We Already Have Death Panels

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 29-03-2010


Democrats were jumping ugly when Sarah Palin said under ObamaCare we would have death panels. What she didn’t mention is that we already have death panels. Every year people die while the FDA forces companies to funnel money into their coffers, so they can “protect” us.

But what if we don’t want protected? Shouldn’t we have a choice?

Last month, Stossel had a special on how the FDA’s claims of being our protectors. He highlighted that when the FDA states that a new drug that they just approved will save X number of lives per year, what they are really saying is their 10 to 15 year drug approval period costs X number of lives every year while they held up the drug for approval.

The incentives at the FDA are to drag out drug approvals despite the lives it costs. There is no public uproar for those who die waiting. There is only uproar for those who take a drug that has been approved and results in side effects. With this upside down incentive, the FDA more than likely costs more lives than it would other wise cost if drugs were not regulated at all.

“Well, that’s just the system.”, you say. “You can’t really call that a death panel.”

But what if you were dying, and you wanted to take a drug that has shown promise? What if the only way to get the drug was to beg your government to allow you to have it? Well that is the reality many people face. Because the FDA has a monopoly on approving drugs, those who are the most ill among us must beg for the chance to save their own lives. What do side effects matter when you are going to die anyway? At least with an experimental drug, you might have a chance. Without it, the result is already known. Why does the government decide you should not have that opportunity? Who gave them the wisdom to decide someone must die?

The reason they cannot let people have untested drugs is because people would quickly catch onto their game. Soon people would challenge the idea of the FDA altogether, and to prevent that, they must let people die, people like Anna Tomalis, a 13 year old girl who fought to the very end to make sure others would have the opportunity she was denied.

Here is a blog post about Anna Tomalis followed by Stossel’s show where he talks about her.

Last Friday, I attended the funeral of a remarkable 13-year-old girl named Anna Tomalis. For the past three years, Anna had been battling terminal cancer and, more recently, trying to get the Food and Drug Administration to grant a “compassionate use” exemption so she could try an experimental cancer drug now being jointly developed by the pharmaceutical companies ARIAD and Merck. Unfortunately, FDA rarely grants exemptions. If too many exemptions are granted, it would become harder to enroll patients in clinical trials, where they have as much as a 50-50 chance of getting a placebo. Anna was too young and too sick to be admitted to any of the clinical trials, so that wasn’t at issue here. But, of course, the whole point of FDA is to keep individuals from making their own decisions about which drugs to take. So, eventually, after months of delay, FDA finally approved Anna’s exemption, but it came too late. She died just three weeks after beginning treatment — too little time for the drug to have worked.

I got to meet Anna and her mother Liz a few months ago, through a patient advocacy organization called the Abigail Alliance For Better Access To Developmental Drugs, with which CEI works occasionally. And, I continued to correspond with them both by e-mail ever since. Though I certainly did not know Anna very well, the service was quite moving. Her father, Ron, for example, explained that Anna realized all along that her chances of survival weren’t good. But, keeping a good attitude about the whole thing, Anna insisted that she be buried in a hot pink casket. Since no one actually makes a hot pink casket, her parents had to buy a non-descript one and take it to an auto body shop to have it painted pink.

Anna also tried to use her impending death in order to promote a change in the law that would make it easier for critically ill patients to get compassionate use exemptions. Even though she realized she wouldn’t last long enough to benefit personally from such a change, she visited Washington several times in order to advocate for such a policy. My op-ed on the subject appeared in this past weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal, and can be read here.

via Anna Tomalis, R.I.P. | OpenMarket.org.

Some “Compassionate use” exemption. Why should free people have to ask their government for an exemption? Shouldn’t we decide if we want to take a risk, when we already know what’s going to happen without doing anything? There is no compassion in government. Anytime, you see something titled like this, you can guess the exact opposite is true. There is nothing compassionate about a cold bureaucrat who wields the power of the state. They will let nothing, even a little girl, challenge their position to wield that power.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)

Federalist Paper XXXIX part 1 – Are we a republic?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, History | Posted on 29-03-2010


Over the weekend, I was reading some of the Federalist Papers. In particular, I was reading Madison’s Federalist Paper XXXIX, which discusses whether the proposed Constitution would create a national government, basically a democracy where the majority rules, or a federal government, where the government in broken down into a “confederacy of sovereign States”. He begins by discussing whether the proposed government is a republican government.

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.

After highlighting how many other nations claimed to be republics, while at the same time having all or parts of their government ruling over the people without the people bestowing those powers unto them, Madison explains that the Constitution is not just claiming to be a republic in words but in action.

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.

So, how are we stacking up as a republic these days? Do we have people administering the offices for a limited period of time and good behavior? Does Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd ring a bell as to if our officials serve for limited time periods and good behavior? Madison explains what happens when you do not have time limits on those serving, when he says it “would be degraded from the republican character”, meaning those serving would no longer represent the people.

Also, does our government get it’s powers from the “great body of society” or from “inconsiderable proportions, or a favored class”? Between Wall Street and the enslaved entitlement recipients, I’d say it now gets it’s powers from the latter. What does Madison say that leads to? If it’s the latter “a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” Sounds about right to me. While our government still claims to be a republic, it does not represent the people. It now has structured privileged classes that do not look out for the “great body of society” but enslaves a large enough portion to maintain the appearance of a republic, while at the same time favoring those who grease the palms of elected officials.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Opinion Checking One Journalist’s Fact Checking Of ObamaCare

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 25-03-2010


A friend of mine sent me this article yesterday that purports to be objective and fact checking on the health care bill. Since the author is supposedly only using facts, although selective facts, I figured I’d throw my opinions up. After all, facts are pretty useless without some context.

The tumultuous health care debate that brought you death panels and socialism has spun off a catalog of popular myths that will keep growing as President Barack Obama and all sides battle toward the midterm elections this fall.

OK, the cats out of the bag as to where the author stands already. I would call panels who decide what gets what care, which can ultimately be who lives and dies, death panels. While the name may not be the one that matches Obama’s PR push, it pretty much nails it. Also, the bills that were being pushed by the house, which would have obviously been part of the debate included the public option. What is the public option other than socialism. Granted, the bill that passed didn’t have it, so it’s technically not socialism. It’s more like fascism. I guess the President and the author think that is better.

