Presidential Platform for John Smith in ‘08
Would you vote for him? - Part 2

(NOTE: Register to receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

In Part 1 of John Smith’s campaign platform, we discussed “Terrorism”, “Energy independence”, and “Decriminallizing and Regulating marijuana and prostitution” as a means of removing the criminal element that makes these enterprises so dangerous, destructive and profitable.

In Part 2, we’ll discuss “Illegal Immigration” and “Healthcare”, two growing problems in this country unnecessarilly costing American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars each year. (Before I start, I should probably note that I am not of Mexican decent, nor do I or anyone in my family work in the heathcare industry, so… just as in Part One… I have no personal stake in the outcome or personal agenda behind my reasoning. I’m a white male, third-generation ‘Mericun (that’s “American” to those not from the South) of Italian decent.

The falsehood that Illegal Immigrants are responsible for an increase in crime is flat false. A recent study by the United States Federal Reserve in Dallas (video) made some starteling discoveries: they found NO evidence crime increased as a result of illegal immigration. In fact, they actually found that in places with high illegal immigrant population, crime actually DECREASED. The most obvious reason being that if an illegal immigrant gets picked up by the police, they know they’re going to be deported. So the incentive is to keep their noses clean and stay out of trouble.

Do some illegals commit crimes? Of course, but LESS than the general population… with one caveat though:

While violent crime was also shown to decrease in these same populations, the reduction was not as great as it was for NON-violent crime. The reason: smugglers. Once called guides, the very act of ever-increasing criminalization of crossing the US/Mexican border illegally has turned it into a major criminal enterprise with well armed smugglers willing to kill to transport their cargo.

Another criminal side effect: smugglers often force their “customers” to carry drugs with them across the border into the United States, giving the immigrant added incentive not to get caught and providing the smugglers with a cheap and easy means of smuggeling drugs into the U.S.. Just as with in the criminalization of marijuna and prostitution mentioned in Part-1, the very act of criminalizing something only helps foster crime, making it more of a problem, causing more sorrow and destruction, and costing an enormous amount of money to try (and fail) to maintain the illusion of control over it.

While the strident call of late has been for MORE and TIGHTER security with the Mexican border, it is those very methodologies that make the problem worse. Consider that, since crossing the border is so difficult and risky, a Mexican immigrant is more likely to STAY in the U.S. once they get here BECAUSE they can not cross the border easily. And they are more likly to bring their families with them for that very same reason. We should actually make the US/Mexican border EASIER to cross, not more difficult, if we are to cut down on illegal immigration and the crime that comes with it.

This brings up the issue of “terrorism”. But consider the US/Canadian border. No one is talking about building a wall between the U.S. and Canada to keep terrorists from crossing over into our country. The reason we don’t have tighter restrictions on the U.S./Canadian border is because of more equal income levels and standards of living between our two countries… because Canadian Hosers aren’t flooding across our border “to take all our good jobs”. Well, neither are Mexican immigrants… most of whom end up as migrant farm workers or other low wage manual labor jobs, due to lack of education.

For 2006, Canada budgeted only $1.4 Billion over two years for border security.
The United States has budgeted $1.7 Billion for 2007 alone. If Osama bin Laden wanted to cross over into the United States, he’s not going to do it from Mexico, he’s going to do it through Canada. The argument that we can have more lax security with Canada because they pick up the slack, is demonstrably false. In fact, the cost of the much ballyhooed “700 mile fence” along the 2,000 mile US/Mexican border that Congress approved last week, is going to cost us $1.2 billion dollars… TO START. That is MORE than Canada is spending on border security. So the amount of money Mexico is able to dedicate to border security isn’t an issue either.

The solution is to provide a secure method of identification for those who wish to cross. A “passport” or “work visa”… something that requires a background check and application through the government to get. But once obtained, permits free travel (through checkpoints) over a period of months or even years. Limit the number of places for legal border crossing, but with fewer restrictions on travel, thereby removing the need to cross the border illegally at obscure locations. Border security will still be required to stop “terrorists”, drugs or contriband, but the cost of border security would plummet as resources once spent trying to stem the tide of immigrants is put to better use. Trying to contain illegal immigration by squeezing tighter and tighter is like trying to keep sand in your hands by squeezing tighter and tighter.

Bringing Healthcare costs under control.

The United States is the only industrialized nation on the face of the Earth that does not offer free healthcare to all its citizens. The Republican arguments against any sort of “National Healthcare” is that it smacks of “Socialized Medicine”, with lower quality care for more money. Of course, it should come as no surprise that this is complete nonsense. If our healthcare system were the greatest in the world, we should also have the longest lifespans and lowest rates of disease in the world. In fact, the Japanese enjoy the longest average lifespans in the industrialized world (men: 79, women: 86) Japan uses a combination of National and Employer based insurance coverage. The unemployed and those who own or work for small busineses recieve National coverage. Mid to large sized businesses cover the rest, and the more money you make, the higher your premiums. You get to choose your own doctor, but you must pay 30% of the costs yourself (20% if you are hospitalized).

One issue raised by opponents on any kind of National coverage is that it is the “profit motive” in our healthcare that encourages medical breakthroughs in medicines, treatments and surgical techniques. If that were true, the United States would be the only country in the world seeking cures to all the worlds diseases. Instead, we see the industry’s research dollars being poured into the next great “boner drug” or “diet pill”. And America’s Conservative Christian lobby is going to ensure that the next great advance in stemcell research isn’t going to be developed in the United States.

The compromise is to ensure free BASIC healthcare to every American… checkups, doctor visits for minor ailments and the like… by fully funding and expanding medicare. Treating people BEFORE they get sick will dramatically reduce the number of people that end up in Emergency Rooms because they ignore a minor problem until it grows into something major, costing taxpayers ten times as much treating someone for an illness that might have been avoided with a free flu shot or minor out-patient proceedure early on. Businesses suffer Billions in lost productivity every year as people work through illness until they can work no more.

Placing the burden of healthcare on our Corporations is crippling our businesses and destroying our competitiveness in the world market. IBM estimates that “the cost of health insurance adds “$1500 to the price of every car GM makes”. So to cut their costs, many manufacturers most their plants across the border into Mexico, where they are free of the burden of providing healthcare to their employees. Higher healthcare costs are passed on to the consumer, both here and abroad, putting our products at a cost disadvantage, resulting in fewer sales, which means more employees will lose their jobs… AND employer paid healthcare.

By ensuring BASIC healthcare, the “profit motive” for developing more “advanced treatments” remains. Employers now needing to cover only the less frequent “serious” ailments should see their healthcare costs go down. For extraordinarilly serious injury or prolonged treatment, Medicare already covers those cases and should continue to do so.

Of course, this requires shoring up Medicare. While President Bush continues to rail on about the need to “Save Social Security”… a program that is solvent until 2042… Medicare is in serious trouble, with “Part-A” coverage expected to start spending more than it takes in by 2015.

That’s enough to digest for now. In Part-3, We will discuss “a role for the UN in International Security” and “Global Warming”.

This entry was posted on October 21, 2006 at 2:11 am and is filed under Political News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.