Flu Prevention With Ultraviolet Light

I have been researching how to prevent the flu and want to share with you what I have found

In a prior blog, I pointed out that "Ozone" is a powerful oxidizer that can destroy flu virus in the air.  Now, I am adding "ultraviolet light" to the list.  As it turns out these units can be dirt cheap.  Often they are little more than special light  bulbs that emit "ultraviolet" light.  It is the same stuff that the Sun produces.  Much of the bottled water that we all drink is sterilized using "ultraviolet" light.

I looked on Amazon and found that they had all kinds of bulbs and units that produced "ultraviolet" light.  These units have been used for years in many restaurants and bars to eliminate smells and smoke. You can use them in your home for the same thing and also kill virus, mold and bacteria.  The advantage of "ultraviolet" light is that it does not have a smell as does ozone.  The disadvantage is that the "ultraviolet" light has to actually "hit" the object to destroy it, where as, ozone can circulate in the air until it finds the target.

In the process, I did some research on other air borne problems like legionnaires disease and found that humidifiers can make the problem worse.  The type of humidifier that mists the water into the air is the worst.  It not only deposits a type of dust on your furniture, it carries the pathogens into the air along with the small droplets of water.

Rather than spending ones money on face masks, I think we would be better off putting in a few "ultraviolet" light bulbs.  Another fact is the the energy to power the lights works out to be "free".  Why is that?  The electricity that you send into the light is used 100% to make "light" and "heat".  What you spend powering the light is off-set by what you do not have to spend for heat.  Since the flu period is mainly during the heating season, you needed the heat any way!

What I can not figure out is why the media and our government has been so silent on the subject.  The face mask does little more than a Jesse James bandanna.  The only one needing a face mask is the person with the flu so they do not put virus into the air as the cough, breath and talk.  It does not help a person who is not sick.

Ask your kids if they have ozone or ultraviolet systems in their schools.  Check with the owners of movie theaters and other places where lot of people gather to see if they have these cheap protective devices.  You can get them for your car too.  Many people have used them for years to get rid of smells like pets.  It is the same thing!

PS--It is interesting that hunters have been using ozone and ultraviolet devices for years to get rid off smells and to prevent germs from infecting their meat as they process it.  Dick's sporting goods and the Bass Proshop have been selling these units for years.

New Name For Capitalism

Back when I took Economics 101, I studied both Capitalism and Socialism, but today I think that I got short changed.  It happens all the time in our colleges and universities.  In this blog, I will show that Capitalism is dead, just like Socialism is dead.

I would like to see if I can create a new name for the economics of the future and to do that we first need to look at the past.  The reason that the name Capitalism was invented is that years ago, there was no way that you could start a business if you did not have "capital".  Who used to have the "capital"?  It was those who were insiders and loyal to the Kings and Queens of the day.  Look at it this way.  If you had the money to fund the textile equipment, you could start and build a textile mill.  If you did not have the money, you were on the outside looking in.  There was little chance if you were born to a mill worker that you could ever actually own the mill.  This is the model for thousands of years and thus it was named Capitalism.  It was a good name for the times, but what about today?

Look at companies like GE or Sears.  Those were companies who had their position as a result of old fashion capitalism, but things have changed and they did not.  The economic model of the future is "merit"!  Look at companies who dominate economics today.  How many got here because the founders had a big bank roll.  None!  Look at Facebook.  Was it a big bank role or was it a good idea that won the day?  No!  it was the "merit" of the idea and the person who pushed it.  The way I see it, this is the most fair economic system that has ever "evolved".  It was not created, it is the natural results of honest selection based on "merit"..

Think about it?  Is there any other way that economic growth could be driven other than "merit".  We accept this in sports like football and basket ball.  Why else would the liberals accept the fact that 90% of professional basket ball players are Black?  They know that it is the fair result of simple "merit".  If we accept this in our social areas and sports, how about economics?  It is the same and it is "fair".  We salute equal opportunity and it appears that we are finally putting our mouths where our hearts have been.

I would like to see my readers talking in terms of "Merit Economics" rather than Capitalism because it more accurately represents what we all support.  Watch and see if things don't change like they should.

Health Care Cost

It looks like health care cost is the big tent pole on the up coming election.  If that is the case, why is it that no one is talking about lowering the cost?  Do you think my statement is wrong?  If so read on to my blog.