At a White House signing ceremony Tuesday, Obama ventured the hope that Americans on all sides will judge the legislation for what it actually says and does. “When I sign this bill,” he declared, “all of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform.”

Of course, Obama is only talking about the oppositions’ rhetoric. I hope he realizes his rhetoric will be confronted with the reality as well. Oh, but don’t forget. Most of the bill doesn’t take place until after the next election. Obama won’t have to worry about being elected again after the bill finally takes effect. If he was really sure of the results, it would have went into effect right away, so his re-election would have hinged on the results.

Wishful thinking, Mr. President.

Facts are stubborn, the saying goes. But myths about the legislation are likely to persist as well. And a lot of people don’t agree on which is which.

“People have taken away from the debate a number of beliefs about the bill that are very difficult to shake based on objective reports,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health professor who follows opinion trends. “There is enough skepticism out there that questions about how it’s going to help the country are likely to continue.”

If you wanted to find the best way to deal with ..ah. let’s say Iran, and you asked a military specialist, what type of answers do you think you’d get? If you asked a peace studies professor, what kind of answer do you think you’d get? The point I’m making is if the author of this article wants to tilt it in favor of ObamaCare, he would pose as objective and bring in a “specialist”, but the specialist would be someone who is inherently for the bill. Someone who studies “public health” for a living is going to see everything through pro-government lenses. Also, being a professor of public health or a so-called objective journalist does not mean you can even comment on the real economic results of the bill. For that you would need an economist, and even then it would depend if the economist is a state suckup or not.

Here’s a look at some of the myths and realities, from both sides of the issue:

Obama has put the nation on a slippery slope toward socialism.

Hello? Government’s role in health care has been steadily growing since Medicare and Medicaid were established 45 years ago. Even if Republicans were to take control of Washington and repeal this bill, government would still be on track to pick up more than half the nation’s health care tab by 2012, according to a report last month from Medicare.

“The Republican myth is that the government is for the first time going to take over the health care sector,” said economist Joe Antos of the business-oriented American Enterprise Institute. “The takeover was probably largely accomplished in 1965 with the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. Since the early days, Medicare has called the shots on a lot of policy issues that private insurance fell in line with.”

Still, the new law will undoubtedly expand the government’s influence. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., warned Tuesday it will lead to the “quasi-nationalization of the health industry.”

Underline “quasi.” Democrats dropped their idea of a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers. So any “socialization” will be channeled through Wellpoint, UnitedHealthcare and other private insurance giants.

Ok, not too bad so far. I agree that the government has been heavily involved in health care, and actually it accounts for 50% of health spending already. The author is correct. Unfortunately, his objectivism leaves out what the economic result of that involvement has been. Since the government involvement in health care has steadily increased since 1965, so has prices. Is that a shocker? Not to anyone who knows the economic effects of throwing billions of dollars of government money at the same amount of resources. Of course, the result is going to be huge price inflation.

Also, the argument by government is and always has been that health insurance equals health care. They even use the terms interchangeably. The end result of that is everyone thinks they have to have total care insurance instead of catastrophic insurance. The introduction of third party payer in health care all the way down to checkups has also heavily inflated prices. Read my post on root causes of the health care crisis to see why health care costs are so high.

I love how the author tries painting Judd Gregg as if he’s being dramatic. Would you call a government take over that says what type of insurance you must have and regulates every aspect of how care will be given “quasi-nationalization”? I’d say Gregg isn’t being dramatic enough. Also, the last part of that sentence really highlights what this is. “So any ‘socialization’ will be channeled through Wellpoint, UnitedHealthcare and other private insurance giants.” Hmmm, if it looks like fascism, smells like fascism, and quacks like fascism, could it be?

• Health care overhaul is going to lower your health insurance premiums.

Obama says that once new competitive insurance markets open for business, in 2014, individuals buying coverage comparable to what they have today will pay 14-20 percent less. Family coverage costs about $13,400 a year, so that could be real money.

But the president’s assurance is based on a selective reading of a Congressional Budget Office report that found most individuals would probably buy better, more expensive coverage than what’s available today.

And Obama skips over an important caveat: The budget office didn’t say premiums would be lower than currently. It said premiums for some people would be lower than they would have been without the bill. Premiums for others would be higher.

With the U.S. population getting older, and medical science pushing the technological envelope, there’s very little reason to think premiums will go down. The best Obama can hope for is to slow the pace of increases.

Well, the author gave it a try. I must say this was pretty close to objective. The fact is you will not see premiums going down. The only way you will see premiums going down is if the government subsidizes premiums, which wouldnt’ mean they went down. It would just mean someone else is paying. Also, this bill does absolutely zero to address health care costs, so if health care costs keep rising, so will insurance. Until we address the root causes of health care inflation, we will never see insurance premiums decrease. As I’ve stated in previous posts, the only way to drive costs down is to increase supply or decrease demand in relation to each other. Does this bill increase supply? I doubt it. Considering how many doctors aren’t taking mediacare patients anymore, if everyone basically becomes a medicare patient, doctors will flee the field. Drug companies and medical device companies are going to pay over $100 billion in new taxes. Does that increase supply? On the demand side, we are supposedly adding 30 million new people to the insurance system. Is that decreasing demand?

• You will be forced to pay for other people’s abortions.

Only if you join a health insurance plan that covers abortion. In that case, the costs of paying for abortions would be spread over all the enrollees in the plan — no differently from how other medical procedures are handled, except a policyholder would have to write a separate check for it.

Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, said people who don’t want to pay for abortion could simply pick a plan that doesn’t offer it.

There would definitely be a demand for such plans, and not just from people with moral objections. Single men and older women would have no reason to pay an extra premium for abortion coverage.

The debate on abortion was on the federal dollars being spent on this bill. The author talks about it in the terms of the private insurance market, so I really question his objectivity on this. In his last statement, he actually sounds like he’s starting to understand how the free market works. It allows people to choose their coverage. The problem that he seems to ignore is government mandates. Government mandates tons of coverage that many people don’t want or need, but they are forced to pay for it because government says so. Do you think abortion will be any different, especially if the pro-abortion groups have their way?

