Andy Borgmann's Blog

I have not had a physical in five years. This is not something I am proud of. It is just the truth. I don't get sick very often. Which is good. But the downside is that I haven't been able to find a good general physician.

I think it is because I was spoiled living Fort Wayne, IN. I had the greatest doctor from the moment I was born. Dr. Muhler was awesome. Graduated from Notre Dame. Very knowledgeable. Voted by doctors in his community as the doctor they would most like to be treated by. Heck, his father invented fluoride toothpaste for Proctor & Gamble.

Realizing I was coming to Fort Wayne at the end of this month, I figured I would try to schedule a physical with Dr. Muhler, but alas, the next physical appointment available is in November. Ohh well.

But this got me thinking, it wasn't just Dr. Muhler. Fort Wayne, as a whole, has an awesome healthcare community. It is a community that no where else I have lived or been to has been able to compete with.

If my gallbladder needs to say goodbye to my kidney, I want Dr. Justice yanking that sucker out.

If I inadvertently knock somebody up, the first face I want my first child to see is Dr. Alexander.

If I get cancer, the person making my body feel on fire due to the chemo had better be Dr. Rhinehart.

But this post isn't about all the doctors I psuedo-know. It's about Universal Healthcare. Because it hit me how important having a doctor who is knowledgeable and trustworthy is to your overall health.

When we don't feel comfortable with a situation, we are inclined to neglect it. Be it a relationship, or a job, or our healthcare. This would be Universal Healthcare's impact on the American medical community.

People are given less options. They feel less in control. And they ultimately become distrustful of the whole process.

We then would seek out medical care where we can get control. Just like how I was attempting to get a physical close to 600 miles from my home, so will millions of Americans if Universal Healthcare becomes a reality. But instead of 600 miles, it will be 6,000 miles as we leave the country to find our best options.

It's called medical tourism, and it would be an inevitable consequence of Universal Healthcare.¹

Two years ago, I called it. Two years ago, everyone called me insane. Two years ago, everyone just told me to shut up. But I called it! And it ain't stopping anytime soon.

I have made it no secret on this blog and on air that I vehemently appose the seat belt law. I will even go as far as saying that I think it is the largest domestic affront that I am concerned about in this country. More than wiretapping. More than drug use. More than abortion. More than anything.

And the reason this simple, "well-meaning" law is such an afront is that it is the first example of the government saying "we are here to protect you from yourself."

It's a fundamental shift in our understanding of the role of Government in our life. It transcends into every other issue this country faces because we have conceded by silence that we agree the government is better at taking care of us than ourselves.

Every other law on our books is designed to protect us from others, not ourselves. And while the Soccer-moms and AAA-organizations and the Police-organizations of this world cheered the governments attempt to make our society safer, I lamented.

And my reason for this was because it doesn't stop with the seat belt law.

I said back in 2006 one of the next steps was legislating our health, and then today I get a Press Release from a publicist in my inbox confirming it has begun. The basic gist: the US¹ government is starting to take obese kids away from parents.

They justify that it is unhealthy for the child and costing the public billions of dollars.² Seat belt laws started off this way too. Only kids had to be buckled up. Now it is everyone.³

So again I ask, where does it stop? What's next? Why do we applaud this kind of action by an increasingly too-powerful government? The seat belt was just the beginning...

We have been on the radio for three years now. I have decided that unlike men, all opinions are not created equal which means not everyone deserves to have an opinion. For now on, I am going to require a simple, but apparently difficult, logic test for all people before they share an opinion.

Ready...

True or false:
      If A implies B.
      Then B implies A.

Simple enough right? Think you know the answer? Read on...

The inspiration behind this post is an email we received last night from Lucida on our topic "Man's Best Friend Has Become Man's God". She writes: "From a factual standpoint: It has been well studied and documented that animal cruelty is associated with crimes against human beings." The implication. Those that are cruel to animals are just destined to become murders.

Now the study she is referring to is true. It has been proven that those who have committed serious crimes had shown a propensity towards animal cruelty before acting out on humans. But does the inverse ring true as well?¹

Another classic statement I hear is that studies have shown that serial rapists were also pornography users.

Well duh! Of course those who are rapists are going to have an abnormal view of sexuality. But does the inverse run true? Are those who struggle with porn one image away from becoming a rapist?

When I was in high school, I took an Introduction to Philosophy class at Huntington University. As I later realized, it was less a class on classic philosophy and more a class on logic. The above test was essentially day one of the class.

Let's take the murders and rapists and alphabet letters² out of the equation and put it in more simple terms.

If it is raining the streets are wet. The streets are wet, therefore it must be raining. Wait a minute, something isn't right about that statement.

And now we are back to my test. Why doesn't that sound right? Because logic that assumes since a implies b, therefore b implies a is false. The streets could be wet because of a fire hydrant or because a dam break or thousands of other reasons.

If you answered true to the test above, you would be wrong, and no longer deserve to have an opinion as there is something fundamentally wrong at the core of your logic.

If you have an opinion, be sure to leave it in the comment box below.³

I can't stand Nancy Grace. I am sure she is a fine person in real life, but there are at least 4 things that bother me:

1. Her allegations of prosecutorial misconduct
2. Her knack for berating guests to the point they kill themselves
3. Her disregard for innocence until proven guilty.
4. And if I hear her talk about Natalie Holloway one more time¹...God help us all.

The interesting part about all this: Allen has been good friend's with Nancy Grace's husband for over 20 years. Which is ok. I am sure Allen can't stand some of my friends.² But it leads to some hilarious conversations between the two of us...

Here's the background. Nancy is having a party, so Allen got an evite from her. And by her, I mean Nancy's assistant. But the funny thing about the evite is that she spelled "Grace" - "Gace." I saw this and was found it slightly humorous.

Now please remember that Allen makes fun of me for not being a good speller, and, lets be honest, if Allen ever needed an evite sent out, I would be the one to do it.

And here is our e-mail back-and-forth....

What can I say. Allen's a good friend and defends her well. And I freaking love my job!

I went to Hilton Head again this weekend. It was wonderful. I relaxed and did absolutely nothing on Friday but sit on the beach and listen to music. Had good discussion with Charlie. Watched baseball with Nick. Julia studied her Bar Review materials. Great time. But on the drive down, I paid over $4.00 per gallon for fuel for the first time. In doing so, I think I am the only American that doesn't mind it a bit.

Fuel is in theory at "record highs" right now, but my question is "record highs" compared to what? The 1990s? The 1970s? Let's put this in perspective.

When adjusted for inflation, fuel prices are just $.25 more per gallon than they were in 1979. While this still constitutes a "record high" label, it isn't quite the burdening number most of us think it is.

The chart below shows fuel prices from 1979 to 2008. Look how the red line (actual price paid) jumps significantly higher, but when adjusted for inflation, it stays relatively the same.

Think about the price you paid for your house in 1982. Doesn't your current house look ridiculously expense when in comparison to your 1982 house? It's the same with fuel.

The problem lies in perception. For some reason we bought the idea that the fuel prices of the late 90s were somehow the norm, instead of an anomaly. I remember one time filling up at a Speedway station in Fort Wayne, IN for $.76 in the summer of 1999.

But these fuel prices were largely due the Asian market crash of the 90s (as well as the tech burst) and should never have been thought of as normal. In fact, they were further from normal on the low-side, as fuel prices are now on the high-side.

Now we all know I am super anal retentive. So I went through my records and pulled up every¹ fuel purchase I made from 2002 to 2008. When adjusted for state differential and inflation, I am paying approximately $2.00 more a gallon now when compared to 2002. So it is easy to see why it "feels" bad. But in 2002 we were still $.25 below the adjusted norm of 1979.

So does this mean fuel prices are where they should be? No. I am not going to say that. It is slightly high. But these things will correct themselves over time. What I am saying is that for most of us out there, the pain at the pump is more a mental problem than it is an actual budget problem.

And heck, at least we aren't in Europe paying over $9.00 per gallon for fuel. We have much to be grateful for.

P.S. For those who want the charts of date you can find them here: Fuel Prices Workbook. And if you really want to see an example of my anal retentiveness, you can see my Fuel Mileage Worksheet for my Honda Civic.