Browse Category

Great Debate

School Safety: Three key issues

Sympathize, but not simplify, safeguard the children, upgrade prevention

By Lawrence J. Fedewa 2/27/18

The current debates stemming from the Parkland massacre finally must deal with three key issues:

  1. The emotional climate following this tragedy
  2. The requirements to provide for physical safety of public gathering places
  3. The establishment of a crime prevention capability

 

  1. The emotional climate following this tragedy

The anguish and grief of the victims and their loved ones are not only understandable but are shared by empathetic observers everywhere. The natural reactions to this event are anger, demands for action, and fear for the lives of school children everywhere. The intensity of these emotions can easily lead to hysteria, which in turn can lead to acceptance of simplistic solutions. School safety is not a simple issue; it is a very complex issue. Because this murderer used a gun to execute his perverted mission does not mean that the solution to all the aspects of this type of assault is the further restriction of gun possession.

A determined bad guy can always find a weapon to execute his murders, whether a gun, a sharp knife, a sword, a bomb, another explosive or weapon– and they have. And no matter how good the background check, someone will always slip through the net – by chance or by changing since the check was done. So, other measures must be also employed.

  1. The requirements to provide for physical safety of public gathering places

President Trump has focused rightly on the need to “harden schools as targets” and his public discussions have highlighted many very effective measures which have been developed by numerous school districts. Some of the most effective that have surfaced are: single point of entry to each school with metal detectors managed by armed guards, concealed weapon carrying school personnel, specifically trained to protect students, bullet-proof, locked individual classrooms, and others. It appears that this search is well underway without more attention here. The most successful prevention program in recent years is the way we stopped airline hijacking. Everyone complains about airport security, but we all get scanned, and we don’t have any more hijacking (but it didn’t stop the 9/11 hijackers).

  1. The establishment of a crime prevention capability

The most complicated issue in this whole discussion is the fact that our entire law enforcement is based on catching and successfully prosecuting criminals. Their mission is NOT preventing crimes. The fact is that there is NO law-enforcement agency — or any other government agency — has the mission of preventing crimes. And there is a very solid reason for that. The reason is to protect the privacy and civil rights of individual citizens. The idea of giving the government the power to decide whether I am a threat to society on the basis of my exercise of free speech, or my counseling sessions with a mental health professional, or my history as a prisoner, or wife abuser, or member of an out-of-power political party or partisan organization is fraught with potential for abuse. Especially in view of the current doubts about the FBI and the FISA courts.

The provisions for temporary confiscation of weapons reported by several states, e.g. Indiana, have tackled this problem already and these experiments can set an example of attempts to reconcile crime prevention with catching criminals. The final decision as to the retention of a weapon permanently in these procedures lies with a judge – within 24 to 72 hours. The issue is, what are the criteria on which the judge will make his decision? What is the basis in law?

There is, of course, a common sense, common law rationale for such actions, namely, to protect the common good of society. But the principal thrust of American jurisprudence has always been to protect the individual citizen from an overzealous, even hostile government. Unfortunately, we are currently experiencing glaring examples of the value of such protections, Recent revelations of the federal government’s flagrant abuse of its powers by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts represent the need for very serious caution in giving ANY government body more powers over our lives. Nor is the Judicial Branch of the government any better. How many times have we witnessed clearly partisan verdicts by federal judges, whether district, appellate or Supreme Court? Clearly, the supposedly impartial “wise men (and women)” of the American judiciary are fast disappearing.

Yet, such measures MUST be taken immediately. Today, we live in constant threat for terrorists, whether foreign of home-grown.  We have been attacked since 9/11/2001 by many persons, on many occasions, using weapons ranging from airplanes to butcher knives. Before that were the Oklahoma City bombing (1995), and Columbine school massacre (1999) and other tragic events. It is about time that we face the inadequacy of out current safety infrastructure.

But how? How do we balance individual rights with the prevention of such terrorist acts? My own view is that we must endow crime prevention efforts with aggressive transparency. No more secret arrests. No more unannounced confiscation of weapons or “temporary” incarceration. Our only protection as free American citizens is open courtrooms, public announcements, and provision of competent legal defense. One of the major defenses against unlawful search and seizure should be the press. Unfortunately, like the courts, the press has revealed itself as frequently biased and unreliable. However, the counterbalance to that dereliction of duty is the internet, social media, and an activist citizenry.