It is a fact that the USA spends more on health care than any other country in the world. I think that it is about 18% of our total GNP!  The surprising part is that after spending so much of our wealth on health care, the USA is still far down the list on life expectancy. I think that this points out that we have a bigger problem than just the cost of health care.  Now, onto the problem.

Notice that my title is "Health Care Cost".  If that is our problem, why don't we deal with the problem?  All we hear from our politicians is that the solution is to get the government to pay for your health care.  Or better yet, get your neighbor to pick up the tab for you.  As I have pointed out in the past, this not a solution.  It is at best a band aid that only hides the problem for sight,  In this blog, I want to get into the "cost" of health care.  We all know that the government can not do anything as efficiently as an individual citizen,  Only a small portion of the money the government takes from your neighbor will end up paying your medical bill.  How do we really attack the "cost" of medical care?

First we need to look at where the money goes that we pay for our medical services.  I can not find the exact numbers any where so I have created my own.  I don't think that they are that far off.  Here is my list:
(1)   Direct pay to the doctors, nurses and staff                                             15%.
(2)   Pay that the (1) uses to pay back their education and certifications       10%
(3)   Liability insurance (1) spend to protect them from lawyers                     5%
(4)   Cost for state of the art facilities                                                              16%
(5)   Pay to the insurance companies and hospital administrations                  12%
(6)   Defensive medicine to avoid being sued by the legal vultures                 15%
(7)   Drugs                                                                                                          18%
(8)   Supplies                                                                                                      8%
                                                                                                                          100%

There you have it.  Now, why isn't anyone working to reduce the "cost"?   All they want to do is to get your neighbor to pick up the tab for your medical cost.  The only thing that is going to do is to drive the real cost of medical care "up" just like it has the cost of college.  I think you can see that the current approach is clearly not a solution for the "cost" of medical care.

You would think as the economy has grown, we should be able to more easily pay for our own medical cost, but it has not worked out that way.  Even though the median family income has gone up, the cost of medical care has gone up faster and that is a fact.  Growth of median family income is thus not the solution alone.  I would propose that we work on the individual items above in my list.

Take (1), the actual net pay to the doctors.  Currently the average doctor works as a doctor from about age 33 to age 63 for a total of 30 years.  What if there was some way for them to work from age 28 to age 63 for a total of 35 years and make the same amount of money?  That would work out to a saving of 14.3% of  15% or a net of just over 2% of the total.

Next, let's take on (2).  The cost of a degree is a function of the number of years of  college which is now about 12 years after high school.  In most countries kids go directly from high school to medical school  If we did this, we could easily cut the years by 4 years.  That would mean a degree would cost 40% less.  That would mean we would save 40% of the 10% above or a net of 4% on the total cost of medical.  Notice that we are now upto savings of 6%!

How about (3)?  How about patients being able to opt out of liability for their medical services and allow courts to punish bad doctors by disbarring them?  This would save an additional 5%  Notice that we are getting upto some big numbers here?

I am going to skip (5) for now and go onto (6).  This is a big one and it is clear that it would not be needed if we were to get the legal profession under some kind of control.  Given that medicine is not an exact science, I am only proposing that it be cut by 50% for an net savings of 7.5%.  The numbers are getting bigger and I don't think that I have reduced the quality of health care!

Now, (7), the big one "drugs".  I guess the government is working on this one.  It is 18%.  If you have been to a drug store lately, I think that you have noticed that all the Pharmacist does is "count" pills and types the label per the instructions from the doctor.  This is one area where the government could have a big impact.  Look at what Amazon has done to retail?  Between the legal and government regulations we have created a monster with drugs,  It would take a total series of blogs to sort this mess out, but if we really took on the job, I think that we could cut the 18% in half for a net savings of 9%.

The final step here is to add up my individual items and see what we get.  How about 20% savings on "cost".  If there is this potential, why are all of our politicians wanting to make the "cost" go up and then have your neighbor pick up the bill?  It is crazy!!!!

PS--The other big question that we should all be asking is, "Where is the state government on health care cost?"  There are no federal medical schools and very few hospitals on federal property.  The states are the ones who license doctors and lawyers, not the federal government!  The federal government regulates patents for medicines and approves medicines and again, they don't do a very good job.  Start asking you state governor what he is doing about medical "cost".  Getting your neighbor to pick up the tab for your medical bills only increases our medical "cost".

