I say put Franklin Peirce on the $20!

I fear we are rapidly descending into angels on the head of a pin territory here, but I'll take a final stab. Look, I get it. It wasn't a bad move, your knight to Queen's rook 7 - a vocal, organized minority in 1830 made the public and moral case against Jackson's position on the Indian Removal Act, thus you can judge his actions to be immoral by the standards of his time period without ever entering the year 2010 into the equation, let alone the argument.

"Had every single person involved in the process of making the Indian Removal Act of 1830 thought the idea just and fair (I'll even ignore the Indian's legal claims, if that makes me seem more "objective" to you), then I would have no legitimate argument for questioning Jackson's place on the $20... or any other currency you care to mention. This, however, is NOT the case ..."

Here is my point - for the sake of intellectual honesty / consistency mustn't you apply this "across the board?" By your own hand you stated there was an organized, vocal minority of abolitionists as far back as 1780. Now I know you purposely left George Washington absent, but he is on the $1 bill and the quarter dollar coin, so I want to ask an applicable question: applying your standard is it not fair to say that Washington, arguably the most esteemed figure in US history (let alone among the presidents), had a clear moral choice regarding slavery due to the public case being made against its' practice during his time period? The women's suffrage movement predates Lincoln. So did he not have a clear moral choice due to the public case being made against gender discrimination during his time period? I doubt in any era you will find a federal act, policy or general consensus of societal norms in which "every single person" was for it. So wouldn't you then require taking Washington & Lincoln off the currency in search of a "better" candidate? They too were conscious of a "choice between just and unjust," as you wrote of Jackson. My point is that if you want to argue Jackson or Samuel P. Chase or Wilson be replaced, fine. But I would urge the case be based on their effectiveness as commander-in-chief, the overall success of their tenure and whether they helped to shape this nation in a positive direction. I would have no problem in your ranking Jackson low based on such a compilation. But to say he should be replaced on the $20 based on the "immorality" of the Indian Removal Act, means (as I interpret the "vocal minority of the time" rule you invoked) that you must prosecute all whom are "guilty", such as the 2 most revered figures in our history: Washington and Lincoln. Furthermore, if the requirement or standard is whether a public organized minority voiced a moral indignation at the time of the event, wouldn't your presidential report card be irreparably altered (if not turned on its' head) to effect that standard, rather than the one of overall success or failure which you previously applied? Doesn't FDR's policy (and it was his as soon as he became CiC) of the military (and all federal posts if I'm not mistaken) of segregation not fall under your stated standard? There certainly was a vocal minority publicly decrying institutionalized prejudices in the 30's & 40's - and that's not even touching the Japanese internments. I'm not trying to make any "clever" or cute argument, nor be argumentative for the sake of it, I am asking earnestly ... do you truly believe that the presence of a vocal opposition minority at the time of the event, publicly calling out the act, or policy, as immoral is enough to judge a past president as "immoral" to the point of removing honorary images such as their profile on our currency? Do you truly think that an effective or just historical tool to use as a standard for gauging these men of our shared history? Really?

*****
Congratulations on the job! Yet another feather in Obama's cap as he has now saved or created 2,000,001 jobs as of Saturday! Viva la stimulus !!!!

*****
Health care ... you couldn't be more right. I have been experiencing nearly exactly the same scenario. I haven't carried health insurance on myself since Katrina (the boys have it through my ex's employer). And its not because its unavailable to me. Even part time employees have access to a health insurance at my place of work. And last year I signed up for it. I summarily canceled it exactly 3 months later. It was costing me $240 per month. The hospitalization cap was $2,500.00. I did the short math and realized in 13 months I was paying more in premiums then would ever be used in any given "incident." I figured I'd be better off simply saving the money in a simple interest baring account. And how fast does one reach the $2,500 threshold in a hospital visit - between the sign in and 2 Tylenol you're at $1,500! In addition I brought my new insurance card into my regular doctor for my yearly "check up." Previously I had been paying $78 cash, no paperwork. After billing my insurance I was forwarded a bill for the amount I owed after the covered portion - $98! That's when I faxed in my signed cancellation request.

The point is, as Titus also made, the chasm between the patent's wallet and the actual bill is gaping. Ask anyone with employer based insurance how much their physician charges for xrays. For blood work, for procedure A, B, or C. They will have no clue. I'd wager 99% of insured patients never even see their bill. No questions are asked by the insured patient - "why do I need that?" "How much is it?" "Is there a cheaper way?" Free market principles have been completely abandoned, thus so are its' benefits - namely driving down cost through competition.

When the family pet gets sick, what do I do? I call around to the vets and ask how much they charge until I hit the lowest one. I walk in, pay cash, they have the medicine on site, I pay cash for that - in and out for $38 total. Employer based insurance started, in its infancy, during the Great Depression. A Texas hospital that noticed its' beds were much more empty while pocket books were tapped went to a local teacher's organization. They offered them a group rate for 25 hospital days per year, it worked to increase business in the hospital. Now think about that - they increased business NOT due to an outbreak, or virus or any medical related reason. But rather because once you are allotted 25 days and your premium is the same whether you use 3 or 25, you're going to use 25 - go in for the sniffles, might as well, you're paying for it. By the way, that hospital in Texas had a large blue cross over the front entrance.

The question quickly becomes, how do you put the same forces that are present when you're booking an airline ticket, to work in the medical arena? An Expedia, Priceline, and Travelocity of doctors. First, the cost must be addressed. And without tort reform you're never going to adequately address cost. There is untold millions built into the cost of each visit or hospital stay from doctors practicing "defensive medicine." If they are even close to being on the fence about the necessity of a certain test or procedure, they err on the side of caution and order it so as to leave no room for error ... in a deposition, not the examining room. Another move to increase competition is deregulation of the market's interstate restrictions. We have roughly 1,300 health insurance companies in this nation and do you know how many are allowed to practice in a state as densely populated as New York? 6. We can also start with the tax code - make every dollar I save in a health savings account, every dollar I spend on everything from prescriptions , to premiums to co pays, tax deductible. And by the way, the government already pays approximately 40% of all medical expenses in this nation from Medicaid, Medicare, CHIPS and so on (we are 11% away from having socialized medicine in this country without this bill). That level of government intervention of course artificially effects price. But I am unaware how one puts that genie back in the bottle.

Put bluntly, anyone claiming that big government will provide a better product then big insurance companies, is a fool.

Now, as to the Constitutional question. It is blatantly un-Constitutional to require me to purchase or otherwise carry health insurance under the threat of fine and imprisonment - which is in the Senate Bill Obama is looking to sign. Those whom would present the requirement of auto insurance as a defense are really demonstrating how little they've considered the issue. First, the states regulate and require the carrying of auto insurance, not the federal government. But far beyond that, I have a Constitutional right to "Life, liberty and ...", LIFE being the operative word here. They can not require me to make a purchase by virtue of my existence. My existence is a right. That's tantamount to requiring me to pay attorney retainer fees in case I am ever sued for slander, given my right to free speech under the first amendment. Driving is a privilege, not a right. The state can deny me a license if I have DUI's, or am under age, or am blind. They can not deny me any of my Constitutionally guaranteed rights because of such reasons. And I have a choice of purchasing a car. Were I to avoid that and use public and private modes I can avoid the auto insurance requirement all together. Another way to look at this health insurance requirement - it's like requiring an individual to buy auto insurance because they have a driver's license, regardless of whether or not they own or drive a car!

And this brings me to my last Constitutional problem with mandated health insurance ... what if I am a Scientologist? I have freedom of religion, guaranteed. Why should I be forced to purchase insurance for a behaviour my religion forbids? To force a Scientologist to purchase health insurance is like requiring an Amish man to purchase automobile insurance. In my opinion there is no doubt that such a requirement could be thrown out over religious concerns.

****
I advocate a flat income tax. Book 1, page 1, paragraph 1 of the F. Ryan Bund Tax Plan is a flat income tax. Somewhere in the arena of 12.5%. It is asinine in the extreme to have a 10,000 page tax code. A reasonably intelligent American citizen should be able to file his own taxes. And that will be ever more the reality if the tax form is ONE sheet long.

I concede that Smith is more oriented towards a progressive model, and thus I would not consider him a Libertarian or classic liberal (which is what a 2010 Libertarian is). But cut the conservative pundits a little slack - with Smiths emphasis on the individual its the closest they have to a "conservative manifesto." The lefties have had the infamous Marx & Engels 10 planks as a bedrock to point to since it was penned in 1848. Of course, were these pundits as bright as they portend (or at least as me...hehe) they would realize that mankind's true "conservative manifesto" was penned in 1787 ... ratified in 1789 ... and given its "10 planks" in 1791.