These observations and opinions are not answers to the choices which face us. They are reasons to act, cautions against poorly analyzed actions, and desperate calls for doing something to prevent atrocities like Parkland, Florida – but doing the right things.

Copyright 2018, Richfield Press, Ltd,

The controversies around school shootings

A UK interviewer asks for insight into American approaches to the tragic shooting in a Florida school.http://bit.ly/2HLBVs3    (22 minutes)

Student-Centered Schooling: Some Ideas

Hi everybody –
What child-centered education might look like. We need a 21st century system for educating our children for the Information Age. Here are some ideas.
As always, feel free to let me know your questions and opinions.
For more writings, poems, interviews and guest editorials, see my website,

by Lawrence J. Fedewa, Ph.D.
I was recently quizzed by L. A. Batchelor, radio host of the popular “Batchelor Pad” (WCOM 103.5 FM Carrboro, NC) on the topic of “student-centered education”. I am not posing as an expert in US educational reform, but I did have some experience in founding an experimental college many moons ago. However, the emphasis of this conversation was K-12 schools. I decided that my spontaneous description of my model school could use a more organized presentation. Thus, this column.
I believe there is more than one good answer to this challenge, and that these answers will be found only through competition. This means that government monopoly of education must be curtailed, and that the voucher programs being advocated by local pioneers, and now with the encouragement of the federal government, collectively will find the best answers to our contemporary challenges. My own suggestions for a new model of schooling are outlined below.
1.Learning theory  
 
My thinking about schooling starts with the realization that humans are
always learning. Everything we see, hear, and experience is new knowledge in some degree or nuance.
My motto is: Every NOW is NEW!
 
Even the most familiar and routine events yield something new, if only a recognition of their place in our life. Learning is part of the human condition. Place a baby on the floor and the first thing the baby does is start to explore. We never stop exploring. So, the question is not “Do we learn?” The question is, “WHAT do we learn?
The answer is that we learn and remember best whatever we are interested in. The secret to successfully educating people is to find out what interests them. A person’s interests usually have some relation to his or her life – its problems, challenges, ambitions, or moments of joy. In this sense, our interests are very personal. For example, Johnny may be very fascinated with cars. Why cars? Perhaps because of the sense of exhilaration he gets when a car goes fast. Or, because his Dad is fascinated by cars and Johnny sees the shared interest as a bridge to his father’s affection. Or, perhaps he likes to watch NASCAR on television. The point is that his interest motivates his learning and his learning fulfills some personal need or desire.
The key to “student-centered learning”, therefore, is the discovery by the educators of each child’s interests. Johnny’s interest in cars can quickly lead to his need to know how to read, how to write, how to compute numbers — eventually, perhaps to industrial design, engineering, or science. And, his interests will change as he learns more and more. To keep him motivated, his interests must be tracked and exploited even as they change.

2. Implementation

How can the interests of millions of students be tracked and accommodated? Is that possible? Without today’s technologies, it was not possible. Our current educational system of schooling is built on the 19th century assembly line paradigm, which made possible mass production. The child begins on the educational assembly line and accumulates pieces of knowledge and skills as he/she moves from one station (grade) to the next, until that student emerges after 13 or 17 or more years a finished product as defined by the assembly line.
This why is “mass education” is similar to “mass production”. It is all wrong for today’s students. The outcome of mass production is a physical product – a car, a wheelchair, an airplane. This product is the exact replica of every other product which comes off that line. But the outcome of education is primarily the graduate’s capability to earn a living by his/her unique contributions to society. In this, our current educational system is woefully lacking.
Not so long ago, the goal of education could not be summarized as stated here. The goal of education was the development of the whole person, not a bread winner.  But “the times they are achangin'”, as Bob Dylan said.
 
