Arizona’s Death Panel?


It’s bad enough that the Federal government created its first actual death panels thirty years ago, with organ transplants.

But, shortly after the Obamacare plan set up conditions that are likely to cause rationing, we have an example of how government health care is forced to decide who lives and dies, because of rationing.

In order to stay within their budget, Arizona has been forced to limit who is allowed to get organ transplants…literally picking who lives and dies. Already, 98 people have been identified who will not be allowed to get these transplants on Medicaid. This is what government health care must, inherently, do. It’s not the fault of Arizona, but part of Medicaid’s very nature.

In the 1980s, the Federal government imposed a ban on paid organ transplants, creating such a shortage that panels had to be set up to decide who got the rationed transplants, while a majority of transplant patients die while waiting, with lists up to ten years long.

Now, they are being forced by a socialized health care program to cut off even the few who might get transplants, dooming them to die.

We need real health care reform, not more of the very same government intervention that has caused the problem in the first place.

Advertisements

Black Racism Proves the Problem is Government


The Obama administration's racist abuses show that the problem isn't the race or sex of the abusers, but that government authority always gets abused.

I have long said that the main problem with, say, black rappers and militant black activists against The White Man is simply that they are confusing “white” with “government”. This is illustrated by the fact that the Obama administration is committing abuses against whites, now, and then the black racist rants of the people they’re shielding from prosecution.

If you simply remove the word “white” from  “The White Man”, suddenly angry black men become part of a much larger movement, and their objections/complaints become perfectly valid, if not some of their “solutions”:

“The White Man is keeping you down!”

No, The Man [government] is keeping you down…it’s just that in your time and place, it happens to be “white”.

  • The problem with the laws that keep you dependent, or make becoming successful illegal, is the law, not the color of the skin of the fools passing it.
  • The problem with the drug war isn’t the White Man using it to keep down the Black Man, but that corrupt or foolish government officials are using it to oppress society in general, especially poorer people.
  • The problem with police brutality isn’t White Cops, it’s power-abusing cops, the culture of cowardice (shoot first, ask questions and get paid leave for being wrong later, for Police Safety), and entitlement/privilege (“we are paid to enforce the law, not obey it” and how dare you exercise your rights instead of complying abjectly) that is the problem.

Of course the solutions proposed, whether anarchist or black activist, can include foolishness like “kill the police“. But only among the most foolish or crazy, and it’s easier to fall into that animalistic reaction when it’s racial, as well. Racism is tribalism, which is always bad.

We can see this with Malcom X, who was reportedly outgrowing the violent racial nonsense, apparently that’s WHY Louis Farrakhan and friends had him killed.

As it’s revealed that the Obama administration ordered black crimes against whites to not be prosecuted, and that black government officials specifically neglected helping white people, we can see that the problem is that authoritarian government ALWAYS gets abused, not the race or sex of the people who happen to be abusing it at any given moment in time.

Hayek Trumps Rothbard: Free Market in Money, not Fiat Gold


ALL VALUE is a “mutually shared illusion” in the marketplace.

What we need is not for a socialist government to force us to all use Fiat Gold, which is what Rothbardian faux-Austrians claim, but instead to have a free market in currency, like Hayek and the real Austrians have long said.

Money is an accounting tool, it has its own intrinsic worth as a means of facilitating and measuring trade and value. If you saddle it with some secondary function and valuation, like forming jewelry and USB connectors, then you end up with an even more unstable economy, as the value of the money becomes less predictable, changing with the supply and demand of that secondary commodity.

This is why we had bigger, worse economic downturns from 1873-1934, on the gold standard, and our best overall period of growth from 1973-2001, when we left Breton Woods and had not yet encountered the massive, Hoover-like growth of government under Bush.

