Congratulations to Bill and Melinda Gates!

Lisa Jarvis, in the May 19 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News, reports that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (refer Microsoft) have committed to contribute $29 million over five years to the California Institute for Biomedical Research (Calibr). The objective of the private grant is to discover drugs for diseases that adversely affect the developing world. Calibr will focus on tuberculosis, infections from parasitic worms, diarrheal disease, and malaria.
Congratulations to Bill and Melinda Gates! This is the way medical research should be done; through private grants, and not through taxpayer money from various federal agencies.
You can be sure that Gates Foundation managers will be watching carefully how that money is spent, as opposed to federal programs which usually involve "dump the taxpayer money" and go on to other things.

Homosexuality

According to the Washington Times, a gay advocacy group has strongly objected to a federal advertisement on Obamacare. I have not seen the ad, but it supposedly features four young buff men wearing tight underwear and not much else. I don't understand the purpose of the presentation, nor do I have any objection, but it apparently has raised the ire of the gay advocacy group.. The president of the group claims that the ad campaign promotes “harmful stereotypes that gay men are nothing but sex-crazed lechers". It sounds to me like a gross exaggeration, from the ad description.
I'm not very interested in this particular controversy, but it is illustrative of a development that strongly concerns me. That is, organized efforts by unorthodox lifestyle groups to achieve public acceptance. The purpose of achieving public acceptance is likely based on two desires; ego satisfaction and financial benefits.
I don't deny that there are people born with an innate desire of sexual attractiveness to persons of their own sex, but it is in the minority. There are people born with other mental and physical deficiencies, and they learn to live with them, usually with the help of their families.
Homosexuals are usually quite adept in conforming to our economic society, so that by and large they do not need financial support from their families. The primary basis for public acceptance appears then to be a matter of ego.
We all have deficiencies or lack of talent in some area. For example, I have very poor coordination between my brain and finger movements. It is basically impossible for me to become a piano player or even a tolerable typist. Does that mean that I should join with other persons having a similar malady and then develop a program so that the whole group obtains public acceptance for the fact that we all have this great deficiency? That doesn't make sense to me, and it also doesn't make sense to me that there should be gay advocacy groups.
If a person is apparently an inmately born homosexual, and he or she can find others of similar characteristic so that together they can develop a satisfactory sexual lifestyle, I have no objection. It is a private matter. I don't promote through any organization my heterosexuality. It is a private matter.
In spite of my personal feelings on the subject, apparently the promotional practices of homosexual groups does have an effect on the major heterosexual group. It appears that through these homosexual advocacy groups over the past 10 years, the public has developed greater acceptance for homosexuality. I also don't have any objection to this development, even though I am still opposed to such promotional programs. The reason for my acceptance is that I believe homosexuality is a physical/mental deficiency and previously known persons afflicted with this deficiency have been discriminated against on a personal basis. I believe such discrimination to be wrong and the development of public acceptance of homosexuality is a move in the correct direction, providing we do not elevate persons engaged in homosexual activity to be at a higher level of humanitarian acceptance.
I don't want the public to be sympathetic to my deficiency of brain/hand coordination, nor do I want the public to develop a position that by this deficiency I am somehow better than the average person. It Is a private matter, and I deal with it privately.

Compassion Run Amok

The Washington Times says some "reality" show hosts and Hollywood actors are showing compassion for fat people.
Reality show host Tyra Banks is attempting to console fat people by changing the lexicon. She wants to refer to fat women as “fiercely real”. In effect, she is saying to fat people they should not regard themselves as fat. It is a known fact that overeating and not exercising leads to obesity and is a choice that leads to a multitude of health issues like diabetes and heart disease.
Tyra is saying to fat people that if they do not regard themselves as fat, by using the new terminology, they will be absolved of responsibility for their fatness and thereby encouraged to do nothing to improve their lifestyle and longevity. Common sense would advise that this is a ridiculous approach to problem-solving and does great disservice to the subject audience; fat people. It also leads to the obese are being coddled, while we all pick up the tab with higher health insurance costs to treat them.
Fat people should be called exactly what they are — fat, overweight, obese. This would encourage them to make healthy lifestyle changes.
For whatever reason, some people like to be fat and prefer their present lifestyle, to the difficulty of a program of food control and exercise, even though the latter will reduce their health problems and increase their longevity. So be it. They should have the opportunity to make this decision. It should certainly not be forced upon them by government edict, nor should government in the form of taxpayers support the results of their decision.
A "reality" show should be about reality; not an effort to convince a segment of society to be unrealistic.

