Mad Scientist Harry "Frankenstein" Reid pulls the lever while Egore Pelosi looks on in shocked anticipation...

both waiting for the dreaded Healthscare Monster to come to life.

As we all meander about in our lives within the crispness of autumn, we find that we are perpetually transfixed by the massive government focus on our healthcare system while our economy continues to tank. Many are still asking: "Why is healthcare almost exclusively at the center of the legislators' attention while we have more pressing problems to deal with?"

This both preceding, and also coming upon the heels of, yet ANOTHER wondrous and awe-inspiring event where the President "magically" received a Nobel Peace Prize based upon what he is "fixing-to-do," which is a "Nobel first" as far as we can tell.

My young son was all for this novel reward plan with regard to his grades, based upon the premise that he has every intent to make straight A's, therefore they should be granted on this self-same basis.

At any rate, I wonder if perhaps this is a "giveback" by the Nordic Peoples for their failure to grant the Olympics to the President.

In addition to all of this, we now have the Senate dubiously approving the "idea of a bill" for the go-ahead to a new round of legislative healthcare meddling, rather than an "actual" bill.

October 31st Just Can't Come Fast Enough.....

The "Mad Scientist Senator," Harry Reid, in keeping with the Legislative Halloween Theme (The Case for Capitalism: The Statist Menace) has devised a nefarious scheme in which the current construct--having been accepted and which will go to committee--will be enjoined by the Houses' several miscreant healthcare ideas and then coupled to the TARP legislation--additional funding which will all be then voted upon. In other words, the current plan (America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009) as devised will involve hobbling together a bunch of mismatched parts and pieces and then stealthily sewed all together for the ultimate outcome, which will be government controlled healthcare,( i.e.: the current legislative body's equivalent of a Frankenstein's Monster). The jolt from the ensuing vote will then bring the Beast to life, and we shall all then quake at the power and wonderful ugliness of this artificial monster! All the while, there's Harry Reid--standing back, howling and cackling: "It's alive!! It's alive!!! In the name of Obama, We Have Done It!! It’s alive" (Note: Perhaps Reid needs to read the rest of the story. Just saying...)

Going back to this question of "why is healthcare so important all of a sudden?"—the answer seems simple enough to anyone whom has studied the Constitution in an historical context. Once again, this is a power-grab by the democratically controlled Government that would be key in centralizing power and authority by the liberty-eviscerating Authoritarians, because "they know better than the founders" (naturally).

The current healthcare system, for the most part, is privately owned and is, therefore, a "property" belonging to the civil society or peoples of the United States. Private property rights are the keystone in a Democratic Republic, and this will be the first "major" incursion of (already) many into that domain. Once there, the ability to control lives by the government will be dramatically magnified in the interests of "cost savings" (among many others). A recent report from John Stossel outlined what the United States can expect, were She to adopt a healthcare plan predicated on the former and existing legislative attempts at passage of this Bill.

Profit Is the Lubricating OIL of Any Venture and Any Healthy Economy

Waiting periods that are currently non-existent will become commonplace the longer the system is in place, along with the eventual shortage of facilities and physicians, which always accompanies this "Socialization" of medical care. Both the President's and the democratic Legislators' rationale for this incursion seems to always fall back on attacking "profit." The Authoritarians define profit as something dirty, which, they think, should never enter into our healthcare system; however, the true definition is something any human being would recognize. Profit is defined as "the making of gain in Business" and comes from the Latin word "to make progress." So, if we fall back on the true definition--and do a little sewing job of our own—it is apparent that the Democrats simply do not wish to make progress within Healthcare--based on their actions--which negate the making of progress [or profit] in Healthcare.

The Stossel report clearly shows why profit is such an important component within this venture. Speaking to profit as it applies to individuals, anything left over after we pay off all our bills is profit. We take vacations and go out to eat, etc.--on our own profit. (Liberal Democrats love profit only to the extent that it is their own.)

Profit speaks to improvement of lives.

In the Healthcare business, profit speaks to finding new cures and new treatments, in addition to the wealth that sometimes comes with such ventures. The Authoritarians wish to remove this component from our Healthcare. They blame their counterpart detractors as having "no plan." Well, I should point out that this whole charade of effecting legislation that will emasculate our current world-class Healthcare system deserves nothing but derision and rejection and should be laughed out of Washington at the first opportunity.

How Can We Fix the Existing Problems within Healthcare?

There are a number of problems which exist outside of the government’s purview, simply because it has not yet endeavored to deal with those whom are making a decent income but cannot obtain insurance for various health reasons. There is already a model government insurance plan in place under Property and Casualty Insurance Coverage that could be emulated on the health insurance side as a government funded (but still private insurance) outlet that could remedy this problem without costing $900 billion--in addition to raising health insurance and various other taxes and ruining the best system in the world. The Government Flood Insurance Program is that model.

By allowing the existing 1700 private health insurers (Yeah, that many! Bet lots of ya' didn't know that!) to underwrite the health plans based upon existing popular models (that could only be gotten by those whom have been turned down by traditional carriers) the government could remedy this problem while not breaking all of our banks. The individuals would still have to pay for their coverage, but the pricing would be based on existing rate-established models. This would involve extra cost to be funded by tax payers, but anything would be better than the Authoritarians' power-grab. Many of the people currently reading this column know exactly what I am referring to and can attest to the effectiveness of their flood insurance coverage--especially those in the Midwest. Many ask, why does the government need to be involved in the issue of flood or Healthcare insurance? Well, the answer when boiled down is this: "Adverse Selection."

This basically means that only the people whom actually need flood insurance will buy it. This adverse selection creates a rating disparity and would cause many private insurers to simply go out of business because a disproportionate number of folks with ailments/flood problems will always need the coverage. This same problem also would apply to health insurance. The premise of insurance coverage is always based on the spreading out of risks throughout as large a number of individuals as possible.

Doubtful Happenings and the Real Target

The above idea could be put into play quite easily with the help of our insurance carriers, whom wish to remain in business rather than being replaced by government bureaucrats (such greedy guys!). But is this going to happen? Doubtful, because this would endanger the seizure of additional power by those already IN power (though always ignorant of how these rules would be applied to them if they undergo an ejection from their post within their seemingly Socialist leaning Construct). They would have us drop a proven and beneficial system to all in order to take up a system that has been shown to fail time after time. I believe Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI-11) said it best: “As a progressive party, Democrats will bring you change by using government to enhance revenues from the rich to invest in the production of energy and green collar jobs, and by using diplomacy to engage America’s enemies and end the Iraq War.”

Translation: “As a regressive party, Democrats will bring you the 1970s by using Socialism to raise taxes from you to waste in the production of lethargy and unemployment, and by using magic to appease America’s enemies and lose the Iraq War.”

As we can all see--the Democrats are doing a MARVELOUS job with the economy so far.

Since When did Free Market Capitalism (which is the engine along with our Individual Liberties) that powered the United States into a Super-Economic Powerhouse (the likes of which the world has never seen) become an Illness that needs to be corrected, I ask once again? Socialism and socialist leaning policies have been gaining ground, most likely from within our liberal education system and from, apparently, too much luxury for some.

Define It and the Truth Shall Set You Free!

According to the World Heritage dictionary -our form of government and economic system is not a virus in need of eradication nor is it a disease which one must continually live in misery with.( This may amaze some of you Liberals out there while you sip your latte's). Please see the below definitions to verify with your own eyes:

cap·i·tal·ism (kâp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm)

Capitalism allows the free flow of market forces to supply needs to all consumers at all times and is a natural counterpart to a Democratic Republic in that any controls which are in place are there to regulate and mitigate excess rather than interfere in the natural order. Now let's look at Socialism:

So·cial·ism (sô'shə-lĭz'əm)

n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Hmm…did you all catch the second part of the Socialism definition? Socialism --according to The American Heritage Dictionary is, in essence, a means to Marxism. While we are at it-since socialism seems to lead to Marxism let's just check Marxism out also:

Marx·ism (märk'sĭz'əm)

n. The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Class struggle? No just money struggles for us all, right now!

Wonder, if out of each of these definitions, anyone may have noticed where the word "FREE" was deposited? Freedom is in no way associated with either Socialism or Marxism. I would be remiss if I did not throw in the most important definition: (I wonder if perhaps Marx or Engels had anything on Jefferson and Washington by way of either Grey Matter or character?) Now, our "current" form of Government defined:

Re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb'lĭk)

n. 1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.A nation that has such a political order.A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.A nation that has such a political order.

2. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.A nation that has such a political order.

3. Often Republic, a specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France, an autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation, a group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

Here one can see, at a glance, the differences between the three systems. I would ask: Which one of these would you prefer?

In 1787, as Benjamin Franklin was departing the historic convention that determined the course of the Nation, a woman asked him, “Do we have a monarchy or a democracy?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Prophetic words, those.

The Authoritarians Dual Attack on Form of Government and Form of Economic System

The assaults on our form of government in the form of bank takeovers, student loan programs, mortgage lending, two of the top three US based vehicle manufacturers, and now the effort at Government Healthcare (among a host of many other items) should leave only the most grandest of imbecilic idiots to wonder if their freedoms are being endangered. In our history these events are unprecedented. It is also a fact that virtually every fascist, dictator, emperor and what not were left-leaning Authoritarians or, in other words, Democrats on steroids (think Barney Frank as the Incredible Hulk) and you will be on the right path to understanding my point. No right-leaning Republican has ever grabbed for Authoritarian power because the Repubs are "individuals rights junkies."

Normally, within a political period, issues are brought forth and corrected--sometimes big, sometimes small. But in this case never have we had so many political issues over so many ranges brought forth and thrust into votes where the American people would be sorely, if not harmfully affected and forced to endure changes that they neither need nor want. This is how one can tell that his normal government of the past has been starkly altered into something invasive and overbearing -- something that does not allow change to occur through means that are positive but rather by forcing the changes upon the people. If change is attained in this manner it is not for the sake of democracy but rather something…else.

We have seen American flags being altered with Obama’s image, we have the president indirectly involved in a name list for dissenters, we have the Prez involved in actuating change through his office and in support of his programs; we have a Prez that disavows funding of ACORN during and after making them a huge part of his campaign; we have a Prez that gets the final votes on a Nobel 14 days after entering office--he was barely in the White House for Heavens sake......on and on and on. All of this seems to be in the interest of furthering the Presidents' now waning popularity.

We Can Beat 'Em with One Arm Tied Behind Our Backs(Uh.......Maybe?)

In addition to all of this we have a Commander in Chief that seems to be sorely at odds with his Generals in the Afghanistan Campaign to wipe out Terrorist strongholds. The problem being, to use an apt analogy, the Prez seems to want to conduct the war with a force that is inadequate to the task. Since war is a contest decided by two teams or opposing forces, we can draw an analogy for the president that he should easily be able to identify with – since he’s a big sports fan.

Take basketball or even football for instance--or any team sport. In the big play, most often the other team will always score when a defender is out of place or has been misassigned or there are too few men on the field. Further this type of mistake is one in which the opposing team will nearly always capitalize upon (it ain't rocket science). This often happens due to poor coaching (hint-hint) or poor preparation; however, in this case, we have a president whom is publicly agonizing over making a decision which finally proved historically instrumental approximately 18 months ago--that decision being--the troop surge in Iraq which decided the victory of Iraq over its insurgency problem.

If the president does not wish to utilize a large portion of the forces which should be and are departing IRAQ and get a sufficient number into Afghanistan, then he should simply pull all of our men off the field before they are overcome and decimated by the enemy. We, the American People, will then be able to aid our brave troops by fighting along side them on our Homeground where the enemy will most likely end up once again—and make no mistake, he will try at some point. You may scoff at that—perhaps--but had any one of us ever assumed that we would be attacked by our own fleet of civilian aircraft as on 9/11?

One should finally take note--enumerable powers being granted to the government can be likened to a Beast whose growth knows no limitation beyond what it is being fed. The more sustenance the creature is given the larger and more demanding of such morsels the Beast becomes. Before long, the Beast desires to take his own food rather than wait for the generosity of his master in that he will now become the master and the former master now becomes the supplicant. This is the form of government that the Authoritarian or Statist Democrats seem to find most appealing.

And Atlas shrugged......

Barry Secrest

Parts One and Three of this Three Part Series:

The Case for Capitalism:  The Statist Menace

A Glorious Cause:  The Return of the True Conservative