3.     Student-centered education must be individualized.
 
The most promising approach to this task so far is the  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law which requires each school district in the United States to enter into a legal agreement with the parents of all children with disabilities to provide an individualized education program (IEP) for that child.
The fundamental premise of my approach to child-centered education stipulates that an IEP be developed for every single child in the United States.
4. Grades K-3
 
In my system, a temporary IEP would be developed during the kindergarten year, but in any event prior to the start of Grade 1. The focus of this first IEP would be the development of the foundational skills of literacy: reading, writing, arithmetic, and fundamental manners and ethics required by a civilized society.
These four years provide both these skills and an observation and testing period prior to the development of the first version of the Master IEP to be reviewed and adjusted annually for the rest of the child’s school years. Decisions to be made by the IEP team (parents, teachers, administrator and – if practical – the child) are based on the child’s interests, test results, and observed behavior. A strategy is then developed to build a sequence of knowledges and skills related to the perceived data as well as the favored places, instructors, and socialization environments for the student’s progress.
 
5.   The physical environment
 
Homerooms as now used may be obsolete. Various groups of students would be formed around large interest categories, such as, electronics, physical sciences, government, mathematics, and history. Each of the themes would have certain general requirements, such as its history, bibliographies, public speaking, research and (where relevant) experimentation. The “classes”, therefore, would be defined by interest and capability rather than age. Each student would engage in a different sequence of activities, based on an individual IEP. Instead of a “homeroom”. each child would be given a carrel (like graduate students), that is, an individual booth-like space, equipped with a desk. internet accessible computer, book shelves, locker, etc.
 6.     Teaching
 
Instruction would have two modalities: tutoring and classes. The student’s specific interests (e.g. cars) would be furthered by tutoring individually or in small groups (after the Oxford University modal). Classes would be groups, scheduled by interest and capability levels and controlled by computer-managed instructional systems, available to the student on his/her computer. One benefit of this system would be to capitalize on peer teaching and learning – always proven to be the most effective combination for certain types of learning. It also would expand the socialization opportunities for all ages. For older students, there would also be elective lectures on various general topics, such as politics, space, economics, religion, etc.
 
7.      Teachers
 
Teachers would be divided into two basic categories: subject experts and academic counselors. The counselors would be the “customer service” agents responsible for individual interaction with the student. The subject matter experts’ responsibilities would be to see that the students are given proper guidance, information, and training through classes and tutoring. The model for this role would be the graduate student’s major professor, or the Oxford tutor system.  This reorganization of education thus would require major changes in teacher education.
 
8.    Research
 
Academic goals would cluster around the ability to research. In an information age, information is a critical commodity, and the ability to find, analyze and act on information is fundamental to success in the information economy – not to mention success in personal decisions and relationships. Thus, the emphasis on the carrel and the independent access to the unlimited resources provided by the internet. Never before in history have individuals had access to the entire Library of Congress (and more) at their fingertips. Today’s children must learn how to use this priceless treasure.
 
Conclusion 
This outline merely scratches the surface of the possibilities for re-structuring America’s educational system utilizing contemporary technology. It is presented with the hope that it will stimulate creative thinking and actions to upgrade our society’s contributions to human history and to our own happiness.
Copyright, 2018 Richfield Press, Ltd.


                    

What has happened to our colleges in America?

The temporary victory of the New Left

Many Americans have been shocked and dismayed by the lawless behavior of students on several campus protesting the Trump election. What is going on?

There are two keys to understanding these demonstrations: first, these student protests are flourishing in an environment fostered by the faculties at these institutions; and second, the faculty preaches dogmas which mark a generational shift in values. The fundamental analysis therefore must begin with the faculty. Student behavior is primarily an acting out of faculty indoctrination. Administrators, while generally sympathetic to the students, are caught between angry students and their Boards and other supporters demanding a stop to these outrageous demonstrations.

So, what are today’s professors teaching and why? America’s academic institutions are dominated by people who grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The overarching issues of those days were opposition to the Vietnam War, which started in the universities of the time, and the civil rights movement whose champion was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Both causes were anti-establishment, and both were based on a sense of moral superiority. It did not take long for the believers in the two causes to join forces. They filled mutual needs: the anti-Vietnam movement was based initially on the objections of college students (mostly white) to being required to fight in a war which was neither understood nor supported by most Americans.

The issue quickly became whether the federal government had the right to draft youngsters at all. Middle America stood firmly with the government on that issue, thus spawning widespread opposition to the anti-war movement and solidifying support for the War beyond what is had been in the first place.  The champion of the Middle American view was Alabama Governor George Wallace, who also had a reputation as a segregationist.