The True Means of Production


Socialists like to proclaim that the workers are the means of production, and therefore should own all of its benefits.
But the factory worker is, in fact, the LEAST of the elements that goes into the production of wealth:
  • The inventor’s role is indispensable.
    Without him, there is nothing to make.
  • The entrepreneur, who recognizes the value of the invention and promotes its production, is almost as important.
    Without him, the invention is a dead end.
  • While anyone can invest, those who do are unique among the society in taking a risk and enabling the production.
    Without them, there are no resources for making it.
  • Without the facilitation of the management, everything would still fall on its face. Only some people are capable of organizing with any competence.
    Without this, people end up running in circles.
  • The engineers, who may not know science, but figure out how to produce things efficiently, have a relatively rare skill.
    Without them, nothing can be built effectively.
  • After all of that, the workers are little more than human cogs. Almost anyone can be trained into a production worker’s role…a fact that is exploited by the oppressive union monopolies, who TREAT them like interchangeable numbers.

Laborers can be proud of how they accomplish their otherwise-interchangeable role, and of their potential to move beyond their basic position. They have a right to the ambition of moving up into a less disposable role…but to pretend they are the “means of production” is fraudulent.

Corporations are Socialism



It's amazing how many things government intervention causes, and then blames on economic freedom

When people discover Stop Blaming Capitalism for Socialism’s Failures, or its Facebook Group, some are astonished at the list of problems government intervention has caused, them blamed on freedom of choice.

What often surprises them the most is that it includes the modern corporation.

We’re taught, in socialized education anyway, that corporations are an icon of everything wrong with capitalism.

The problem is that everything that makes a modern corporation has been imposed on us by government laws and force…and that’s socialism.

In fact, you can’t anything like the modern “public corporation”, in a free market.

Why could British Petroleum take risks that no privately owned company would dare? Because it’s effectively nationalized, as a Public Corporation. No owners or managers will be held accountable for the oil spill, not even under Obama’s abrogation of Rule of Law. Likewise any managers or owners in a company selling products it secretly knows are harmful, or fraudulent.

This is why you hear ads on the radio, by The Company Corporation, saying that you should incorporate your business, or to avoid liability for any harm you cause.

In a free market, there would be no way to simply renounce your liability for actions you take, or a company you own.

This can only be done by government fiat.

The very reason that Liberal Democrats pushed for the creation of corporate law, in the US, was to nationalize industries that they could not openly take over.

Since they couldn’t get people to accept an unaccountable People’s Automaking Bureau like you could in China, they simply ensured that existing automakers would become unaccountable bureaucracies owned by People.

In order to get the special treatment of a public corporation, a company must become OWNED by “the public”:

It is not allowed to simply write a custom document of ownership and sell stock to the public, to raise millions in capital. Instead, the company must follow a massive set of regulations, becoming in effect a mini-government.  In return for selling out their property rights, its owners and management become exempt from the consequences and liability for their actions, just like government bureaucrats.

Companies that do this, of course, have an unfair edge over companies that do not…so they come to dominate an industry, for example automaking.

And thus, the automaking industry comes to be owned by The People, through a quasi-governmental agency.

Impure, adulterated socialism, called Market Socialism…but socialism nonetheless.

The Double Thank-You of Capitalism


John Stossel is correct, when he points out that politics and socialism are Zero Sum Games, where wealth is taken by force and nothing gained, while the free market is a Win-Win Game, where in any transaction both sides feel they have gained, not lost.

You thank the clerk, and he thanks you…because he wanted the money more than the product, and you wanted the product more than the money.

The Anti-Jobs Bill: Tax Breaks for Welfare Jobs


If government could "create" jobs, it could simply pay half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment.

If government could "create" jobs, it could simply pay half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in, and we'd have full employment.

Drug mega-giant Pfizer recently dealt with its bloated payroll in St Louis, Missouri, by laying off over 600 employees.

It had hired them in order to gain reduced tax punishment from the local government. It was given a “break” of almost seven million dollars on the massive property tax, in return for hiring over one thousand employees…apparently more than it would otherwise have chosen to hire, or else the “break” would have been a meaningless loss of revenue for a money-strapped government.