• The Democratic bill will lead to government health care rationing.

The legislation sets up a research center to compare the effectiveness of medical treatments, and critics fear that bureaucrats will start issuing justifications for denying patients access to the latest medical technology.

Republicans as well as Democrats had previously called for a major investment in such research to help make sense of which kinds of treatments, medications and technologies are worth the cost.

The legislation specifies that the research findings cannot be used to impose mandates, guidelines or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment — or used to deny coverage.

Acceptance of the research is likely to be slow in coming, and the medical community — not government and insurance companies — will probably take the lead in vetting it.

The government has no role or need in deciding what health care technologies are worth their cost. That should be handled by the free market and consumers. We don’t need government telling IT companies how to invest their money. Can you imagine how much the innovation of the internet would have been stifled if a government panel decided what technologies were worth the cost.

Also, never ever, ever, ever, ever believe there is such a thing as a government panel that does not have power to decide what happens. The government is the gun in the room. They provide a ton of funding for research. Do you think for a second this panel will not dictate where that money goes? Seriously though. You must always think of the government as the gun in the room. That is what it is. Imagine you are sitting around debating on where to go to dinner with a few people. There is one strange guy, Mr. State, in the group who always seems to get his way. There are stories about this guy that scare the crap out of you. Supposedly, he’s killed people before and got away with it. Everyone is putting out their opinions, and then the strange guy speaks up. He says, “I’m just going to throw my opinion out there. You guys can choose where we go, so don’t let me be the one to decide.” Then as he’s telling you where he thinks everyone should go, he pulls his jacket back a little to show his gun. Everyone immediately, nervously says, “Well, that’s a brilliant idea Mr. State. Why didn’t we think of that. Let’s go there.” Mr. State smiles grimly and says, “Ok, if that’s what you guys want to do. Fine by me.”

The government is Mr. State. Do not ever believe that those who decide the rules and ultimately back up their opinion of how each of us should act with deadly force is going to be just a measly side show. They will be THE SHOW.

• The American people have already rejected Obamacare.

Although some polls show a majority oppose the bill, most surveys find the public about evenly divided. Blendon, the public opinion expert, believes it’s premature to say that the public has rejected it. Curiously, many individual components — doing away with insurance denials for pre-existing conditions, tax credits to help pay premiums, insurance purchasing pools — are widely popular.

Obama reads those findings to mean that Democrats have a chance to turn around public opinion, and he’s embarking on a campaign to sell the bill.

Don’t you feel better now about this whole thing? The country is evenly divided according to our objective journalist. What he should have said is half the country is having a gun stuck to their head by the other half. This is why democracy is a horrible system. One part of the population holds the other captive, against their will.

It shouldn’t matter if it’s 75% of the population in favor of the bill. This country was not setup as a democracy for a reason. It was setup to be limited in what the federal government can do in order to make sure that individual rights are protected. That means protected from the majority. In democracy, the majority can enslave the minority, which is basically what you see happening now.

Also, who gives a rat ass if “insurance denials for pre-existing conditions, tax credits to help pay premiums, insurance purchasing pools — are widely popular”. So is free booze. Anything that purports to be a free lunch is going to be popular.

Do you think it would be widely popular if I asked people if they were in favor of being robbed to pay for someone else’s health problems, who chooses to eat at McDonald’s every day?

How about, do you have a problem with me stealing your money to help someone else pay for their insurance premiums, because they’d rather spend their money on something else like their $100 cable bill, several hundred a month eating out, etc?

How about, you go to the gym and ask the person who works out religiously, makes the hard eating decisions, etc if they mind paying higher premiums, even though he or she still has impeccable health, because the obese guy down the street doesn’t want to make the same hard decisions and also doesn’t want to pay for health insurance, because the cost of his health care insurance is way too high because of his weight? What do you think the popular opinion would be?

Now, ask everyone if they want a free car. I’m sure that would be widely popular too. Does that make it great policy? Does that mean we should force someone else to pay for the cars against their will, which basically makes them slaves?

• The legislation will save Medicare from bankruptcy.

Democrats say the bill — even as it cuts Medicare to pay for expanded coverage for working families — will add at least nine years of solvency to the program’s giant hospital insurance trust fund, now projected to be exhausted in 2017.

Technically that’s true — but only on paper.

Savings from the Medicare cuts will be invested in government IOUs, like any other trust fund surplus. The special Treasury securities count as an asset on Medicare’s books — making the program’s precarious financial situation seem more reassuring. But the government will spend the actual money. And when time comes for Medicare to redeem the IOUs, lawmakers will have to scramble to come up with the cash.

The key point is that the Medicare savings will be received by the government only once, the Congressional Budget Office said, “so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending … on other programs.”

via Health care fact check: Some myths about legislation likely to persist | NewsChannel 36 | Charlotte Health & Medical News, Nutrition and Fitness | WCNC.com | News for Charlotte, North Carolina.

This last one isn’t even worth a comment. If what the lying Democrats say is true, that medicare is saved from bankruptcy, it’s at the expense of bankrupting the entire country. What a joke. We are going to save ourselves from bankruptcy by spending and borrowing more. Eff it. Let the whole system implode, and let’s hope we have more intelligent people rebuilding. Maybe the liberals can pass a law to change reality again, and we can all be rich and have a unicorn when this all falls apart.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 1.0/10 (3 votes cast)

Even Neocons Are Noticing How Big Big Brother Is Getting…well sort of

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 24-03-2010


Are the neocons now starting to see the error of their ways? Do they realize that you cannot give up liberty for security, for as Franklin told us, you’ll have neither? Here is a post from Hot Air, where it seems like they are actually catching on.

This should prove an interesting conundrum for those who supported the NSA’s warrantless terrorist-surveillance program. The FBI and local law enforcement agencies have been accessing cell-phone tracking data, possible with the newer generations of GPS-embedded smart phones, in order to solve regular crimes as well as in the national-security arena, using a low bar for cause on warrants. Does this constitute an intelligent leverage of new technology, or a danger to civil liberties?