What the anti-war movement needed was a cause larger than the discomfort of some white college boys. They needed a transcendent cause which they found in the civil rights movement. That cause was social justice. Specifically social justice , as interpreted to mean equality of all Americans — legally, socially, economically and morally. The civil rights movement needed white support; the leaders were aware that without it, they would never achieve their goals. It was a marriage made in heaven.

The common theme of both causes was opposition to the same government which had gotten us into the War in Vietnam, which was allowing discrimination against African Americans, but which was supported by the American public. The champion of this synthesis of the two rebel causes was Bobby Kennedy.

The Roosevelt Democrats (the “Old Left”) meanwhile were enacting Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society legislation, which was aimed especially at using federal tax money to assist the poor. However, Johnson also supported the Vietnam War, and thus became the target of the anti-war movement. That support spelled his doom as president. He took himself out of the presidential race in March, 1968, In April, Dr. King was assassinated. The combined support of the advocates of the Great Society, the civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement then fell to Democrat Senator Robert Francis Kennedy, who embodied the melding of the three strands of anti-establishment support. Then, in June, 1968,  Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. Thus was born the New American Left, the heirs of Bobby Kennedy. In forty years, they had only one candidate for President before Barack Obama, Democrat George McGovern, who lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide in 1972.

But many of those hippies and disillusioned youngsters went to graduate school and became the professors of the next generation. They did not give up their beliefs in social equality, the primary responsibility of the federal government for social justice, their disdain for American institutions including religion, business, nationalism, and the traditional family. The New Left ideology began to penetrate American society more the older and more powerful yesterday’s hippies became. In the protected enclaves of the universities and the media, their orthodoxy became more extreme and more absolute.

This ideology benefited through the years from the tacit approval of many of cohorts who grew up to positions of power in other fields and who allowed their children to be taught this new orthodoxy. As the years passed, more and more of these children were persuaded by this new view of American society.

In 2008, forty years after the fateful summer of 1968, they finally won their long battle for control of the American government. They elected Barack Hussein Obama as president and a Democrat Congress to back him up. It took the Great Recession to do it. But the New Left — spawned by the crisis of 1968, hardened by 40 years in the wilderness, and preaching an expanded view of human equality, anti-war idealism, anti-business bias, an anti-family and anti-religion world-view – the New Left now finally controlled the federal government of the United States of America.

The dedication to this ideology on the part of its true believers cannot be overestimated. It is based on a series of high moral convictions

  • the absolute equality of ALL human beings, no matter their age, race, gender, physical capacities, religion or social position; a central reality of this dogma is the existence of a universal racism in the America;
  • the absolute obligation to oppose All limitations on human behavior whether religious, civil law, or cultural prejudice which do not do physical harm to another;
  • to protect and foster government control of all institutions (unless government is wrong, of course!);
  • to pursue the ideal of a peaceful world even in the face of violent opposition and conflict, believing that all people really yearn for peace above all.

These high moral goals motivate the feeling of superiority which is characteristic of the New Left, as well as the ferocity with which they  attack their opponents. In the most dedicated adherents of the New Left, there is a religious fervor not unlike that which motivates the radical Islamists. Those who disagree must be defeated at any cost, even at the cost of their destruction. The New Left are not as violent as the Islamic extremists, but there are similarities.

The reason for the extreme reaction of the New Left to the election of Donald Trump is that they were convinced they had finally won their generational battle with the silent majority. They were so intoxicated by the victories of Barack Obama – especially after he defeated businessman Mitt Romney in 2012 – that LOSING was unthinkable! They were confident that they now controlled the future of America.

The New Left values dominated, they believed, the new American culture, never again to be denied. The Democrat Party, one of only two major political parties in the United States, had become the vessel of the New Left, and was considered by all the New Left press and pundits to be firmly enthroned as the majority party for the foreseeable future. Their agenda had already skipped over the 2016 election and concentrated on what their next priority, climate change, meant to the world.

Then the deplorable Donald Trump won the presidency! His Republicans won both Houses of Congress, and most of the governorships and state legislatures! The man who has threatened to undue most of what Obama did  was now in the position to do it!

How could this happen? The New Left had allowed the Old Left to control the Democratic nomination until it was too late. Throughout the campaign that followed, they were continually referred to as “the status quo”, and most gallingly as “the establishment”! That critical mistake opened the door to the silent majority – who finally spoke.