Farmers And Coders

Does this title ring a bell with you?  If it doesn't, this blog will explain why the title is significant.

Did you hear the statement by Presidential candidate Bloomberg?  He said that anyone could become a farmer because all a farmer does is dig a hole in the ground and toss in a seed.  I talked to some of my friends who are farmers and I can tell you that all were disgusted.  The fact is that farmers have advanced more technically in the past 100 years than any other economic group.  What this shows is that Bloomberg has very little understanding of anything outside of Wall Street.  Further, he has contempt for a significant cross section of the population who he expects to get votes from.  Isn't that what Clinton did in the last election?

Look at the next statement by Biden where he claimed that they could teach anyone how to "code".  It is clear that Biden could not teach anyone how to code, because it is clear that he has almost "zero" understanding about computers.  Programming is a lot more than coding.  99% of the structuring a computer program takes place before any code writing.  The expression among computer people is that the sooner you start coding, the longer it is going to take to complete the program.  If you don't understand that statement, maybe you don't appreciate programming either.  That is what Biden must have been betting on.

As I have pointed out in prior blogs, 99% of our politicians suffer from the same thing that both Bloomberg and Biden do.  What we all need to do is to look at what our politicians did before they became politicians.  Remember that the people who wrote the constitution had private professions before and after they were into politics.  Why did things change?  It was because us as voters.  We let it happen and have to take responsibility for it.

PS--After discussing the above with friends, I have a new angle.  Remember Henry Ford?  He figured out how to utilized low competency workers in high skill jobs on his assembly line.  It was called "specialization" and it works in some situations.  The problem is that many of us think that it is a solution without a down side.  There are some very technical sounding jobs where specialization is a solution, but not for all.  Farming is one of those areas.  A farmer can "not" just be a specialist.  He needs to know and be skilled in too many areas.  If you look at the general population, many can become specialists and thus perform in a narrow scope job or profession, but few have the natural talent to gain he broad range of skills needed to be a modern successful farmer.  That is one of the reasons that modern farmers are so disgusted with  Bloomberg's comments.

Another point is that many of us who have been educated as specialists feel that we are smarter than many of those who are "generalists?\".  As stated above, it requires more intellect to become a competent generalist like many of our farmers.  There is a saying about the highly educated and that is, "They know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing"..  We all need to be reminded of this often.  It is a fact that specialization can allow many of us to perform in specific jobs at higher levels, but it has limits that we need to recognize.

Flu And Ozone

How many of you know what "Ozone" is?  Do you know where it comes from or where it goes"  We are always hearing about the depletion of the Ozone layer at the South Pole.  Why is that?  I think that most people have no idea what Ozone really is or why it is important.  Is it a "Greenhouse" gas?  What does that mean?  I will try to shed some like on Ozone in this blog.

Ozone is Oxygen.  It is a special form of an Oxygen molecule.  The air we breath is made up 20% Oxygen in the form of two atoms of Oxygen stuck together in a single molecule.  Ozone is a bigger molecule made up of three atoms of oxygen stuck together.  It is that simple. Because Ozone is made up of three atoms of Oxygen, it is 50% heavier than air so it sinks down in the atmosphere.  It is close to the same weight as Carbon Dioxide and is considered a Greenhouse gas too.

Where does Ozone come from?  It is made from normal two atom molecules of Oxygen that have been bombarded just right from energy from the Sun or an electrical spark where the molecule is broken apart into two single atoms of Oxygen.  This normally happens in nature at high altitude where the Sun is the most intense.  Since the Sun's rays hits at a bad angle at the poles little Ozone is formed at places like the South Pole.  This is what the news media reports.  Now, what happens to these single atoms of Oxygen that have been split off?  They look for a place to attach and find normal two atom molecules of Oxygen a friendly place to attach.  This is how three atoms of Oxygen end up as Ozone.

The problem is that this relationship of this third atom of Oxygen is not stable and as soon as it can, it splits off again and looks for a better place to attach.  If it finds another single atom of Oxygen it form a two atom molecule and takes it place in the air.  If it finds a combustible particle in the air, like a virus, it combines with it burning and destroying the virus.  It would do the same thing to a carbon smoke particle too.  The bottom line is that Ozone actually cleans the air and sterilizes it.