Appeal to Healthcare Insurance Company Executives

Open Email to Healthcare Insurance Executives:

Dear Healthcare Insurance Company Executives,
    With the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, another aspect of Socialism was injected into this Constitutional US Republic. One of the objectives of Obamacare was to put you out of business.
    You had three years to dig your own grave, and you recently culminated this with the cancellation of millions of healthcare insurance policies and their premiums, as required by government.
    Unanticipated by many, these cancellations have now turned in your favor, as the federal government has been proved inapt in instituting all of the Obamacare provisions. The has led to subsequent political wrangling, primarily involving Pres. Obama's often repeated claim that individuals could keep their previously held healthcare insurance policies, if they so so desired.
    The President is now on the hook, because of the increased millions of citizens now not having health healthcare insurance, and which he forced on you. Some may claim that healthcare insurance companies are responsible for the fiasco, but that is obtuse thinking. The obvious rational approach is that the insurance companies have been only instruments forced to do the President's will.
    It is now reported that Pres. Obama has now come to you for assistance in salvaging his "good name". I believe we all recognize that if Pres. Obama requests you to reinstitute canceled policies, that will be a practical impossibility. Some have likened it to putting toothpaste back in the tube.
    More importantly I believe you suddenly have an opportunity to help save this country from Socialism. You can do this to your own benefit, by reviving the private healthcare insurance industry. To put it simply, do not cooperate with Pres. Obama in any way. Let him squirm and take the political heat for his attempt to put you out of business. If you are successful in aiding the disassembly of Obamacare with subsequent loss of face to Democrats by the public, you will have done a great service to your country in revitalizing its position as a constitutional Republic, while you simultaneously gain the economic advantages therefrom.

Where Was Congress?

Open Email to Congress and Taxpayers,

Dear Representatives, Senators, and Taxpayers,
    Those of you who are acquainted with my writings are aware that I'm not a big fan of the federal government, particularly the Administrative branch and its various agencies.
    With that said, let's discuss the process of developing laws and their application. Consider this with respect specifically to Obamacare.
    When a bill is developed by Congress and signed by the President, it becomes federal law. At that point, the application of the law is passed to a federal agency, which appears most appropriate considering the law's context.
    However, Congress well knows that no law is perfect. It may require some subsequent adjustment on the part of Congress. In addition, Congress has a responsibility to see that the law is actually applied. For that purpose, both the House and the Senate have established for each law an oversight responsibility", which is placed in one of their committees.
    The implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, also known as Obamacare, was placed by the Obama Administration with Sec Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services.
    The House has 25 committees and joint committees. None of these mention Health, but the closest to Obamacare is probably Oversight & Government Reform (OGR). Darrell Issa (CA) is the Chairman. The House’s committees oversee agencies, programs, and activities within their jurisdictions. OGR has six subcommittees, none of which are applicable to health. However, Issa has taken on congressional hearings on Obamacare, which somewhat confirms that committee's oversight of the Affordable Healthcare Act..

    The Senate has 20 standing committees, of which Health, Education, Labor, and, Pensions (HELP) is one. Tom Harkin (IA) is Chairman. The HELP Committee jurisdiction encompasses most of the agencies, institutes, and programs of the Department of Health and Human Services. HELP has three subcommittees of which Primary Health and Aging is one. Bernard Sanders (VT) is Chairman.The Subcommittee has oversight over the The Older Americans Act; and the Health Resources and Services Act. The Affordable Healthcare Act would obviously fit here, but is not mentioned.
    Now for the big question. The Affordable Healthcare Act became law three years ago. In the last three years, who in the House and who in the Senate were watching to see that the law was properly implemented?

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Obamacare

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have read your newsletter on Obamacare.    With all due respect, I suggest you are off base with your claim that Sec. Sebelius should resign, because there might be convicted felons in the Navigator group. I'm sure that as a lawyer, you well know the difference between "might be" and "are". Before you make an accusation, you might better retain your reputation for integrity by assuring yourself that what you are suggesting is fact and not supposition. I'm not doubting that there might be convicted felons in the Navigator Group. However, there might also be ministers of the gospel, murderers, political opportunists, etc.
    Conversely, I agree completely with your statement that "Once the website's fixed, then people are going to see the rate shock, they are going to see the fact that the President's promised 'if you like what you have, you can keep it', is not true". While this is a prediction, it is clearly meant to be one. In addition, we know that there are so many policies which have been canceled by private insurance companies, without possible return to previous conditions, there can be no return to "you can keep it".

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on Obamacare

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your form letter indicating your opposition to Obamacare and your continued efforts to defund or repeal it.
    As you know, Senate Democrats and the President have dug in their heels against defunding, and there is no way that you will be successful in defunding or repealing the law, with the present constitution of a Democratic Senate and President. Additionally, Government shutdown did not impose any imposition on Obamacare taking affect as scheduled.
    The full Congress and the President voted to establish this law, presumably as the will of the people. It is also so constituted in its myriad pages, that there is no possibility it can be decimated, until we have a change in government.
    Although you now claim your opposition, I cannot completely forgive you for being part of the Senate that has foisted such a horrendous burden on the American people concerning the future integrity of the United States government. Apparently, you voted against the bill in the Senate, but you did not raise enough hell to gain disapproval of what what even appeared to be a monstrosity at the time. We will all now suffer from this neglect.