Does it mean, they asked, that we are now destined to return to the shadows, that we never really won the hearts and minds of the American people? That America is condemned to live forever in free market capitalism, restricted immigration, a monetary economy, a war-like world? Must we now accept the possibility that all our beliefs about the society and the nature of human beings have been false?

In New Left enclaves such as the universities and the big cities and the media, the outcome of the election just cannot be accepted without a fight. “Send out the students, the activists, the camp followers – TV will cover. Somewhere someone will figure out a way to destroy the opposition, reverse the election, and return the nation to sanity.”

This is what we are up against in the universities and in American society. The only way to regain control of the hearts and minds of our youth is to withdraw support for the faculties who proselytize the doctrines of the New Left in our schools. This begins with local school boards, with student-centered financing of education, with sharpened protections of free speech on our campuses, especially publicly funded institutions, and by protection of students who are in effect whistle-blowers on extremist teachers and professors.

All such activities must be conducted with a careful view toward protecting the freedom of speech even of the extremists. That can only be done with a liberal use of freedom of choices by individual students (careful selection of schools and colleges and  scrutiny of required courses) and of parents (school choice). Persecution of  violators, however defined, would simply desecrate the mandates in the American Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly. So, I am not advocating any witch hunts. We can only fight excesses of freedom by providing more options of freedom.

But fight it we must – or we will lose another generation of young Americans!

What about DACA?

 

 Lawrence J. Fedewa (January 29, 2018)
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) originally referred to a program invented by President Barrack Obama in 2014. It granted a temporary authorization to stay in the U.S. to children whose parents came to the United States illegally and who are thus officially classified as “illegal aliens”. Since this was an Executive order, not a law, its existence is dependent on the continued authorization of the new administration. For DACA to become the permanent law of the land, both Houses of Congress and the president must sign off on it.
Republicans have opposed this Executive Order because they believe that the illegal actions of the parents should not be rewarded with citizenship, but rather punished for breaking American law and therefore deported to their country of origin – presumably along with their children (although this position has been softening recently). They call the Obama position “amnesty” and fear that ratification of that policy will create an incentive for more illegal immigration, in defiance of American law.
There are an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 children of illegal immigrants living in America today, although no truly reliable estimate exists. There may be more, perhaps as many as a few hundred thousand more. What should we to do with them?

Freedom’s Call to Action

Freedom’s Call to Action

Last evening I was the guest of a radio interviewer in Scotland. He began by remarking that a poem I  recorded on YouTube was so inspiring that he wanted to play it before we began our interview. He called it universal in its appeal to all people who seek freedom and justice, even though it is an American calling out to his fellow citizens. I was touched as I heard my voice and my message being heard by people in foreign lands. Later, I realized that this video was not available even on my own website. So here it

is!