The reason for all this build up is to ask why there is not more attention to the use of Ozone to kill the flu viruses in China and here?  It would seem that this would be a good thing.  Another point that I am just guessing at is why the flu tends to spread and be a problem more in the winter.  Is that because there is less Ozone in the air in the winter?  I know that heat kills most pathogens and temperature alone might be the reason.

Now that you know a little more about Ozone, you should what to see if the News reports anything related to the flu and the use of Ozone.

PS--How about ultraviolet light sources?  It is used to sterilize water and air in many areas.  Why are people so concerned about a "face mask" and not about "ozone" or "ultraviolet" devices?  I was just checking on Amazon and found that you can buy both of these devices today.  There is a "flash" type ultraviolet device that is used to sterilize surfaces.  The Sun does this and the Sun is more intense at high altitudes.  Have you seen any data on flu in high altitude locations?  Where is our accurate news when we need it?

PS--Hunters have been using ozone for years to get rid of their smell.  They have battery  powered units that hunters use in their hunting blinds to get rid of their smell.  They also have units that can be put in sealed bags with the hunter's cloths to kill their smell.  These units can be used in your home for killing flu virus or they could put them on school buses to protect our children.  Ever hear of that?  I did not think so.

The Wizard Of Oz

It seems that many of our younger people have never seen the move "The Wizard Of Oz".  This blog will try to point out how we have failed many of our children.

If you have gray hair, you probably remember seeing the movie "The Wizard Of Oz".  It was a nice children's story with a very important message.  I tested some friends to see if they ever got that important message and was surprised that many did "not".  You must have remembered the important message and if you did not, here it is.  When Dorthy looked behind the curtain she was surprised to find out the the wizard was a total fake.  Is that what you remember?  Today, do you caution your friends to be sure to "look behind the curtain"?

Here is why this is so important.  In "The Wizard Of Oz" the Lion, Scare Crow and the Tin Man all wanted to get something very significant from the Wizard Of Oz.  How could you fault them for wanting something that they all "deserved" so much?  Your heart had to go out to the three of them if you had any heart at all.  Are you starting to see the parallel here between the movie and what the liberal Democrats are proposing?  How could you be against free college tuition for all or free first class health care for all?  Rather than the Wizard promising all of these things, this time it is the liberal Democrats.

Taking a lesson from the movie "The Wizard Of Oz", the young people who are falling for the promises from the liberal Democrats should "look behind the curtain" and see that it is all a fake just like in the movie.  Why is it that no one ever mentions the movie "The Wizard Of Oz" when it comes to dealing with the liberal Democrats?  To my way of thinking, the movie is the perfect rebuttal of what the liberal Democrats are selling our young people.  Notice that the Wizard never delivered either and we all know that the Democrats will not be able to deliver either.  Where is all the money going to come from?  Look behind the curtain and you will see that there is no free money there.  It all has to come out of the pockets of the voters or better yet, your neighbor's pocket.  Why don't we all substitute the word "government" for "neighbor" because that is who will be picking up the tab for all this free stuff.  Ask yourself, "Can the government spend your money better than you can?"  You know the answer.

PS--Who is the "Wizard"?  Is it Bernie?

Stop and Frisk

It looks like "Stop and frisk" is back on the table.  Remember that program where the police in New York City stopped suspects and checked them to see if they were carrying an illegal gun.  It lowered the crime rate, but was stopped because only 10% of those stopped were found to be criminals.  This blog will try to put some of this in perspective.

Everyone knew at the time that 90% of those who were committing crimes were Black.  If that was the case, why wouldn't you expect the police to use that knowledge to try to combat crime in New York City?  How sure do the police need to be to stop someone?  The normal rule is "probable cause".  The fact that the word "probable" is in there would imply that the police do not have to be 100% sure.  Why don't we have a debate about how "probable" the police need to be to stop someone?  Think about how the seriousness of the crime might affect the "probable".  Do you think that it should be different for crimes like murder, robbery, speeding or shop lifting?  You know that it does!  In most situations, we would take into account the the cost of doing "nothing" vs preventing a serious crime..  If you went into a bank that had a metal detector, 99.9% of the people being checked would not be carrying a gun.  The ratio would be 1 bad guy per 1,000 good guys.  In the case of New York City, the ratios were something like 1 bad guy per 10 good guys.  Does that sound to you like the police were the "bad guys"?  I did not think so.

