Why Amateur Radio?

This is an excerpt from the TRO Signal Bulletin for 02 SEP 12:

As ham radio leaders are fond of reminding us, amateur radio is a hobby.  Most people that become hams do so because they enjoy doing things with radios.  Ham radio offers many opportunities to have fun, as well as chances for education, personal development, and fellowship.  But why should the government continue to allow ham radio to exist?

Much of what we do can be, and is, done by professional technicians and engineers.  If anyone wants to work with radios, they can go to school to get the training or education they need.  

Most of the professionals design, build, and maintain the communications systems used by the military, law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical, emergency management and other government agencies, as well as the broadcast industries that keep the general public informed.  Don't forget those that work to keep both the landline and cellular phone systems going. These systems do work most of the time, and nowdays, we see more and more interoperability incorporated into these systems.  In light of how well these system perform most of the time, someone might question the need for amateur radio.

But what often happens to these systems in major emergencies and disasters?  They fail, due to damage to the equipment, loss of power, or they become overloaded by the amount of traffic they have to handle immediately.

When this happens, the professionals concentrate their efforts on restoring and repairing these systems.  But vital messages still need to be passed.  The professionals don't have the time to handle this traffic.  What is obviously needed is a backup system already in place or easily deployable.  Amateur radio is that system.  That's why, "When All Else Fails...."

Craig Fugate, FEMA Administrator, recognized this at a recent conference, where he said, "But when you need Amateur Radio, you really need them."

For more about this conference and Fugate's remarks, go to this website:

http://nyc-arecs.org/last_line.html

The TRO Signal Bulletin is a text-only publication that I produce on behalf of the Tulsa Repeater Organization, and I send it out over the club's WA5LVT Yahoogroup.  It focuses on ham radio events and activities in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area.  To receive the Bulletin, you can sign up at the WA5LVT Yahoogroup here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WA5LVT/

Universal Health Care = Rationed Health Care

Universal health care is not the panacea it is promoted to be.

For a health care system to be universal, it must be managed by the government because the government is the only universal factor in society. The problem with that is the only way the government to manage health care is to ration it. So, a bureaucrat in a government office somewhere becomes the one to decide who gets health care, what kind of care they get, and how much.

Sound familiar? Isn't that what people have criticized HMO's for doing? With government rationed health care, that's what we can expect, and to a degree worse than what anyone has experienced with HMO's. Why? Because HMO's are businesses, and businesses will change their policies when they lose customers to their competitors. The government doesn't have competitors. People relying on government rationed health care are not customers and do not have the option of seeking health care anywhere else. Without compitettion, the government has no incentive to chage its policies, unless a riot occurs right outside the bureaucrat's door.

Someone recently wrote in to the Tulsa World and stated that Jordanians have a longer life expectancy than Americans, implying that this indicates a deficiency in the US health care system. Chances are, Jordanians eat a healthier diet than the typical American diet. The lettter writer didn't say anything about the type of health care system in Jordan. I don't hear much about people going to Jordan just to get superior health care. But I have heard of people coming from Canada to the US for life-saving surgery.

Health care begins with each individual. We all make choices, good or bad, about diet, exercise, hygiene and safety, that have a greater impact on our health than the decisions of any doctor, nurse, dentist, physical therapist, or government bureaucrat. Do you want the government taking those choices away from you or anyone else? For the government to make those choices for you is tyranny.

Beware of statistics cited by bureaucrats and politicians that seem to favor the government takeover of health care. If they can convince people of the for need government rationed health care, then they have created a need for government. If you "need" the government to take care of your health, you "need" the bureaucrats and politicians. They call that job security.

Before someone begins to think that I am a rich Republican who has gobs of insurance or can afford whatever health care I want, I have not had insurance for a long time. I did not have insurance 6 years ago when I had surgery. I am still paying the bills. If you think that is a pity, that the government should help me by paying my bills for me, my question is: Why? Why should the government do that for me? The government didn't cause my problem, and the government is not responsible for taking care of me. I am.

Politics, again

Well, Super Tuesday was almost a week ago, and the political landscape has changed a bit. Some of the changes were not to my liking, and they are beyond my control, but I did what I could. I voted. In the long run, voting is the most significant thing anyone can do during an election. Of course, you could actively campaign for the candidates and issues you care about, but isn't the goal of your campaigning to influence the votes of others?

Many question the need to follow the issues and vote. They think it doesn't affect them. Oh, but it does! If you want proof, look no further than your own pocketbook.
Get out your wallet or pocketbook sometime, along with blank sheet of paper. Make a list of everything you find in there. Then put a checkmark by anything that is issued or regulated by any government agency. Put a second mark by those items issued by the government. Now count up the number of items and the number of check marks. Divide the number of check marks by the numer of items, and multiply that by 100. That gives you the percentage of how much you should care about politics and government policy.

Of course, some say that all politicians are crooks, and they don't deserve your vote. Well, I will say, that in America, you get to choose your crook. Let's say you are given a choice between a crook who wants $50 of you money, and another who wants $50, 000. Which one would you choose?
And that's not the most relevant aspect of this situation. The politicians are going to get elected anyway. Do you want to let someone else decide which crook takes your money?