Of course it’s a threat to civil liberties. If the government turns tyrannical, well more tyrannical than it is, and if we condone this or pass laws like say the Patriot Act to give the government the power they claim to need, then they can use those powers to squash any group of citizens who do not like what the government has become. While you may be able to accept handing some powers to the government when you think it’s your side running the government, “your side” is not always going to be in power. This is the fundamental reason for Franklin’s famous quote. The Hot Air post goes on to quote an article from Newsweek.

Amid all the furor over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program a few years ago, a mini-revolt was brewing over another type of federal snooping that was getting no public attention at all. Federal prosecutors were seeking what seemed to be unusually sensitive records: internal data from telecommunications companies that showed the locations of their customers’ cell phones—sometimes in real time, sometimes after the fact. The prosecutors said they needed the records to trace the movements of suspected drug traffickers, human smugglers, even corrupt public officials. But many federal magistrates—whose job is to sign off on search warrants and handle other routine court duties—were spooked by the requests. Some in New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas balked. Prosecutors “were using the cell phone as a surreptitious tracking device,” said Stephen W. Smith, a federal magistrate in Houston. “And I started asking the U.S. Attorney’s Office, ‘What is the legal authority for this? What is the legal standard for getting this information?’ ”

The Justice Department doesn’t keep statistics on requests for cell-phone data, according to the spokeswoman. So it’s hard to gauge just how often these records are retrieved. But Al Gidari, a telecommunications lawyer who represents several wireless providers, tells NEWSWEEK that the companies are now getting “thousands of these requests per month,” and the amount has grown “exponentially” over the past few years. Sprint Nextel has even set up a dedicated Web site so that law-enforcement agents can access the records from their desks—a fact divulged by the company’s “manager of electronic surveillance” at a private Washington security conference last October. “The tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement,” said the Sprint executive, according to a tape made by a privacy activist who sneaked into the event. (A Sprint spokesman acknowledged the company has created the Web “portal” but says that law-enforcement agents must be “authenticated” before they are given passwords to log on, and even then still must provide valid court orders for all nonemergency requests.)

Again, Franklin’s warning comes to mind. Neocons, including myself at the time, thought the warrantless wiretapping was needed. How could Bush track those evil terrorists without it? Well, what happens once you give that power to the government for terrorists? Shouldn’t they use it on child molestors? I mean is there any bigger group of terrorists than child molestors? Heck, what about murderers? How about drug dealers, bank robbers, oh and what about that rich ponzi scheme guy? No, not the government. I’m talking about Bernie Madoff. Shouldn’t we be able to track him? How many lives did he ruin? As you can see, this never ends. Before you know it, to government is tracking you down for your outstanding speeding tickets.

Most of us would understand that law-enforcement agencies have a need occasionally to track a suspect in a criminal matter and certainly for the FBI in counterterrorist operations (give up those liberties for the boogiemen).  However, according to this Newsweek report, the Obama administration and other agencies are using a particularly weak type of claim in order to make thousands of requests a month, most of which have nothing to do with national security:

The grounds for such requests, says Smith, were often flimsy: almost all were being submitted as “2703(d)” orders—a reference to an obscure provision of a 1986 law called the Stored Communications Act, in which prosecutors only need to assert that records are “relevant” to an ongoing criminal investigation. That’s the lowest possible standard in federal criminal law, and one that, as a practical matter, magistrates can’t really verify. …

A potentially more sinister request came from some Michigan cops who, purportedly concerned about a possible “riot,” pressed another telecom for information on all the cell phones that were congregating in an area where a labor-union protest was expected. “We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of abuse on this,” says Gidari.

I’m no fan of labor-union activism, but Americans have a right to peaceably assemble for political purposes without the government conducting covert surveillance.  Just as with the NSA’s program, this is a very powerful tool that law enforcement can and should use — but for legitimate and very limited purposes.   This requires a much higher standard for warrants on law enforcement investigations than what is described in this article.

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Hmmm: Feds, local law enforcement accessing cell phone tracking “thousands of times a month”.

What a minute. Are you telling me the government was using these laws to track American citizens, who did nothing illegal? No way! Not our government. Not the American government. This is the home of the free and the land of the brave, right? Are you getting the point yet? Governments do not obey rules, and they don’t sit back and say, “Well, the people really meant to give us this power to protect them from overseas boogiemen. We can’t really use it on Americans themselves.” No, they will use every means necessary against their own people to maintain and grow their power. Do not be fooled by their stated intentions of protecting us. All tyrants claim to be looking out for and protecting their people. Do you think for one second Chavez doesn’t claim to be looking out for the Venezuelan people? Of course he does. All governments are the same. They all want to grow and control every aspect of the economy, society, etc. Under Bush it was warrantless wiretaps, and now under Obama it’s ObamaCare, Net Neutrality and Financial reform.

Ok, gotta go. I should have yanked the battery out of my cell phone before starting this blog.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

You May Not Have Freedom, But At Least You’ll Have Health Care…Sort Of

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 22-03-2010


Last night, our supposed representatives passed the health care bill that says you no longer have the freedom to decide what services and products you want to buy. You have to buy what they say you have to buy. Don’t forget this is just the beginning. Government never stops growing. This bill will continue to grow and grow, and more liberty will be lost. Say goodbye to ownership of your own life, body and health decisions.

The biggest transformation of the U.S. health system in decades won approval on Capitol Hill late Sunday, the culmination of efforts by generations of Democrats to achieve near-universal health coverage.

Let’s be clear here. This isn’t the biggest transformation of the U.S. health system. This is the biggest transformation in our liberty. The health system was not made better last night. If anything, it will get progressively worse. What did happen last night is your decisions and options in health care were stripped from you hands and placed into the cold, unaccountable hands of a bureaucrat.

President Barack Obama, who staked his presidency on the health-care overhaul, helped push it toward passage with a last-minute promise to issue an executive order making clear that no money dispensed under the $940 billion bill would pay for abortions. That persuaded Rep. Bart Stupak, a holdout Michigan Democrat, to vote yes and bring at least seven colleagues with him.

Yeah, some hold out Stupak was. He was just looking for the tiniest crack to crawl through. If you were so concerned would you trust someone promising to make an executive order? Now that the bill has passed, what recourse does Stupak have? Zero.

President Obama spoke just before midnight at the White House. “At a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics,” he said in hailing the vote. “We proved that this government … still works for the people.”

Please. The government hasn’t worked for the people in my lifetime. This is nothing more than Democrats turning everyone into slaves who will keep pulling the lever for their party begging them to fix an ever worsening system. The people will forget about this bill, and when the system is getting  worse, they will fall for the Democrats cries of exploitation by insurance companies and medical companies.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) condemned the legislation, and said Democrats are moving against the will of the public. “Shame on this body. Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desire above your fellow countrymen,” he said. “By our actions today we disgrace their value.”

Republicans hope to use the health overhaul to drive Democrats into the minority, citing polls that show a plurality of Americans oppose it, while Democrats believe the immediate benefits brought by the bill will work to their credit.

Hopefully, people are starting to see how this game is played. Democrats got the bill through. There will be backlash, and Republicans will win elections. The bill won’t be repealed, and eventually after Republicans steal some of our liberties for wars, Democrats will regain power again. Nothing will change. We’ll just keep marching on toward complete tyranny.

The legislation will extend health coverage to 32 million Americans now without insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It will mandate that almost every American carry health insurance—a provision that opponents are set to challenge in the courts. To help people get covered, the legislation expands Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, and gives subsidies to families making as much as $88,000 a year.

If the courts up hold this, then what? I guess the government can mandate anything it wants. It can tell us how to live and what to buy in every aspect of our lives. Oh, but they are just looking out for us stupid normal people. We are all too dumb to live without the wonderful government telling us how to live properly.

The focus Sunday was largely on resolving the abortion dispute. Several Democrats, led by Rep. Stupak, had been withholding support, saying the legislation didn’t go far enough to keep federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. They praised Mr. Obama’s executive order, while Roman Catholic bishops and other antiabortion groups said it wasn’t good enough.

While I wish the bishops were opposed on the merits of the bill, at least they stuck to their guns on abortion. What they realize and what the paper doesn’t mention is executive orders mean nothing. Obama can make an executive order, and that order can be overturned by any President including Obama at any time they choose. It will be used as a political tool, just like government funding of embryonic stem cell research and government funding of overseas abortions was. Bush made executive orders and Obama overturned them. Both appeased their base.

A large swath of the business community opposed the changes, arguing the legislation was too broad and had too many taxes. “This will make us one of the highest-taxed regions in the world, and that’s going to have an impact on the appetite for people to invest in medical innovation,” said Bill Hawkins, chief executive of Medtronic Inc., which makes medical devices. He said his company could cut at least 1,000 jobs to absorb a new 2.9% excise tax on medical-device makers.

Bye bye recovery. This is definitely going to cost jobs and economic growth. The money that would have been invested else where will now be forced into health care, where it will be lost. Health care will not be improved by the increase money flowing into it. It will just be wasted by paperwork and bureaucracy.

Insurers will see the heaviest regulations, with new rules that dictate how much they can reap in profit and whom they must cover.

So much for a free market, not that it was before.

The bulk of the legislation wouldn’t take effect until 2014. Once the tax credits and Medicaid expansion are in place, most Americans will be required to carry health insurance or pay a fee, topping out at either $695 a year or 2.5% of income.

Well, I guess I should just drop my insurance and buy it when I need it. I pay almost $500/month right now. I could just pay the government $695/year and save over $5,000/year. Don’t worry though. That $695 will quickly skyrocket once they realize it has the opposite effect of what they want. Oh, and in case you thought you still had freedom, ask yourself what happens if you don’t pay that fine. Time to go to jail for you.

Employers would have to provide affordable insurance or pay a penalty of up to $3,000 per worker. Those figures assume the Senate ultimately adopts the package of changes the House approved.

Tax increases needed to finance the program would hit a range of industries, from insurers to tanning services. Over the next decade, $108 billion in new fees will fall on insurers, drug makers and medical-device companies. Families earning more than $250,000 a year will pay a higher Medicare payroll tax, and see that tax expanded to investment income such as dividends. High-value insurance plans would be hit with a 40% tax starting in 2018.

via House Passes Historic Health Bill – WSJ.com.

So we are going to improve health care by pulling $108 billion outt of the companies who create health products. That makes sense.

Also, families making over $250k/year is where this starts. That is never where it ends. That will quickly become families making over poverty income. Ask those who thought the income tax was only going to be on the rich.

Lastly, this is just hilarious. For those of you who have too much insurance, by government standards, you are going to pay a 40% tax on your insurance. That’s brilliant. In order to make sure everyone has insurance, we’ll tax people who have a lot of insurance. How long do you think that option will be around? Man I love the government. They just take away options slowly until you are left with only one. That option is government enslavement. You either submit, or you’ll be fined. Oh that fine of $695 will quickly become much larger. They can’t leave an option that you can actually take. They will raise that $695 so high, paying it won’t be an option. What is left is submit or go to jail.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Dodd, Bought and Paid For By Wall Street

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 20-03-2010


The Democrats, who claim to be the party of the little guy, sure do a lot of the walking and talking for the Wall Street bankers. Just one instance is Chris Dodd’s financial reform bill.

Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., raised ’serious concerns’ about a provision in the financial reform bill, released this week by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), that seems to allow the Fed to rescue Wall Street firms if they play a critical role in the financial markets.

WSJ: “We do have serious concerns about other sections of the Senate draft which seem to allow the potential for backdoor bailouts through the Federal Reserve Board’s 13(3) emergency authority,” she told a conference of community bankers, hosted by the Independent Community Bankers Association (the Fed used its authority under Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act to bail out AIG, injecting over $180 bln).

U.S. policy makers need to end the concept of “too big to fail, ” she added.

In response to Bair’s concerns, who has emerged as the only voice for restoring market discipline and eliminate the market’s perception that some firms are too big to fail, spokeswoman for Mr. Dodd said that that provision will be removed in the manager’s amendment, as the Senate Banking Committee debates the draft bill.

via Dodd Bill Allows Wall Street Firms for ‘Backdoor Bailouts’.

Mr. Dodd’s response? “Oh crap, busted. How did that get in there. Nothing to see here. This is just a misprint to be removed by the manager’s amendment during the debate on the regulatory rigmarole, so you see all is good.” What the hell did he just say? It’s like watching the man on the street corner with his three cups and a ball conning people out of their money who think they can choose the cup with the ball under it.

Luckily for us, Dodd will not be there much longer. Let’s just hope Connecticut sends Peter Schiff to replace him. Peter will do his best to show us all the con.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

How Many Will Lose Their Jobs Because Of Health Care Reform?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 20-03-2010


Caterpillar has come out and said that the health care bill will cost the company $100 million in the first year. Where is the money coming from? It appears Democrats think this is magic money that will be paid without consequence because they deemed it to be paid in their bill. Well, Caterpillar sure isn’t going to just suck it up and hand over $100 million. Guess who will do that? The workers who lose their jobs will be coughing it up. How many jobs is $100 million? Let’s just say the average employee costs the company $65,000 with benefits. That’s a possible 1500 jobs. Oh but don’t worry! Those people can get unemployment and government health insurance. But who’s going to pay for that?

Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the House would increase the company’s health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan “because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and …

via Caterpillar Says Health Bill Would Cost Company $100 Million More – WSJ.com.

While I doubt the scenario above will play out like that, you get the point. Instead, I don’t think Catepillar would give up 1500 employees for the idiotic edicts of the government. Instead, they would probably shift the jobs overseas.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Hey Democrats, We Won’t Save Money By Killing Babies

Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 18-03-2010


This might not be a smooth post. I’m trying to type it up while working, so forgive the choppiness, and as always, ignore grammar and spelling. I went to public school.

In this post last week, I said I would go into the disgusting argument that Democrats are supposedly making to Representative Stupak about how the government needs to pay for abortions, because if the babies are born, they would cost the government more money in health care.

Could this be any more dehumanizing? Can you ever trust a government who looks at life in terms of how much it is going to cost their entitlement program? How do you think they’ll make decisions on whether you’ll get an expensive treatment to stay alive or not? I never trusted the government, but hopefully comments like this make the casual follower of what’s going on question what it is the government is really saying and doing.

As I said in the previous post, I just recently had someone use a similar argument to explain why they reluctantly supported abortions. This person is far from ruthless. She’s actually a extremely positive and inspring person, but I think she might not be looking at what is being said when you analyze it a little deeper. This is all part of the pro-choice movements propaganda campaign. They want you to quit looking at what object you are talking about, which is a baby. They want to dehumanize what is being talked about. It is no different than what a military will do during wars. They do not want soldiers thinking of the enemy has humans that have families, dreams, etc. They want the soldier to think this is a monster that must be slayed. As far as the military goes, this is probably good strategy, but with abortion we aren’t talking about an enemy. We are talking about a child.

This person I was debating with was describing her real life encounters and how she changed from pro-life to pro-choice. She explained how she moved to Vegas and heard daily news stories about mothers killing babies and leaving them in dumpsters, babies being abused till their bodies couldn’t handle it anymore, and women being raped. This all sounds extremely horrible, and it’s not surprising they could have someone say as she did, that she thinks if these mothers don’t have the abortion option, they would then be forced into parenthood, and you would have more abused children. Then she said something similar to what the Democrats say. If you had all these unwanted children running around, you would have more welfare and crime, and it would cost the tax payers more money.

Well there is a couple ways to think about this. Number one, this only effects the tax payer to the extent that the government is involved. The government is involved because it is overgrown. Because, our government steals our money and gives it to those who don’t produce, we can say these children are going to cost tax payers in welfare. We could fix this easily by getting rid of welfare. Because the government criminalizes so many things such as drug use, of course there is going to be more crime. You can easily lower crime by not criminalizing everything under the sun. If you read this post, you saw how easily it was to become a criminal. One guy who writes a letter for an 83 year old gentlemen quickly became a criminal for “practicing law without a license”. So much for the government wanting you to help your neighbors.

Second, no one is forced into parenthood, well no woman anyways. A woman can decide to give a child up for adoption. There are plenty of people in America looking to adopt children. Also, the argument my friend made didn’t make sense, because these actions happened while abortion is legal. OK, but this is beside the point. Let’s get back to the economic value of life argument.

While Democrats appear to be making a value of life argument simply based on the cost of health care, which is completely disgusting since it’s only a small part of someone’s life, we need to think about the argument of a human life’s value based on total costs. Government forces us to pay for others against our will. If we didn’t have government forcing us to do this, you could not say these lives are going to cost us anything. They would cost their parents and family while they are children, but that’s not something parents usually frown upon.

Also, this argument is used as if these children won’t grow up to be producers, which they would if they are allowed to. Are we to assume that if these children grow up in bad homes, they won’t produce? I’m sure all of us know people who overcame so many bad things in life to become a success. Many children who grow up in poor homes grow up with a hunger to succeed. They know what it’s like to live without, and they know they have to work hard to get the best out of life. On the other hand, I’ve seen many kids who seemed to have perfect homes and all the toys a kid could want, that end up doing nothing when they get older. They never went without, so they don’t have that hunger. While I’m probably rambling here, my point is you just don’t know how people are going to turn out. You don’t know if the next baby to be aborted would have been the next Einstein. You don’t know if the next aborted baby would have been the one who discovered something that improves all our lives. The value of one innovation of one person could be more valuable than the cost of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of less productive people (again only costs because of gov’t force).

How many millions of lives were changed by Martin Luther King? What if he had been aborted instead? How many lives in India were changed because of Ghandi? How about Jon Huntsman, Sr.? What, never heard of him? Well, he grew up in poverty. He’s a billionaire, who plans on dying broke. He created a cancer institute, which is striving to cure cancer. How much value is his life worth? Would you have known that by looking at his parents when he was still in womb? You cannot make a prediction on the value or cost of one life. We are all so unique that it’s absolutely impossible. To say that government needs to pay for abortion because of the cost of the persons health care completely ignores all the contributions that that one person could make. Would the Democrats say “Well, I can understand why we had to pay to have Martin Luther King aborted as a fetus, because look how much his health care would have cost.”?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)

Do We Really Need Government Licensing For Professionals?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, Video | Posted on 16-03-2010


John Stossel had a great episode last week on government licensed professions. Here is a short segment from the show.


OK, so the typical statist argument goes, “Do you want your butcher to perform surgery on you?”. Well, maybe. It depends. How many successful operations has he performed in the past? What’s his success rate? How does that compare to his competitor or a certified doctor? This argument that they lay out assumes that we are all driveling idiots, and the government in it’s infinite wisdom is here to protect us. Without the state, we’d hand a knife over to anyone to cut us open.

Professions without government licensing would operate no different than they do with licensing, except they’d have more competition and waste less time, money and energy on stupid government regulations. Ultimately, that would lead to better prices for consumers and more options.

So, what do you do now when you look for say a licensed real estate agent? Do you just go up to some stranger and say “Here’s my keys. Go sell my house.” Of course not, you ask around to people you trust asking who they recommend. Then you may look online to see if they have reviews. A perfect example is Angieslist. I just had my carpets cleaned. Did I just grab a phone book and call a random number to clean my carpets? No, I checked Angieslist, read reviews, and called for a price from those who had the best reviews. This would be no different with any profession, including doctors.

The truth is professions do like to keep out competitors. They don’t want you having the freedom to ask your neighbor who wired up his house himself to help you wire up yours. You must be forced into calling a licensed electrician. Then you must call an inspector to certify your job. Why can’t you use your neighbor? After all, it’s a free country right? Why can’t you call an inspector only if you want to make sure the electrician did his job right. This should be voluntary. Yes, you may sell your house, but the buyer should then pay an inspector to make sure they aren’t buying  a house with electrical problems. This too should be voluntary.

Now, I have nothing against voluntary associations and certifications. If doctors, attorneys or electricians what to set themselves apart from their competition, I have no problem with them forming an association and certifications. Those tell the consumer that they have gone through more training, and they are approved by the association. This is good information, but it should be voluntary. I should be able to choose between someone not a member of the association, who may not have had all the rigorous training but may be cheaper, or the certified member of an association, who I know has gone through a specific training program. I work in computers and this is how it works in our field. I don’t need to be a licensed IT consultant, but if I want to separate myself and increase my opportunities of employment, I go through certain certifications for my area of expertise. This tells potential employers that I’ve gone through certain training and was able to pass the tests that go with it. I’ve demonstrated a certain amount of knowledge. This should be the same of all professions.

The truth is there is not need for licensing. It’s just another way for governments to take you freedom and to prevent competition.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

We the Evil, Ruthless, and Uncaring People – Part 2

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 15-03-2010


In part one of this post, I talked about how the government tells us they have to steal, kill and abuse us, because we are too selfish to take care of each other without being forced to. They must protect us from each other, and we need to trust them to wield a monopoly on force in order to have a civilized society. But is this true?  Well, in this part, I’d like to touch on some of the arguments I get from the pro-government crowd.

…Government is there to make sure there is a level playing field.

Hmmm, is this why we give subsidies to failing businesses? Is it unfair that one company might have figured out a way to make a better, cheaper widget, and in doing so is putting it’s competition out of business? Does it make sense to prop up the failing business? Does it make sense to take the money from the workers and the producers in society, who would use their money to buy other products from companies who also figured out how to make better and cheaper products, which ultimately improves all our lives, because we get more and more for less, and give that money to companies who can’t produce what we demand at the prices we demand? Does this keep a level playing field by forcing workers to hand money to failing businesses through subsidies, who ultimately don’t even provide them a product for that money?

This must be why the government gave all our tax money to Wall Street bankers. They couldn’t have a profitable company on Wall Street handing out bonuses, while the failing businesses could not. Maybe this is why they stuck a gun to the responsible bankers’ heads and told them they will take TARP money or else. They just wanted to make sure their buddies, who were completely irresponsible, didn’t have to play on the unlevel playing field that they themselves created.

Ok, Ok. This must be why they take property from the average Joe, who works his whole life for “The American Dream” of owning his own home, so they can hand it off to private developers. Remember the Kelo decision? This is where your property can be stolen from you if the government decides to give it to someone who creates more taxes. Oh, but what happened there. The private developer backed out of the deal. The homeowner had her home taken at gun point, and now the land sits vacant. Hey, just keeping a level playing field.

The truth is government is all about picking winners and losers. They aren’t about keeping a level playing field.

…Government protects us from monopolies.

OK, this is the best. We all know monopolies are just horrible right. So what’s the fix? Give the government a monopoly on the use of force. Give them a monopoly on educating our kids. Give them a monopoly on theft. I know, I know. They do it all for us.

So we constantly hear monopolies would exist if government didn’t regulate against monopolies, but I have a hard time coming up with real examples where this happens. Of course, when you point out that monopolies can’t exist without government backing, proponents of government say “well, that’s because of antitrust laws”. This just isn’t so. Trying to create a monopoly is extremely inefficient, and ultimately a bad monopoly could not last. While a company may be able to corner a market temporarily, they could not hold on to it. If they were charging too much, a competitor would see the excessive profits and decide to get into the business. Yes, they could buy up the smaller business, but that would just signal to others that they too can make money by starting a competing business and being bought up. Ultimately, this buying up of more efficient competitors to maintain an inefficient monopoly, would lead to the monopolies collapse. The only way you could have an inefficient monopoly for the long term is if it was given exclusive rights to some public resource, such as phone lines, land, subsidies, etc, which is why you can only have a monopoly when the government backs you. Think about it. Let’s say Microsoft really was a monopoly. If you haven’t noticed they are getting their butts kicked by Google. Anyway, so they are a monopoly. How can they maintain a monopoly without government? The only way they could is to produce a better product. They cannot force people to buy their product.

What was the big issue with Microsoft? Netscape claimed Microsoft was using its monopoly to stifle other web browsers. Ok, but how was the consumer harmed? The consumer got a free web browser with their computer that came with Microsoft Windows, which made them decide against downloading Netscape. So really, what Microsoft had was a more efficient distribution system that they developed with the wide adoption of their operating system. Because Netscape had a less efficient distribution system for their web browser, they were getting clobbered. Does that mean Microsoft was being monopolistic, or were they just being more efficient? Has Microsoft put competitors out of business and jacked up prices on Internet Explorer? I’m pretty sure it’s still free.

Even more proof that Microsoft is not a monopoly (and never was) is Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and Safari. People are now downloading other browsers, because they believe Microsoft’s product isn’t up to where it should be. The cost of downloading another program and installing it is now more valued than it was when Netscape was the main competitor. These competitors have figured out a way to compete and be efficient enough to eat away at Microsoft’s market share, and consumers are the ones benefiting.

Now if you want to see the horror of real coercive monopolies, just look at our public education system, where you are forced into using the monopoly. You have to pay whether you want to use it or not. If you try to send your child to a private school, the private school still has to meet the government mandated curriculum. What we get from this monopoly is nothing but ever decreasing results.

…Government protects the children.

This has to be one of the biggest lies out there. Government could careless about your children. They only want to make them mindless zombies, so they are easier to enslave.

Look at the biggest role the government has in your child’s life, which is public schooling, and you’ll see the abuse the government lays on your child. They are trapped in a prison all day long and brainwashed by material that special interest groups want to cram down their throats. They are ushered through grade after grade many times without any progress. Oh, and you better hope your child isn’t a thinker. God forbid your child questions anything taught in class. They’ll be labeled a delinquent, smart alec or a trouble maker. We wouldn’t want any of the other children questioning what’s being taught, so little Junior better just sit there and repeat, “The Constitution is a living document. Government is there to protect us. Obama is a great president, ah huh, ah huh, ah huh.”

Also, with childhood obesity on the rise, what does the all caring government do? Well, they fill your child’s lunch tray up with fatty and sugary foods. Don’t worry though. When your child is all wound up from the sugar, they’ll tell you your child is too hyper and needs to be medicated. While they are forcing private businesses to drop  transfats from the menu, even if people freely want them, they many times exclude the public schools from the same restrictions. They really do just love the children.

Well, unless you want to abort one before the child ever has a chance to be born. Then they are all for harming children. You know, those darn kids just cost the government too much. Better they aren’t born. At least, that’s how many in government see them. But hey, if you are going to have kids anyway, once they are born, the government might as well exploit them for it’s advantage.

…Government protects you from murders and thieves.

Do they really? It seems to me the government only comes in after the murder or burglary has already been committed. As I mentioned in previous posts, the only person who can defend you and your family is you. As long as you have the right to own guns, you can protect your property and your life. After all, there is no one who cares more about your family and your property than you do. Those who give up guns in hopes that the government will save them are just making themselves easy targets.

Now, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have police or laws, but do we really need cameras all over the place, so you have no privacy. Do we need cops sitting on the side of the road every five feet getting their ticket quotas in? Do we need to throw millions in prison,  not because they murdered or stole, but because they decide to smoke weed instead of drink?

Do we need government to throw those evil insider traders into prison? Of course, right? This is what we’ve been brainwashed to believe. Somehow it’s evil to buy or sell a stock because you have inside information, but it’s not evil to hold onto a stock because of inside information? Buying and selling are all signals to the market, so in the example of Enron, owners of the stock might have known ahead of time that the company was a sham if insider trading was permitted. Instead, many lost the savings they had in the company, because insiders weren’t allowed to trade on that evil insider information. I guess instead of protecting us from theft, the government put laws into place to make sure the theft had to take place and was concealed until the bitter end.

…Government protects us from foreign enemies.

This is one we used to all be able to support. Unfortunately, in pursuit of empire, this is not so anymore. As I said in part 1 of this post, no nation would try to invade the US with the amount of weaponry held by the populace. If you think the Soviets got bogged down in Afghanistan and the US got bogged down in Vietnam, that would be nothing compared to what would happen if a country tried invading the US. Our foreign policy has gone from protection to empire. In this pursuit, we create enemies.

Now, I know terrorism is something that gets the blood boiling on all sides. As a recovering neocon, I used to think we were waging a just war on terrorist. The problem is who is instigating terrorism? As long as we keep telling ourselves it’s just because terrorist hate our way of life, this war will never end. Of course, that may be what the government wants. Anyway, ask yourself when terrorism against the US began. Some said it began under Carter, when the Iranians took US hostages. Was that terrorism? We were supporting a dictator in their country, and they revolted against the dictator and us. OK, then it must have been under Reagan when terrorist bombed one of our bases in Beirut. Well, this may be it, but what did Reagan do? Unlike our current policy, Reagan pulled out. He knew it was us being their that instigated the bombing. How many attacks did we have after that? I might be missing something, but I don’t recall any. Ok, so when did it really pick back up again? Well, the first attack was after the gulf war when we decided to setup bases on arab lands and not leave. We’ve had terrorist attacks ever since.

Instead of realizing it’s our bases and using those bases to support the likes of the Saudis that instigates terrorism, we let our leaders tell us it’s that we live. They hate our way of life. “What? Those bastards hate us. Here’s my money and rights government. Go get em!”

Meanwhile, if you listen to what the terrorist want to do to the US, they are achieving it. We are going to go bankrupt, just as we bankrupted the Soviet Union. History is full of empires who never learn the lessons of empire. We’re witnessing the latest. Unfortunately, it’s us.

…Government <Fill in the blank>

You can make up any excuse for the use of force, which is all government is. Everyone wants to win elections, so they can use the gun of government to impose their views on society. In a free society without government or a very small government, you would not be able to do this. You would actually have to convince your neighbor to do something. Can you image? Wow, it would be horrible to have to convince him. It’s so much easier to just stick a gun to his head.

The biggest myth of all is that we need government. If you ever want to think outside the box, there are ways for society to exist without government. Think about wars. Do you really have wars because the people want to fight. I’m guessing an Iraqi and an American would probably get a long just well if they bumped into each other in the street. What you really have wars for is government. Our government wants  their government to do something, and when it doesn’t, our government decides we are going to force them to do it. It’s no different than, if I asked my neighbor to do something, and when he said no, I went back over with a gun and stuck it to his head. Oh wait, we do that too. That’s what government is.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 7.0/10 (1 vote cast)