Maintaining make-work welfare jobs, of course, was just a needless burden on the company. Eventually, such government coercion contributed enough to its woes that Pfizer actually found it necessary to lay off over half of its staff. In all likelihood, this backlash resulted in fewer jobs left-over than if it hadn’t over-hired to begin with.

When the government “encourages” hiring, it creates an employment bubble, just like when it encouraged home ownership, it created a housing bubble. When the bubble bursts, the net result is more harm than good, just as with housing.

Government “stimulating jobs” causes even more job loss, in the long run.

And yet Congress is about to pass a “jobs bill” that involves tax breaks for make-work hiring. Companies will be pushed to employ people they wouldn’t have otherwise chosen to do, essentially being forced to live beyond their means. In the long run, as with the housing boom and with Pfizer, this will backfire and cause MORE unemployment.

When the government “creates” a job, it’s just engaging in another form of welfare. A job “created” where one wasn’t actually needed has no honor, and causes harm. It is a burden on society…one that will come back to haunt, just the way the stimulus spending, bailouts, and other government busybody behavior will do.

The way to create jobs is not to “create” them directly, any more than you make sickly person healthy by giving him cocaine to create energy. Jobs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They work because people work to create more wealth than their job pays, justifying its existence. What we need is more wealth creation, and then the jobs will come naturally. And what is stifling job creation, already, is massive government regulation and interference, including the “stimulus” spending that out-competes healthy private ventures.

Bunning (Almost) Fights Unemployment


When you subsidize anything, you get more of that thing. Including unemployment.
I have a friend who got fed up with his job, and gave it up because he felt collecting unemployment was a better option. This, alone, is evidence of how unemployment benefits increase unemployment…but it gets worse:

He eventually got tired of not working at all, and got a job one day a week, just low enough not to cut into his unemployment benefit.

Here comes the “worse” part.

His employer liked him, and kept begging him to work full time…but he planned to kick back and relax until unemployment ran out. That’s right, benefits not only caused him to CHOOSE to be unemployed, but to refuse to take a full-time job, keeping him on the unemployment roles. But at least it would eventually run out…right?

  • Then Bush and Congress decided to extend it.
  • Then, when it was about to run out (again), Obama and Congress extended it once more. My friend has ended up living off the taxpayers, indefinitely, while his employer dreams of GIVING him full time work.
  • Then Jim Bunning decided my friend must go back to work. His employer must have been thrilled.

Not that Bunning is a principled Conservative, who believes in not subsidizing unemployment. No, he is just a partisan RiNO grandstanding against unfunded government spending…now that Bush isn’t the one spearheading it.

Which may be why he caved in, just a short time later. My friend gets to remain a burden on society, unemployment gets to remain artificially high.

Ever wonder how much of the 10% unemployment is simply people who CHOOSE not to work, because the government subsidizes not working?

What we need is more people in Congress who are actually like Jim Bunning was pretending, for a few hours, to be.

A Victory for True Health Care Reform?


The White House, today, announced a series of four ostensible concessions to demands that health care actually be reformed, not simply nationalized.

This is an encouraging step, although currently little more than a gesture. If it went forward as-is, it would only be a pyrrhic victory…but it does show that the socialized proposal is in serious trouble.

Let’s check out the changes, and see what’s left to fix:

  • CORRUPTION: Sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste

We don’t think having more of a police state is really the right approach, but with up to a quarter of all socialized health coverage being wasted, it’s a start.

  • RUNAWAY LAWSUITS: Expanding medical malpractice reform pilot programs

This sounds right…but depends on what these “pilot programs” actually are.

  • WAAH? Increasing payments to Medicaid providers?

What? They finally acknowledge that Medicare/Medicaid is grossly corrupt, and now they want to increase the money they throw at the system? This is reminiscent of Bush throwing of taxpayer money at Louisiana after Katrina, which is just a mirror of what got Louisiana in that position in the first place.

  • OVERINSURANCE: Expanding the use of health savings accounts.

If they just put more money into the existing, fake medical savings account programs, they are only making the problem worse. At the moment, you are only allowed to save health care money for one year, then it is stolen from you by the government, and you start over. This means people are forced to squander millions on needless “health care” spending at the end of each year…driving up health care prices. What is needed is REAL medical savings accounts, where you keep the money indefinitely, and when it gets large enough, you can reduce your medical insurance into a cheap program that only covers unexpected disasters, and even roll over your medical savings account into a retirement account.

So does this mean that the current, socialized health care megabill should be accepted?

No, in fact it means we need to fight harder than ever.

The bill would still do far more harm than good.

It still is comprised almost entirely of the same kind of measures that caused the problems we have in the first place. Massive government spending that drives up prices, new regulations that bog down providers, expansions of full coverage insurance that strip away consumer power…and worse:

All of it in one massive Megabill, allowing them to fill it with pork and bad measures that one must accept in order to get ANY change at all.

Obama Has a Mandate AGAINST Big Government



Bush didn't understand why people didn't like his Big Brotherment style, and Obama doesn't understand why people hate him copying it.

Obama fanatics are all confused and muddled by this anti-government backlash.

They keep saying “but a majority voted for Obama, they must WANT socialized health care”, or Cap and Trade, or Tax the Rich, or whatever.

We had an election, THEY won. This was proof of a mandate for a growing, interventionist government. Obama ran on socialized medicine, redistribution of taxes, environmentalist control of the economy, and he’s trying to do just what he always said he believed in, so:

Everyone should be happy…right?

Well, no.

See:

People were not voting for Obama

Aside from the absolute idiots who voted for or against him because he is half black, or on blind party lines, most people were specifically voting against Bush and McCain. Obama won because he ran on “change”.

And, regardless of any Democratic spin to the contrary, Bush had a Big Government administration. The change people wanted was less government intervention.

Expanding socialized medicine is not Change, it’s Business as Usual. The largest expansion of socialized medicine in US history was Bush’s prescription drug plan.

People voted not for a Che Guevara Wannabe, but against someone who governed like a Hugo Chavez-Wannabe, and his philosophical heir, who promised to be an even bigger advocate of government intervention.

  • They were not saying “we like Obama’s stimulus plan” but “we hate Bush’s stimulus plan, that McCain supports”.
  • Not “we like Obama’s plan to expand war in Afghanistan” but “we hate Bush’s war in Iraq, that McCain wants to extend”.
  • Instead of “we want Obama’s cap and trade proposal” they were saying “we hate McCain’s cap and trade proposal”.
  • People were voting against the Bush/McCain bank bailout, not for Obama’s bank takeover.

What we have gotten, under Obama, is not Change, but four more years of Bush’s philosophy of Big Brotherment.

The people striking out against Obama now are the same people who got Obama elected, voting against Bush by doing something other than voting for McCain, whether by abstaining, voting third party, or actually voting for Obama.

If he wants to save his presidency, Obama needs to realize the TEA Party and town hall speakers are the Obama mandate.

How to Prevent another Haitian Disaster


It’s not enough to simply run around making feelgood gestures in a panic-stricken reaction to the earthquake in Haiti.

We need to address why this went as horribly as it did. Sure, a similar earthquake in New York City would kill millions of people, but in almost any other area of the world, whose population density was comparable to Haiti, it would not have been as bad.

A few years ago, Haiti suffered a similarly exaggerated catastrophe because of a hurricane, that caused more death there than it would have anywhere else.

And next time anything goes wrong, at this rate, it will cause a needlessly great level of death and suffering, unless something is done to fix the underlying problem.

Why, exactly, is Haiti so impoverished?

What situation has its major city full of large, but insanely dilapidated buildings?

That’s pretty simple…it’s something we’re moving toward in the US, although we have a long way to go:

This is the fate that awaits anyone trying to create wealth in Haiti


Socialism.

Haiti, some time back, was considerably more prosperous and stable.

Then Jean-Bertrand Aristide, self-described Marxist, overthrew its elected Parliament, slaughtered its businessmen, farmers, essentially anyone who brought prosperity to the region, and imposed a reign of socialist terror that made Cuba look like a capitalist Mecca.

It has continued to decline, despite a stream of foreign aid, ever since. Well, OK, foreign aid generally just causes more poverty, but the core problem here is the country’s Marxist government, creating the poverty that causes the aid to appear necessary.

What Haiti needs isn’t simply more handouts, but to end its own self-imposed third world economic situation, where creating prosperity and well-being is outlawed, and punishable by death.

Fine, Kill Your Baby, But Don’t Make Me Help


Uncle Sam Squandering Taxpayer DollarsThe proposed Health Care “Reform” law includes, apparently, the taxpayer funding of abortion somewhere in its thousands of pages. But many taxpayers believe abortion is murder.

Abortion may need to be legal, but this doesn’t mean that people who oppose it can be justly forced to pay for it.

The first amendment protects, in essence, our freedom of conscience. Certainly in regard to religious beliefs.

It’s ironic that abortionists like to say that abortion should be legal because of religious freedom; Some portion of those against abortion oppose it on religious grounds…

To the extent that religion is the motivation behind opposing abortion, the first amendment therefore bans government funding of abortion, because one should not be forced to violate their own religion.

Now I’m agnostic, and like Thomas Jefferson regarding slavery, I believe abortion cannot be banned, even though it’s the killing of a human baby…but despite those things, it is clear to me that forcing people who believe abortion is murder to fund that killing would be a holocaust-level evil.

Where the Hell Are Medical Savings Accounts?


chained caduceusThe actual problem with our failing health care system is that consumers have no control over it. Already, too much is paid for by middlemen like insurance companies and government. If Americans only paid 5% of their food bills, a cheeseburger would cost fifty bucks, too.

Why are people handing off control of their health care to middlemen? Because government imposes massive taxes on them, and then “rewards” them, with tax breaks, for paying needless insurance companies to cover their well-care, checkups, and minor problems while charging them triple what those will cost.

If you say “screw that, boss, I’ll take the cash instead of the health insurance”, you’re forced to pay taxes on the money, when the insurance was pre-tax.

The solution? (aside from cutting the massive tax burden)

Medical Savings Accounts.

Instead of giving the money to a middleman insurance company, you get to keep it yourself, to save for any medical needs. It is not taxed, and once you accumulate enough to cover any predictable needs, you roll the rest over into a retirement account each year. Meanwhile, you by a very cheap catastrophic insurance plan, that only covers unexpected, rare disasters like cancer and falling in a wood chipper. These can cost only a fraction of a harmful full-coverage plan.

This gives you control over your own health care, the ONLY way to cut costs. It also allows you to save for your retirement, freeing you from depending on the ridiculous, doomed social security system that will NOT be there when even Gen X retires.

Why do we not have this?

Ask your congressman.

CEO Salaries: More Bailout Failure


I am opposed to socialism. It always does more harm than good. But I will not defend the executives of the companies that stole three hundred billion dollars from the US taxpayer. They opened the door to the nationalization of their companies, and the socialist Obama administration is simply following up on the precedent, just as they are following up on Bush’s socialist precedents.

Yes, the CEO compensation plan WILL cripple those companies, making them less likely to survive. But that’s what they get, for their robber baron status. The problem is the original socialist violation of the marketplace, not the cascade-effect it sets off.

We need to ban any more unconstitutional bailouts, not waste our breath objecting to its inevitable destruction of the companies who already bribed our government to get it.

%d bloggers like this: