this country, it's all going to be for naught and will bankrupt us in the process.

As an attorney, I'd like to see tort reform to somehow curb the huge amounts of money doled out to "victims" in frivolous lawsuits filed by unscrupulous lawyers. I worked for a personal injury attorney for a day when I was in law school. I promptly quit the same day I started when I was assigned to research the monetary value of an eyeball in a ridiculous lawsuit against the New York City Board of Education (a kid picked a fight at school, got his eye knocked out, and then his parents wanted some loot). Doctors shouldn't have to order every test known to man in order to cover their asses in case they're sued down the line. Billions of dollars are wasted every year by insurance companies having to pay for these unnecessary, expensive, and potentially harmfull (we're being x-rayed to oblivion; radiation much?) tests. In turn, insurance companies raise our premiums so they don't have to suffer the profit losses caused by the rise in tests. So, shame on the lawyers, shame on the plaintiffs in these cases, and shame on the insurance companies for passing the buck to the public which is far less equipped to absorb such a cost. Tort reform is one way to keep these people in check.

Secondly, I'd like to see doctors acting more like doctors and less like businessmen. Doctors these days have what they call "diversified revenue streams" meaning that not only do they bill for visits, tests, and procedures to keep us healthy, but they actually own their own testing equipment. Doctors who own their own CT scanners, x-ray machines, etc., order two to eight times the imaging tests than doctors who don't (according to a 2002 University of North Carolina study). Coincidence? I think not. This is because the more tests they order, the more times they can bill to and then get paid by insurance companies. A single CT scanner can make a doctor $400,000 a year. Further, for doctors such as these, if a patient with diabetes comes into their office, they can either treat them by diet and exercise and make little to no profit, or they can conveniently ignore these preventative measures and wait until the patient needs an operation to amputate a limb and make a comparatively gigantic profit. Knowing that greed is a tempting beast, which do you think they'd choose? I'd go so far as to say this type of behavior on the part of doctors violates the "do no harm" spirit in that it's causing a huge harm by jacking up costs so that millions of Americans can't even afford healthcare when they need it. Preventing people from receiving the care that they need is the worst kind of harm. To combat this type of practice, Dr. Andrew Weil suggests that we restrict ownership of testing equipment to hospitals, other nonprofits, or independent private entities. Given how little human beings can quell their greed at times, I'd say that sounds like a good idea.

Third, some of the blame for rising healthcare costs should be owned by us... We're a nation of (to use Ashley Judd's words) the overfed and undernourished. As delicious as a Chipotle burrito is with it's 1000 plus calories, there's just no reason for it to exist. Americans consume far more protein and fats than our bodies need or than even should be humanly possible (well, on second thought, it's probably not humanly possible because it's killing us). The fact that we as a people prefer to poison ourselves with transfats, suppress our immune systems and encourage anxiety and depression by not keeping our stress levels in check, and then run off to the doctor so they can "fix" us is a shame. Instead of contributing to a "patch 'em up and send them on their way" health system, we should instead strive to change our lifestyles and our healthcare system to focus on lasting health. Dr. Andrew Weil appropriately calls our healthcare system not a healthcare system at all, but rather a "disease management system." That's no way to live, and I'd like to think we could do better than that without government intervention. Unfortunately, however, I don't think we can. In 2000, the Surgeon General stated that the total annual cost of obesity in the United States was $117 billion in healthcare costs and lost productivity (for good measure, smoking costs us $52 million a year); I can't imagine what it is nine years later. Childhood obesity is rising at a shocking rate. According to the CDC, over the past three decades the childhood obesity rate has more than doubled for preschool children aged 2-5 years and adolescents aged 12-19 years, and it has more than tripled for children aged 6-11 years. This is partially due to large corporations like McDonalds and General Mills specifically targeting children in marketing campaigns, but this is also due to parents and children not knowing or caring what this is doing to our bodies, and thus, our healthcare costs. If the citizens are too dumb to stop buying "super sugar bomb" cereals as if they're a nutritious breakfast and Big Macs (the average American family eats fast food three times a week!) as if they constitute a decent meal, then I'm sorry to say the government must step in before this behavior bankrupts us. Look what getting rid of Joe the Camel did to reduce smoking... It looks like we may need similar intervention in the eating department. Many cities are banning transfats and requiring calorie breakdowns on menues. I think it's a good idea (hell, I know it would prevent me from ordering a molten chocolate cake a la mode or two).

So in sum: 1) tort reform, 2) put a check on greedy doctors, 3) stop treating ourselves like crap, and then, 4) increase access to healthcare coverage.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.