“When knights surrender their swords, beasts shall devour maidens” – Paul Bois

By Lawrence J. Fedewa, Wednesday, December 13, 2017
This is the title of a piece by Paul Bois in the Daily Wire (October 17, 2017), the controversial Ben Shapiro’s conservative blog. This striking title raises yet another aspect of this month’s emotional outcry concerning the sexual ab of women. That is the question, “Where are the men who know about these abuses and do nothing?” Bois follows a different track, but my interest is – why don’t the men who know about this behavior defend these women? I attribute their silence simply to cowardice, whatever the source.
However, the issue is so much more complex. The basic reason a man doesn’t challenge a sexual predator who is in a position of power – perhaps his boss – is the same reason the women submit, namely self-preservation. If she refuses to submit, or files a complaint afterwards, she risks retribution from the abuser, non-support from whatever authorities she might inform, a possibly permanent reputation as a “trouble-maker” or worse, and the consequent ruin of her career. The same risks face a man who tries to stop the predator. That knight frequently surrenders his sword when he accepts a dependent position on the predator. Not always. Some guys remain stubbornly independent no matter their position. But they, like the women they are supporting, also frequently pay the price.
The underlying issue here is the belief prevalent in certain sectors of our society that aggressive behavior toward women is a sign of masculinity, often accompanied by the idea that women secretly love this treatment and that their protests are simply required by social norms.  Complicating the matter is the fact that some women really do want to be treated this way.
This brings up the issue female behavior. The modern American woman may be sexually aggressive herself, under the belief that any dependency on men is a limitation on her self-reliance. It seems a safe bet that there will soon be cases making news of men being sexually harassed by powerful women. We may soon see gender equality in this area as well as others.
Another aspect of this situation is the fashions in women’s dress. I don’t believe I have ever heard a woman admit that women dress for men. Always they steadfastly maintain that women dress for women. It is hard to believe that women long to see each other in near-naked swim suits, skin tight pants, low cut shirts, and other styles which leave little to the imagination. No matter the real answer to that question, however, men are all around these scantily clad women. So, whatever the women’s motivation, these styles give men the impression that women who dress in this way do so to attract attention to their bodies, and the people most interested in their bodies are men. This “sex appeal” really does stimulate appeal to the opposite sex. In certain industries, such as, entertainment and sports, men are expected to live in an atmosphere of constant stimulation while pretending not to notice.
Then there is the issue of conviction by the press. It appears that, if a woman has any reason to make trouble for any man, all she has to do is come up with a convincing story, hire Gloria Allred who will arrange a TV interview, and within days the accused male will be called upon to resign post haste. No presumption of innocence, no depositions, no trial, no defense, no judge, no jury.  Just go! The job of discovering evidence, assessing credibility, placing blame – all now goes to the press.
Clearly, this way of handling these accusations is neither fair nor ethical. But what is the proper way these accusations should be handled? While individual cases may differ, there are some basic guidelines any policy decisions should follow:
  1. Any institutional policy (including government) should be fair to both parties. The days of assuming that any female complainant is at fault have to be over. Women (and men, for that matter) should be reassured that their complaint will be accepted with respect and given a fair hearing. The complainant is the victim not the perpetrator.
  2.  The punishment for such behavior should fit the offense. The press is equating misdemeanors the same as felonies.  Not all unacceptable actions are equal. The woman who recently filed a complaint against a man who told her she was beautiful is not talking about rape.
  3. Victims should be encouraged to speak to their friends about the event, and to report to authorities as soon as feasible. The informed friend(s) should be encouraged to accompany the victim.
  4. There must be procedures in every venue to deal properly with all such occurrences. Many are not criminal offences, and these should not be made public until some official action by the company, office, church, club, or whatever group is responsible for the principals has been taken to determine the facts. The press should be responsible only for reporting the news, not for adjudicating the news.
  5. Finally, laws and procedures must be devised to deal quickly with these complaints. Time is not the friend of the victim or the accused.
These considerations are, in my opinion, applicable to the Franken and Conyers cases as much as to anyone else. The fact that they both resigned without seeking due process can only be interpreted as admission of guilt. The same reasoning applies to the other cases which seem to be appearing on a daily basis. Trial by the press is never an acceptable procedure.
 Although sexual abuse has been happening forever, now is our time to face up to it and, as a society, come up with appropriate solutions. Sexual abuse of women joins a growing list of painful sins which have haunted our generation, including the Catholic priest scandal, the military treatment of females, the human trafficking crimes, and the abortion tragedies. These and other gender-related practices have surfaced in this new world of ours and it is up to us to create the social norms and procedures to pass on a more moral society than we inherited.
© Richfield Press, 2017

 

Free Market Healthcare?

Hi Everybody,

As long as the future of Obamacare is still undecided, we still have time to discuss alternatives. The debate thus far appears to center on how much government subsidies should be included in the final package. Today we look again at how much government involvement is necessary (rather than how much can we afford) to achieve our national goals. With a $20 trillion national debt, a “government lite” approach seems to be in order.

So, let’s look again at what a truly free market healthcare system might really look like — without the hang-ups of past assumptions.

(This column is edited from a version originally published on January 6, 2017. Unfortunately, we haven’t progressed very far since then. )

As always, comments welcome. Thank you for your support.

Larry Fedewa

____________________________________________________________________

What a free-market health care system could look like

By Lawrence J. Fedewa – – Friday, January 6, 2017

As long as we are repealing and replacing Obamacare, the starting point should be setting our goals. American health care should be:

1, High quality, state-of-the-art
2. Available to all — which means
• Affordable
• Abundant
• Well-funded

What are the principal obstacles to these goals?

a. The first and most obvious obstacle is the shortage of medical personnel. This shortage has two facets: not enough medical professionals are produced in the first place, and of those who do enter practice too many drop out before their time. There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to their fellow man? Not at all.

The reason is lack of money

Keep Reading