November 6th, 2009
The Case for Capitalism III
Silent plight, unholy fright, all is wrong, all is blight,
Sound yon versions in moderate tone, hence in doing ye radically hone...
As the Liberals, who have been in charge of our Government, drunkenly guzzle down the last few remaining drops of their debauched and radical "Statist binge," I suppose we all now get to see who eats the worm.
The Mainstream Media's disavowment of our "Non-Event" Tea Parties appears to have been "slightly off" in their faulty (as usual) analysis.
The predicted backlash against the extreme Left-Leaning Anti-Free Market policies of the current Administration and the Legislature is making itself starkly manifest within the current round of elections. In addition, we have seen the sole remaining "Independent" American auto manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, declare a profit this last quarter of nearly $1 Billion dollars. On the one hand, we have Big Government in command and control in true Fascist form (hey! Look the word up!) of (2) of the big (3) auto makers, and on the other hand, we have Ford Motor Company still in control of its own Free Market destiny. Now, I need not point out which one of these, with regard to "The Case for Capitalism," is sizzling along. The Democrats, not surprisingly, seem dejected as a result-- offering various "tepid excuses" as to why Government is failing and Private Industry is surpassing with regard to Obama's "Union giveaways" of GM and Chrysler (which continue to struggle under "The Motor City Messiah’s" iron-fisted leadership).
Purple Rino Secret Agents ?
This week we have also seen a true Conservative candidate's moral triumph over a "Republican in Name Only" or "Rino" after the race became heavily publicized as a result of former Sen. Fred Thompson and his politically astute wife Jeri Thompson--who had reported the events to Sean Hannity. The Conservative Media, and later (of course) the Mainstream Media, then began focusing attention on the New York 23rd district race. Rush Limbaugh, who is inarguably the most prolific Conservative Analyst/Newsfeed out there, in concert with Fox Network icons Hannity and Glenn Beck, then repeatedly weighed in on the facts surrounding Independent Doug Hoffman (who is the actual Conservative Republican candidate) who then figuratively took Dede Scozzafava to the woodshed--this despite Scozzafava's rather clueless backing by other heavyweight Conservative well-knowns.
Scozzafava is certainly entitled to her beliefs and positions as well as which party she identifies with--one must argue. However, the "automatic Conservative pass" that candidates have been afforded by (say so) in previous contests has most likely come to an end. The core Conservative values that have been co-opted out of the Conservative identity are, many believe, what has actually led to the seeming confusion within the electoral recognition of Republicans. Not to mention the lack of "objectively disinterested" vetting that our Media now leaves up to local political Bloggers unless the subject runs counter to Big Media's wishes. Nevertheless--Republicans have been automatically assumed to be Conservatives despite all of the evidence to the contrary with regard to events of the past several years. This might partially explain the heavy pummeling we Conservatives have taken in the election results of the last few cycles.
Scozzafava later, in an apparent "feces sling" at her Conservative supporters, promptly endorsed the Democratic candidate running against Hoffman after she found herself a distant third in the polls and then dropped out of the running. After a tight race, Hoffman predictably lost to the Democrat Bill Owens since the actual Republican vote was--at this point-- hopelessly confused (to be nice). There have been reports that Obama--in the latter part of these events--weighed into the mix and "ingratiated" an endorsement from Scozzafava in favor of the opposition Liberal candidate (The Spy Who Came in from The Cold...perhaps?)
Statist Gymnastics & Dante's Inferno
In the Governor's race in Virginia, the true Conservative, Bob McDowell, also has won against his Democratic opposition despite the "Messianic Rainmaker's" insistent support of Creigh Deeds who seemed to be scrambling away from Obama's endorsement as fast as he could (unfortunately for Deeds--the Prez was faster). The entire Virginia ticket was dominatingly won by Conservatives from the top down. New Jersey's Governor's race was also (amazingly) won by the Conservative there, Chris Christie; in addition, there were plenteous Conservative victories speckled profusely all throughout the political landscape as well.
Thus the Return of The True Conservative begins.
The Democrats, as with their opposites, always willing to parlay current elective victory into future abysmal defeat, have seen fit to install a seemingly anti-constitutional and "radical" left wing Triumvirate of President and House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader. The Unholy Trinity of these three has essentially used the constitution as a trampoline, damnably bouncing up and down on the thing as if trying to sunder the cloth of the venerated and celebrated document in a seeming attempt to bring the entire assembly crashing down on itself.
As a result of a little talked of ideological schizm within the Democratic Party, the "more Statesmen-like Democrats" or "Blue Dogs" have now found themselves heavily exposed, as if caught in a liberal blizzard without any visible means of staying warm enough to survive. They can figuratively shake hands with the Devil, join up and thereby remove themselves from the harsh Democratic campaign defunding (the Left-Wing leaders are threatening) or they can huddle up together in the frigid party "exterior landscape" thereby avoiding the "hellishly hot and miserable Trio's anti-constitutional pathos" in its radical demeanor, which only promises more of the same but the campaign funds will be there--less the votes of course (eenie-meenie-minie mo anyone?).
I think I might personally prefer to remain in the harsh exterior climate, gather lots of firewood and wait for the "Liberal Storm" to pass were I one of many of these "Ideological Democratic Party Orphans" (so how did you guys end up voting on your leadership again?)
Blizzards, Brevity, Trees & Bushes
The blizzard indicated above, however, was not limited to the elements. A Paperwork Blizzard has meanwhile been artificially induced by our Democratic Congress in its ongoing battle against "pulp trees" when Pelosi came up with, yet again, a new House bill that was no less than 1,900 pages long. Then Harry "The Lumberjack" Reid, not to be outdone, produced a 3 foot high 2,400 +page Healthscare bill (straight from Halloween to Christmas, eh Mr. Reid?). The only things missing are the bulbs and the twinkling lights (and We took care of that).
Incidentally, there are, on average, around 1,300 pages in the King James Version of the Christian Holy Bible ( just saying...) If indeed brevity is the soul of wit then the budget is not the only area where the Democrats are consistently deficient.
One can just imagine Greenpeace attacking our Legislative body for its obvious war on trees. Apparently this massive paper churning effort might be a part of the stimulus plan. Our Legislature, in its seeming attempt to protect the paper companies, has taken the bull by the horns and is single-handedly stimulating the paper producing industry by virtue of the constant downpour of new, if not ill-fitting, bills coming out which must then be distributed to each member (so that they can then not read it). I should point out only that Obama will be very grumpy if he finds his White House Christmas tree delivered in the form of a massive cone of confetti since all of the other American paper trees have been shredded and pulped by Congress. However, President Bush will most likely be blamed for this--also--on the strong evidence that he dislikes trees (since he is a Republican) and is, most obviously indeed a Bush...alas.
Media Finally loses Fascination with Navel?
The Mainstream Media, meanwhile continues in its state of semi-denial as indicated in an earlier article, but did pull together somewhat when confronted by the Administration’s attempts to stifle the First Amendment and oust Fox News from impending press conferences. The New York Times, which most Conservatives love to hate (including this one) due to its extreme left-leaning agenda, pulled a surprise rabbit from its hat and stepped into the fray blocking the White House's attempt at censure of Fox News.
Now, perhaps this was a self-interested move, but most of us Conservatives could only respond in wide-eyed, jaw-dropping wonder and confusion at this spectacle. Can anyone actually imagine what might have happened had former President Bush tried to block and censure The New York Times?
The interesting part of all of this is that the Liberal Democrats, after installing changes within the system designed to make their policy leadership easier, have forgotten the one true constant within our American system. Whatever the one dominating party instills within its time of leadership becomes the replacing party's advantage. This is not to mention the old axiom which states that "revenge is a dish best served cold.” In this particular case, after having been constantly denied true input within these Democratic policy remake decisions-- the Republicans have a freezer the size of the Arctic that they would like the Democrats to explore, and I expect that they have selected an appropriate expeditionary tour guide in the form of Republican Sen. Olympia Snow (she should blend right in with the Democrats--as usual).
The Case For Capitalism & The Republic
Within this Three Part Series in "The Case for Capitalism," we have taken a good look at our Capitalist system and how it's being threatened by those who think they know better. We have in Part One pointed out the extreme hypocrisy on exhibit by the Statist Liberals in their love-hate relationship with profit and their veiled threat against the Constitution. In Part Two, we looked at the various government systems and how they compare in concert with the heated attacks on our liberties in the form of a forced passage of the Healthcare Bill, among other incursions. In this, Part Three, we have seen the response of the American People in the form of reasserting their Conservatism--although we have much further to go. I must point out that the election results of this week, in concert with, this, our Return of the Conservative title, was no accident in its playful and yet apt allusion to a very popular movie series. You see--I have a great and boldly enduring faith in both the will and the wisdom of the American People.
Many people come to me and they say --Hey -- are those Liberal Democrats up there insane ? Are they trying to get booted out of office? Do they actually despise normal Americans? It genuinely seems that way at times, but in retrospect, I have often thought that the Liberals are, in actuality, the "OCDs" of the political world. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is for the most part a harmless condition in which the "victim" is constantly trying to keep complete order of all the myriad and varied items within their immediate perusal. I suppose we all have a touch of this, but there are more extreme cases--you know the ones, they sit down at a table in order to dine and you cannot help but notice them constantly striving to keep every knife and fork on the table --along with the napkins, bowls, etc., in perfect alignment and order down to the tassels on the place settings--in some extreme cases. I will often find myself while in the presence of such a person, disheveling things on purpose just to watch, in secret amusement, how they respond. In some instances, it seems almost a relief for them to find something not in perfect alignment with its "fellows" in a given setting, and then be able to correct the item. This seems to give them a sense of great satisfaction at having been able to place " the universe" back into strict order.
And so it is with the Liberal Statists--Control is their singular goal, and they will seemingly stop at nothing to attain it, and yet the very thing that they grasp for--in the end--becomes, in essence, the very thing that they lose. One cannot exercise control in one's life when such control has been forever ceded to a higher and more dominant power.
“Those whom would sacrifice their Liberties in the interest of security deserve neither and are doomed to lose both.”
Parts One and Two of this Three Part Series:
October 29th, 2009
With regard to the ongoing contentious battle over Healthcare and the efforts by the opposing political factions to either illegitimately control it or to allow "the remaining non-social" (natural marketplace forces) to determine the "authentic direction" of medicine's flow--we thought it might prove interesting to look at a number of facts that seem to be missing in the debate.
On its own, the debut Conservative Refocus article ,"Mainstream Media's Holographic Reality," has generated a readership of nearly staggering proportions. We have been amazed--not only by the interest generated but also by what the information covered in the article implies (which is in direct contradiction to both our Fearless Leaders in the Government and our Media--such as it is).
The initial report, as detailed below, shows how far ahead the US is with regard to Healthcare Quality in comparison to any other population of similar size:
Somewhat surprising, wouldn't you say? So it's not as bad as one might have been led to believe by both the Government and the Mainstream Media; in fact, it is quite the opposite. For our complete analysis, please click on the linked article above.
In addition to the facts we initially covered, there are a few other interesting data comparisons that the Socialist Eggheads just seem to "simply overlook"--most likely due to the fact that the truth tends to massively foul-up their arguments in support of government-controlled Healthcare.
The first element of our comparison should, of course, initially setup the scale in which we are observing all of the data. So let's look at what our total respective Healthcare Comparison Economies produce while we are all "still" Capitalists:
Wow! Did you notice? It's enough to make even the most ardent Capitalist blush with regard to those stunning comparative numbers. But those US numbers appear to be dropping fast--just to be fair and to make all the Socialists and left-wingers feel better...(Gee...wonder why?)
Ok, so I know what you're wondering, and here is the answer to your naturally competitive/inquisitive mind outside of the medical system comparison:
Wow, again! When the Government and the Media keep insisting on how horrible our Country is and how we squander the world's resources, they invariably seem to leave out just how productive "We the People"--living in our Free Market Economy--are and that we are producing a better-than-substantial proportion of the world's economy.
Now, since that's been settled, let's look at how much we spend per person on our Healthcare coverage, as well as our per capita income:
It would seem that--with higher life expectancies and world best-of-class Healthcare--an individual's costs within the higher paradigm of per capita income should logically be a bit higher since the individual is in control of their own Healthcare. In addition, our system pays what could be considered a very comfortable living to some of the best and the brightest in the world, and by doing so attracts a great many doctors from all over the planet. This can be attested to by the number of foreign doctors who have migrated to the US in order to seek a higher income and better lives. You know,the fabulous doctors that we all run into in our daily lives who are still a bit sketchy on their command of the English language. I expect--with the rationing which is involved with any Government healthplan--the number and quality of our doctors would most likely decline over time; this would also incur the byproduct of "waiting periods" for necessary but non-emergency care.
Now, let's look at total number of all Physicians and Healthcare Providers--including Dentistry--a valid inclusion (I should point out that Dental speaks to overall Healthcare quality far more than the Eggheads might suggest)--ask any Cardiologist:
Now these are simply staggering comparative numbers when you consider that we are comparing our many and varied available facilities and personnel to countries that have populations easily (3) or even (4) times the size of our population. This particular comparison simply begs the question: "Why does a competitive marketplace medical system absolutely dwarf socialized medical countries with regard to the available number of facilities and personnel?" Once again: Government care must naturally involve rationing in order to control costs.
Next we look at the number of hospital beds per capita, because this speaks to patient availability within a given country:
Now there is one particular wildcard when one looks at the number of hospital beds, and it is in regard to Outpatient Surgery Centers. The fact is simply that the US has progressed so far within the medical arts that doctors here can perform far fewer invasive surgical procedures, thereby far lessening the negative effects on patients. Now a particular procedure in the US can be completed and the patient sent on their way in (3) hours--which when done 10 years ago might have required a three day bed stay. Thus this would equate a need for far fewer hospital beds.
Outpatient Centers currently number approximately 5,000 spread throughout the US and are rapidly increasing as a measure to control costs as well as to serve patients more readily. This type of center was started in the US back in the 70's and is now catching on in other countries. With Free Market principles in place, new types of treatments in the art of medicine continue to rapidly increase. But with socialized medicine, we can say goodbye to rapid innovations--which are initially too costly and offer no profit incentive.
Finally, as we all can see, the US is like an oasis within a desert when compared to other countries that have socialized medicine. Our quick study did not even look into the sterling cleanliness of most US facilites, nor did it look at treatment mortality rates--perhaps fodder for another in-depth look at the US' medical system in comparison to others.
The Final Budgetary Solution (until thats gone too)?
One final point that I find interesting, if not perplexing, is the ratio differences when we compare the Canadian system with the US system. Many have asked the question (including me) why are the Liberal Democrats and President so insistent on taking over the system aside from the obvious answers indicated in my previous work? If one notices the total per capita income of the US as opposed to the total per capita income of Canada--and then subtracts the amount that we spend on OUR medical treatments--we find that the per capita income becomes nearly equal. Then, when we look at the total amount the Canadian government spends on its citizens' medical care, which is about half of what Americans spend, the possible answer to this question becomes clearer.
The total Canadian expenditure for Healthcare is approximately $3,000 per capita per year, as opposed to the United States, which spends approximately $6,000 per capita per year. When one looks at the US' total budgetary income for 2009 the total is $2.1 Trillion. While the latest figures available show the total expenditure in the US for Healthcare is approximately $2.3 Trillion per year. If the US Government could hypothetically gain control over Healthcare and then essentially halve the amount that it pays on Healthcare--as in Canada--the Government then could have an extra $1 Trillion to put towards wealth redistribution and/or whatever else it desires, including shortfalls. This would assume that we would all be paying into the government essentially what we pay into our entire Healthcare system (and the like) currently.
In Benjamin Franklin's day, as the Minister Plenipotentiary for the American Revolutionary Government, Franklin's chief job was to facilitate diplomacy with regard to the French, but, in particular his focus was the procuring of loans from the French Government in order to finance America's war effort against the British. A fact that is often lost in the history books is simply that-- without the French's help--our independence may have never actually happened. Historically speaking --D-day, then was in essence figurative payback.
Must Be Something in the Water Up There....
The problem--in our current context--was simply as follows: Even in Franklin's day, the Continental Congress of the existing body of states was so ravenous in its incessant spending that Franklin actually became embarrassed at his having to beg the French for more war funds on behalf of his country on a wearily continuous basis. If not for his singular celebrity-like popularity with the French peoples, he might not have been able to obtain the funds at all.
On this basis, one must suppose, whatever is in the water of the Potomac has most obviously been there for at least 250 years, for Heaven's sake.
Always follow the money.....especially when Congress is involved. We are all aware of the studies that have come out indicating that the US pays far too much for its Healthcare.
Has anyone considered the possibility that perhaps all the other socialized medicine countries are paying too little?
*All statistics presented were gathered from The World Health Organization, Nationmaster.com, CIA Factbook, United Nations 2009 Census, and The CBO. Historical excerpts are from the book The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin.
October 19th, 2009
This week we have had the distinct displeasure of hearing the President coming out and attacking yet another US Industry--this one being --those dastardly "Vampirish" Health Insurance Carriers (no surprise there). Why? He claimed that they "used smoke and mirrors" in that they have the unmitigated gall to actually defend themselves from the repeated attacks of our Government, and in actuality, who can blame them? However, attacking insurance companies was just the beginning. (I wonder if smoke and mirrors were commonly used before teleprompters with regard to the President's expert use of both?)
Mao Say Who?
The President's staff came out in a full phalanx attack against the only one true remaining member of the Fourth Estate--Fox News--for "reporting the news with a certain perspective." That perspective being one that differs from the President's, which is apparently unacceptable, one might suppose. It is indeed unfortunate that the President and his staff fail to place such diligent efforts on the war in Afghanistan or the malaise in the economy. Also in the news, we have Presidential Staffer, Anita Dunn, announcing in a graduation ceremony that Mao Tse Tung was one of her favorite political philosophers. In addition, we have Ron Bloom, who is the "Manufacturing Czar," indicating that he agreed with Mao that "political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun." The former Premier of China being a mass murderer of more than anywhere from 34 million to 71 million people whom dissented with him. Here at Conservative Refocus, We truly hope that this is not the future desire and imperative of these particular staffers; I can only speak for myself in particular.
The fact that the Prez has elected to surround himself with questionable ideologues from the extreme left should apparently give us no pause, though we have evidence of relationships that stream back beyond 20 years, which, in fact, seem to represent the principles of Marxist Russia rather than the US. The mainstream media, that being nearly any outlet other than Fox News, chose not to vet these individuals within the President's past--this despite their job, as members of the Fourth Estate, to report objectively any matter which weighs in on a certain newsworthy political event no matter what that event might be. We are then summarily tasked (by our feckless leaders) as discerning members of society, to blink and wave off the obvious disparity between our sentiments and those of radical left wingers.
I Will Fight For the President's Rights..But Will He Mine?
Please, don't get me wrong. This is, in truth, America, and I will fight for the President's right to have an extreme viewpoint despite the fact that it flies in the face of my beliefs. But the problem I see here is simply that neither the Press nor the President could, in actuality, be truthful about the views that Obama held in abeyance until such time as his position had been fully realized. The President's stance on any Capitalist tradition has been one of disdain at best. He has played to the Unions and his members of Chicago's Politico favorably; however, I have yet to see or hear him come out in praise and defense of the Constitution or any other mainstream AMERICAN tradition or set of beliefs--beyond the Trade Unions.
With the President's repeated attack on virtually every major US industry-- but now the Press itself, also-- we must note a most disturbing trend unprecedented in Presidential history taking place. This is, indeed, the most unpresidential President we have ever had.
The unassailable fact is that the President took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States when he accepted his office. The Constitution's First Amendment states unambiguously that the Press shall have unencumbered freedom to report as it sees fit. By attacking Fox News, the President has now imperiled the First Ammendment that he swore to uphold. The other members of the "sycophantic Axis Press" continue to carry the Administration's water, no doubt in a cloud of cowardice which must be nothing more nor less than "fear" at upsetting the "Messianic Magi," in addition to their obvious approval of him with regard to their lack of true vetting during the campaign--which is the principle job of the Fourth Estate.
Ok...Cowards or Racists ...Please Make up Your Minds
Actually the fact is that due to the artful architecture built within our system--the Prez has no more nor less rights than me or you or even perhaps the beloved Illegal Aliens that the Democrats seem to coddle at every opportunity--despite their being ILLEGAL. Now, some might see that last remark as an attack on Hispanics when in fact it is a simple statement of truth with regard to the law of the land. If a disproportionate sector of the populace finds a particular statement to be injurious to their current position then shall those of us who make the observations be harangued for enabling their culpability? Or is it the old "Kill the Messenger" fall-back position?
We also have race being brought to the forefront of the news due to Rush Limbaugh's ejection from his bid to be an owner in the NFL. Attorney General Eric Holder, back in early 2009 described Americans as being "cowards" when it comes to discussing issues of race. However, when any White person attempts to address race in an honest way within the media, he is both assailed and reviled and then automatically referred to as a racist.
Now, that being not enough, we also have Juan Williams, a Black Democrat who is a Contributor with Fox News, and who I greatly respect despite political differences, as being told to "go back to the porch" by Black Radio Jock, Warren Ballentine, who disagreed with Williams as it concerns the racists label being applied to Limbaugh. Williams was defending a particular position of Limbaugh's. I actually felt bad for Williams due to the fact that--as a Black Commentator--if he is forced to take a view with respect to his conscience that most other Blacks might find disagreeable to their own "cultural view," then he is denigrated and despised for thinking outside of --what is admittedly--the self-damaging maelstrom of current Black culture.
Hormonal Racist Paperclips
The simple fact is that by the current party's Demagogic and tireless use of the words racist and racism as being applied to anyone whom disagrees with the President (on the basis that he is Black) are, in essence, diluting the impact of the word to the point of inanity. The word will soon take on the gravity of a paperclip in its constant misusage as a tool by the extreme left to discredit those whom disagree within the political process. Indeed, we are not surprised. It has been our experience in viewing the typical political stance of most Liberals as being simplistic and easily defeated by common sense without even a semblance of knowledgeable political "back support." Common sense is, however, not enough when dealing with the haphazard emotional histrionics of most Liberals when defeated by their own faulty logic.
We have seen what happens when an industry embraces the current government's direction of attack. When Bank Of America, one of the most recent beneficiaries of the Government's unending gratitude, was strong-armed (during the financial melt-down) to complete its purchase of an ailing Merrill Lynch, the government then--after the fact--burned the bank at the stake for contractually living up to Merrill Lynch's Employee Bonus Programs in a classic damned-if-you do-damned-if -you-don't scenario. The simple fact is, the bank had no choice--but that's beside the point--I suppose. Contracts be damned! Merrill's employees did not deserve the bonuses according to the government, so that's it. One has to wonder if the outcome would have been different had the previous administration been in charge (still). As a result of all this, the Chairman of the Bank, Ken Lewis, recently resigned and then had his yearly pay unceremoniously cancelled--adding insult to injury, no doubt.
Of Clowns And Donkeys And Bears...Oh My!
The government has, in addition, cancelled a large portion of dealerships for both Chrysler and GM on the basis that there were too many dealerships. Um... excuse us, but getting supply to customers is, easily, one of the basic foundations of marketing and product delivery. The administration, in an apparent miasma of Capitalist confusion, was under the indistinct misimpression that too many dealerships would drive down the price of cars? Hate to break it to you clowns, but we also have foreign dealerships as plentiful as fire ant hills in and about most areas of the US, so guess what Brainiacs ?
This is our new government in full "Capitalist Kicking" mode. The signal that this sends to US Industry and Business promises to keep the Stock Market in a semblance of shock for some time to come--ergo--the recent disposition of virtually every economic indicator and analyst that we are living in a Bear Economy (or should that be bare?) for some time to come.
When next you open your 401-K statement or your Social Security check or even your unemployment check, why not then contact your local Congressperson and Senator, and ask them what it is that they are doing to help you? The highly touted stimulus IS NOT WORKING. The stimulus needs to be repealed and a true second stimulus in the form of temporary tax relaxations across the board--including a temporary cessation of FICA-- will easily catch this economy on fire and into surge mode. Will they do it? doubtful (yet again). The Liberals are nothing if not predictable and require the mountains of pork for their pet projects--the populace be damned.
The largesse of Corporate America and Small Business and Individuals is what supplies jobs and government funds as a result of fair taxation. It is certainly not the treasury of the government. Now, if we can just get Obama and the Democrats in the legislature to understand this before it's too late....but would it, in truth, matter to them?
"Experience has shown that even under the best forms of Government, those entrusted with power have over time and by slow operations, perverted it into Tyranny"
October 15th, 2009
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) n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
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:
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:
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:
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......
Parts One and Three of this Three Part Series: