My book, Who Will Speak for the American Ideal addresses aspects of our public policy through a balanced perspective. My target audience is broad; I aim for both ends of the political spectrum, reaching out to the so called "whacko liberals" and the "hysterical neoconservatives". I am also targeting the large group of people in the middle that appreciate a clear statement of the issues and an analysis that strikes a balance in what our public policy ought to be. I consider my book to be a political work for people that have never thought of buying a book on politics. I speak to what people are seeking ?C clear and concise presentation of the issues and a value-driven assessment of what our societal response should be.

I make one clear distinction about freedom and Americans ?C people are not free because they claim to be or even by setting up a democracy. Freedom is an outcome not a starting point. We are free because we live by ideals. People that cherish and live by the creeds of personal responsibility, justice, and charity will always be free.

The following is an excerpt from the chapter on political vote getting programs  - what I call "The Political Candy Store"

JOB SECURITY

To be simplistic job security is always having your job. If we show up at work and the doors are open we feel secure. Security is often perceived as freedom from the consequences of risk or change. Therefore, our jobs are secure if change does not affect us. Can freedom from consequence make us secure? Can the absence of consequence keep us growing; can the absence of consequence keep us strong; can the absence of consequence keep us free? Consequence affects life as gravity affects an apple; it makes it go in a direction that is useful. Consequence is our ally. Riding atop the wave of consequence can make us secure.

Other than the rising sun we can count on the world changing, with us or without us. The consequence of change is that high-paying leading edge jobs will become a commodity. What was in demand will become passé. What was once unknown will be the wave of the future. Competitors will emerge from jungles and will equal or exceed our present-day innovation, creativity and energy. The power of a changing world is that it drives the human mind to adapt, to build knowledge, and to create new and better technology that improves the standard of living for everybody. We are a thinking animal and we grow through the use of our minds and imagination. We are blessed with an ability to think our way through the challenges placed in our path.

The reality of change has created a serious consequence for our society. The top of the industrial mountain is getting crowded with very powerful competitors. Our old factories find it hard to compete with spanking brand new factories and low cost workers in other lands. Our universities are full of foreign-born students learning leading edge science, mathematics, engineering and technology. Home grown Americans are typically a very noticeable minority in these classes. With all these changes we feel our economic power and prestige are under attack and we don't like it. The answers come easy to the ideologues; we have one of two solutions. Conservatives argue the following:

1. The free markets define the real world and meddling will leave us in the cold. Stop crying and get on with your life. Opportunity abounds if you wake up and make good decisions. Or?

As we listen to the liberal ideological camp we hear the following:

2. We are giving away our jobs and business would not care if the United States was up for auction if there were a few bucks to be made. We need rules that keep today's jobs here and assure that corporate greed will not pay.

The following is an excerpt from the chapter on political vote getting programs -  what I call "The Political Candy Store"

HEALTH CARE

In the 1960s, people paid about 56% of their health care expense out-of-pocket, meaning they wrote a check. Today we write a check for about 15% of our health care expenses. The theory goes that since we personally pay so little toward the cost of health care we naturally demand more of it, thus bringing up the prices. There is some truth to the concept. Imagine that a third party agrees to pay 85% toward the cost of a house. People will demand bigger and fancier houses and developers will start including granite toilets and door knob warmers to entice buyers. The true cost of a house will go up, but people won't care, even if a granite toilet and door knob warmers were a waste for them. It is only costing fifteen cents on the dollar. Taking this analogy over to health care the theory goes that our system has removed the decision maker, the patient, from the decision process. The market won't work because the demand side has no incentive to act on the market.

A pure market-based health care system would place the decisions for health care in the hands of the patient. Each patient would weigh the value of the care against the cost. If the cost is not in line with the perceived value the person won't demand the care. Suppliers, wanting to provide the service, will lower the price until the service is in demand. The best real world proof of this theory is LASIK eye surgery. The surgery was very expensive when it was first offered; often costing several $1000 per eye; and the process was rarely covered by insurance. Marketing research showed that there was a big demand for LASIK at the right price. Given the high profits when the surgery was first offered ophthalmologists flooded the market and the cost of LASIK plummeted. Dental care is another example where patients pay a significant portion of the care and the growth in the cost is under control. The theory goes that because people pay out of their pocket to care for their teeth the demand is managed by the patient, and does not drive up the cost.

How well do the LASIK and dental examples translate to health care? First, LASIK is a choice and there are acceptable substitutes, like glasses. If the cost of LASIK is too high people will not partake and will go with the substitute. Dental care is partially discretionary; it depends upon how long a person will live with a tooth ache. Preventative dental work can cost a few hundred dollars; good restorative dental work can cost a few thousand dollars. Medical care can cost $100,000 and more. Dental technology has not exploded either - sorry dentists you have a lot of new pain-free methods and techniques, but yanking a tooth is yanking a tooth. The similarities of LASIK and dental care to general health care are starting to fade.

I find it hard to stretch the personal decision making process that weighs ground beef against sirloin, or LASIK against glasses to choosing medical care or death. Are people rushing after heart transplants, bypass surgery, dialysis, mastectomies, chemotherapy and other major procedures because these procedures are perceived as free? Most people would rather not face these procedures if possible. People are not demanding these procedures because they are "free" they are demanding the procedures because they need them, and because they are available.

The demand exists because the need exists.