If we look deeper into the problem with crime in the Black community, we find some interesting facts.  Now let's compare Black community data with that from other communities.  If we compare Blacks with Asians in the USA, we get the following.  Asians have the lowest out of wedlock birth rate and the highest education and income  Blacks on the other hand have the highest rate of out of wedlock births and the lowest education and income.  Don't you think that we should look deeper into this very significant difference?  It is my position that the problems within the Black community is not caused by out side forces.  It is caused by the Black community itself.

If the Black community just focused on one thing, that should be out of wedlock births. I think that the ratio for the Blacks in the USA is that about 75%-80% are born out of wedlock.  In the state of New York, more Blacks are aborted than are born.  Does this sound like a situation where outsiders are preying on the Black community?  The problem is one of basic personal responsibility that comes from with in one's self.  It is not something that can be given or taken away by someone on the out side.  It is like honesty or integrity.  It is something that is or isn't inside of each individual.  Why is it that the Asian community seems to have this inside of them and the Black community does not?  Rather than looking for things on the outside, we all need to start looking for things on the inside.  As my good friend Sir Isaac Newton said, "All changes have a cause."  It has on always been this way, so why don't we start looking for the cause?

Argument For Change

Remember when Obama's slogan was "Hope And Change"?  Most of us have some kind of "Hope", so it naturally connects with most people without a need for a real definition. In this blog, I will try to shed some light on why "Change" might be a good slogan.

To understand my argument, you need to look at the mind set of two groups, the "young" and the "old".  Notice that it is the "young" who are most impressed by Obama's slogan "Hope And Change".Here is my reasoning for why this is the case.

If you are a young person who has to try to compete with the older people who already have jobs or positions in society, it can be a daunting situation.  How can a young inexperienced person expect to compete with an established and experienced older person?  It has to be clear that the older person has the advantage.  Here is an example of what I am talking about.  Assume that you are a young person who wants to be a machinist in a factory.  You will have to compete with machinists who have been a machinists for a long time and have acquired all kinds of knowledge and tricks.  You can see that it will be difficult to compete!

What if the factory was "changing" to computer controlled machines?  In this situation, the old machinist has to learn the same new technology that the new guy does.  This means that both start out even where neither has the advantage over the other.  In this case, it has to be clear the new guy favors "change"!  The "change" allows both to start off even.

It could be anything else and the young person would clearly favor "change", even if is into an area where the young person is not qualified or experienced.  This is why many younger people favor an economic system based on socialism.  They are not really concerned that socialism may be worse than the existing capitalism. They are only concerned that they have a level playing field with the older and more experience person.  Is this starting to explain why there is actually some logic into why so many young people favor change?

It could be in sports too.  I recall when football and baseball were the only major sports for kids.  Along came soccer and many younger kids jumped at the "new" sport.  Those who had tried football and baseball but did not do well or did not stay with it, now had a chance to get in on the ground floor.  They knew than none of their friends had experience with soccer and they could start out even.  Most kids accepted soccer even though they did not know much about it.  Those who had been playing football and baseball saw the change to soccer as a risk.  It has been my observation that many of the kids who went for soccer were not the best athletes.  Why was that?  I think that it is like the new machinist above.  Had the new machinist studied hard in school and had the intellect to compete with the older machinist, they would not have been a strong advocate for "change".  Do you see where I am going with this?

I m not against change that is thought out and is true progress, but I am against experimenting with change just because of a political slogan.  Look around and see if you agree with my observations.

DC Swamp

We always keep hearing  about the "swamp" in Washington DC, but what does that really mean?  I will try to shed some light on the subject in this blog.

Before I get into the actual Washington DC Swamp, we need some back up.  There are two groups in Washington DC and those are the"
(1)  Elected Officials and their appointees

(2)  Un-elected bureaucrat 
If you look at Washington DC, you will see that 99% of those who are supposed to serve you are the un-elected bureaucrats.  Further, who do you think controls those bureaucrats?  It is the 1% who are elected by you.

Given that we have the Washington DC "swamp", how do we deal with it and make sure that it serves the voters?  There are two kinds of elected officials and those are:
(1) Those who have experience running complex organizations with their own money.
(2)  Those who are simple minded politicians who have never run anything with their own money and who depend on "advice" from so called experts from the swamp.

Now, what is the best strategy for a voter who wants Washington DC to be responsive to the needs of the whole country?  Which kind of person should they vote for?  Both could be corrupt or incompetent.  Which one could do the most damage and which one could be the most responsive?  You need to look at both sides, good and bad.  Look at it this way.  The "swamp" has been there longer than any politician and knows the ropes better and you can bet that they have the power to squash any weak politician.  If you elect a politician who is weak and inexperienced in running a complex organization, you can bet that the "swamp" will end up running things,  While the "swamp" is running things, you will not hear much back lash from the "swamp" because they are happy with the situation.  If on the other hand, if you have elected a person who is competent and who has had experience running a complex organization the "swamp" will be screaming to high heaven.

To probe the point above, all you have to do is to look at the Trump administration compared to the Obama administration.  We hear all kinds of screaming about Trump from the "swamp", but we heard little from them during the Obama administration.  That was because the "swamp" was mostly in control while Obama went around making flowery speeches that put the voters to sleep.

What most people do not understand is that the "swamp" grows bigger and stronger every year since the USA was created.  Every good sounding new department grows beyond it original purpose to serve the voters to one that serves those in the "swamp".  Look at the department of education in Washington DC.  It sounded good at the time, but what good has it done?  As it has grown, it has expanded it's reach into our lives.  We are short of doctors, so why didn't the Department of Education see this problem coming and developed programs to assured that we did not have a shortage?  Isn't that the kind of thing we should have expected?  Getting my point?

What we need are "sun set" clauses on all new programs and departments so that someone makes sure that government departments and programs do not grow beyond their value to voters.  I would start by cutting all departments by 10% per year and requiring them to justify any new or additional tax money.  Not fund the government with "continuing resolutions".

Iowa And Health Care

I just saw that the number one item on the list of Iowan democrats is health care.  I will explore that on this blog.

It would be great if the cost of medical care was less and that more people could afford first class health care.  Can we all agree on that?  Given this starting point, what can we or should we do?  That is the big question.  Like any decision, now that we have an objective, what are the alternatives?  Here is my list.

(1)  Make health care cost less.
(2)  Get someone else to pay for your health care
(3)  Get people to earn more so they can afford their health care

(Remember, any alternative selected has to be "worth it".)

I think that you can see that there are only two of the alternatives above that are morally responsible and those are (1) and (3).  Forcing someone else to pay your health care cost is clearly not ethical or moral.  It is little different than theft as is bank robbery.  Now, how about the other two?

What we should be doing is asking voters if they would recommend that their children become doctors.  Further, we should ask them if they would recommend that their children charge "less" for their services as doctors.  I think you know the answers that you would get.  The same people who want cheap or free health care do not want to pay for their own children to go to medical school or for them to charge less.  Is that the depth of real dishonesty?  I think so

Now for some more details.  If we could graduate new doctors faster or cheaper, it would be possible  for them to charge less.  Now, that would be progress.  As it stands now, what we do is "import" over 50% of our doctors from places where they have doctor shortages.  It that ethical?  I don't think so even if it might be more economical.  Have you ever heard a politician who has proposed how we might produce more doctors here?  No!  All you hear is complaints about the cost, not the solution.

Now for (3),  if we were richer on an individual basis we could pay for our own health care cost. What is the main reason that people can not now afford their health care cost?  I think that the two tallest ten poles are:
(1)  High school drop outs
(2)  Taking worthless classes in high school and college
(3)  Getting knocked up out of wedlock or having children that one can not care for
(4)  Allowing a legal system that allows lawyers to prey on doctors and the medical system

Ask yourself this simple question.  "Would you prefer your child to become a doctor or a lawyer".  If you really feel that health cost is too high, then you should want your child to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  Simple isn't?

I have pointed this out in prior blogs that the currency of the future is "technology" and "intellect".  As a parent, if you have not gotten this message thru to your children, I think that you have failed your children and indirectly the country.  The country is driven by the quality of the decisions that each of us make day by day and you know it!

Another point, we know that any thing that our government does cost at least "twice" as much as individuals doing it themselves.  You only have to look around to see that this is true and I am not just talking about the federal government.  It is true at all levels. Home schooling your kids is superior and cheaper than sending them to government run schools.  This has been proven over and over again.  What if the government had a program that paid for your hair cut?  You know that it would cost twice as much and you hair cut would not be as good.  Given it the case, why do people keep asking the government to take on more and more?  It is stupid and you must know it!