Posts Tagged ‘free market


Conversations with Socialist

Debating with Liberals has got to be the most difficult and stupidest thing I do. I think every time I debate them they end up going off on some tangent and then end up calling me a “kiddo” (among other things). Gee, so much for some intelligent debate!

SERIOUSLY. QUIT CALLING ME A KIDDO. It implies the fact that a kid is not wise or not intelligent enough to debate me like an adult. It pisses me off royally and it just shows that you cannot fully debate me on the issue and instead have to attack me personally. I have had at least 4 people on separate issues call me this and I am really getting tired of it.

I am going to paste a few debates that I’ve had for your enjoyment (some of them are actually ongoing…). All conversations have taken place on Facebook.

Original Post: W H A T ? ? ?

Kyle Huwer: Good. What makes Obama a better human being to listen to than Bush?
Meike Capps-Schubert: He can speek?
Meike Capps-Schubert: and contray to Bush and me he can build a full gramaticaly correct sentense in english , but I never was the president of the United States of America
Kyle Huwer: When you say, “he can speak” do you mean “he can speak well/eloquently/passionately”?
Cornelia Maier: More Republican bullshit…yeah, grammar is known to be Bush’s foe!!
Kyle Huwer: So when people desire their children to listen to one person over another, that is “Republican bullshit”?
Redjade InHungary: Now you wish to deny others the ability to have and express their own opinion because you may be offended?
Kyle Huwer: Who said I am offended? I am simply asking you, or anyone, to answer the question. Where did I say anything about denying others the ability to have and express their opinions?
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle, both Bush Sr & Reagan gave the same kind of speech to children when they were president. Bush Jr did not choose to do this. So, the question becomes, “what makes Bush Sr & Reagan okay to listen to, but not Obama?”
Sigrid Knutson: I would assume that many of these Texas parents listened to Bush Srs speech to children when he was president.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Where did I say that we need to listen to Bush HW or Reagan over Obama?
Sigrid Knutson: @Kyle. You didn’t. I just turned your question around, after thinking that I answered your primary question.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: So what was the point of you mentioning that GHWB and Reagan gave a similar speech?
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle, you asked, “What makes Obama a better human being to listen to than Bush?” I asked, “What makes Bush Sr & Reagan okay to listen to, but not Obama?” I’m sorry that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend this.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: In normal conversation, when someone asks a question, you do not answer it with another question. Sorry that you do not understand that a question begs an answer, not a question. Answer mine and I will answer yours!
Sigrid Knutson: kyle kyle kyle. here all this time i thought you were a gal… turns out you are just another dude ♥
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Are you avoiding the question or are you just taking the opportunity for a personal attack?
Sigrid Knutson: neither, kiddo :)
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Then why did you NOT answer my question, still?
Sigrid Knutson: you make me weary, kiddo. you don’t want an answer. you still want a fight.
Kyle Huwer: I do want an answer. If you don’t want to answer my question, then fine. But don’t tell me that I want to fight when all I am doing is asking you to explain yourself so that I do not get anything wrong or put words in your mouth. And again, belittling with the “kiddo” talk. THANKS!

Original Post:

Kyle Huwer: This is stupid. This is absolutely PLAGUED with strawmen logical fallacies. GARBAGE!
Redjade InHungary: i think this is satire – but, ya never know these days!
Kyle Huwer: While it may be satire, does it not portray an idea that the “Conservatives” do not want anything socialized?
Redjade InHungary: huh Kyle?
Kyle Huwer: Satire means – to portray an idea in an “over the top” way as to make fun of it, correct?
Redjade InHungary: Not quite, satire usually means very close to the truth, but also absurd.
Kyle Huwer: I did not know that over the-top-meant “false.” Nevertheless…. So what is this video satirizing that is “close to the truth”?
Redjade InHungary: that Free Market fundamentalists are nuts. and there are many that do believe in privatizing the Fire Dept, it is not an exaggeration – just their portrayal. Maybe you dont like the joke, but since when do you expect humour to be accurate in anything? It’s humour, maybe not good humour, but it is humour.
Kyle Huwer: You know the funny thing… Here in Arizona right up the road from me in Scottsdale they have a privatized fire department and they – the people and the city – have called it a success. Whatdya know?!?! But hey, I’d be willing to hear some of this evidence/proof that free-market people are nuts…
Redjade InHungary: Kyle, I apologize for stepping on the big toe of your economic religion – but for most people in the world, the ‘Free Market’ is not ‘free’ and nor is it really a ‘market’ – it is usually associated with corruption and seen as something that is imposed on you. A democratic State running essential services like a Fire Dept or healthcare is the better option – and it works most of the time quite well.
Kyle Huwer: I just don’t appreciate being satirized and then called a nutjob for believing something. I agree, the free market is not free – it is socialized. America while it may claim to have a “free market” is not free at all. Zero. What we have is a pseudo free-market and you are right, it has a lot of corruption. However, that does not mean at all that we need to regulate it even more. Likewise, America is not a democracy. It is a Republic. However, it too is so molested that it is pretty much a democracy. While some services can be run sufficiently by the government – I will bet my life on it that a purely capitalist system can do it better, cheaper, and more efficiently. Guaranteed. Scottsdale alluded to above is proof…. Read More. If you want to give up % of your money to participate in government program XYZ, then do it, but don’t FORCE me into YOUR system. Is that too unfair to ask?
Redjade InHungary: Kyle – who is forcing you to do ANYTHING?
Kyle Huwer: If we have socialized medicine, can I opt out? Can I opt out of any of these public services (yes, even the fire department) if I want to?
Redjade InHungary: Kyle, if you have a child in your home and it is burning – YES, the big bad evil STATE should break into your home and save your child from dying. And because your home is on fire, other homes will also catch on fire, YES. and the examples go on… Why is that ‘libertarians’ only think the world is about me, me and me?
Kyle Huwer: How about I opt out of the fire department – and I take full responsibility for the loss of my child AND my neighbor’s home burning? My situation, my responsibility! What proof do you have that libertarians think it is about me, me, and me?
Redjade InHungary: sorry had to wash the dishes… ‘What proof’?
well, i used to be a Libertarian a long time ago – then I grew up and realized there is such a thing as society and civilization…. ‘me, me, and me’? Your replies are such an example.
Meike Capps-Schubert: Kyle – who is paying for your fire department ?
Kyle Huwer: @Redjade: So you = me? No, it does not work like that. My replies are nothing of your “proof.” So because I want to opt out of socialized programs, this is now all about “me”? And once again, “and then I grew up” yet another emotionally loaded statement. Are you implying that I am immature?
@Meike: Are you asking for the current payee or who is paying for MY fire department?
Meike Capps-Schubert: the fire department you are talking about in Scottsdale
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: The people that are covered by the fire department, are covered by the fire department. Who else would pay for it?
Meike Capps-Schubert: so the fire fighters work for free or pay for them selfs and their equitment ?
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: They are a business. So, they buy the equipment beforehand and then provide a service to their area. Are you confusing a paid public service with a free, free-market service?
Meike Capps-Schubert: WHO is paying their work they have to get payed from somewhere so who is paying it the companie? do people pay the companie after they put out a fire or how does that work – where does the money come from – what so hard to understand?
Sigrid Knutson: this is a joke… aimed at those against single payer health insurance.
Sigrid Knutson: and Kyle, please don’t comment.
Redjade InHungary: @kyle. I did a short amount of googling about your Capitalist Scottsdale Fire Dept. Here they are: Their web site says they provide Fire protect and other services to communities and the private sector (companies etc) – but NO MENTION of providing to individuals, like you.
This means that Tax Funded local governments make a decision For You and Hire Them and use Your Money that the government Took From You and you have No Choice!… This is certainly not a ‘pure’ socialized’ Fire Dept, but the principle that society needs to make social decisions to protect society is still upheld in the case you point to. Understand, comrade?
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: The people who are covered! There is nothing else to this idea Meike! The only difference between your system is that the private company can lose it’s contract if they act poorly. With the public option, they can do whatever they want and maintain their position.
@Sigrid: You bet I am going to reply…. I want an answer why this is “close to the truth” that Redjade alluded to! Are you trying to suppress my opinion?
@Redjade: Provide services to the COMMUNITY. Right, and who lives in the community? Individual citizens! So if you think that they do not care for individual citizens, then WHO are they caring for in the community – as you mentioned?… Also, Their mission statement includes, “Works within the communities we serve to build trust and promote the well-being of the CITIZENS.” Also, “Rural/Metro Corporation is a leading provider of emergency and non-emergency medical transportation services, fire protection and other safety-related services to municipal, RESIDENTIAL…”
Sigrid Knutson: An outraged citizens group in Scottsdale is looking to replace the private Rural/Metro Fire Department with a municipal fire department. The Committee to Protect Scottsdale and Our Firefighters claims Rural/Metro’s staffing and response are unacceptable and unsafe.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: No I do not need his name. So what is your point?
First off – I do not know where “here” is nor am I going to go snooping to try to find out where “here” is.
So you think that a public option that bills you is exactly what I am talking about? Where did I say that?
Sigrid Knutson:
Satire: Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-ˌtī(-ə)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough — more at sad
Date: 1501… Read More
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
about an hour ago
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: GREAT! If they are doing a horrible job, then get them out!
However, if we look at the date of that article, that was written in 2002! It is 7 years later and they are STILL providing service. Must have not been THAT bad. Right?
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Are you just going to cut and copy or do you have a point?
Sigrid Knutson: When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and kick the cinders around the stage. Don’t worry about losing the Strawperson-American community vote.
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: Yes, strawman…. Are you doing homework or do you have a point? Quit cutting and copying and say what you want to say!
Sigrid Knutson: i’m 56. been around a few blocks. so have you. stop thinking everyone is out to get you. they are not.
Sigrid Knutson: ps… i don’t give a shit about fire depts OR strawmen. i care more about you as a person.
Sigrid Knutson: Kyle:
Kyle Huwer: @Sigrid: If you do not want to debate, then why did you step into the ring? I am asking you to answer a few questions and you refuse to do so here, and on other posts. Why? You continually C&C stuff and never say your position. I am not going to guess your position, so say it and say it with conviction! I still have no idea what you are getting at with the straw man or the 2002 report. I am asking you, or anyone, to explain!… Also, if you know that I’ve “been around the block a few times” then why did you call me a “kiddo” in the other thread? That is offensive and for some reason my opponents always use that as a “nice” way to belittle me. Am I just a kiddo or am I an intelligent adult here, Sigrid?
Sigrid Knutson: you are younger than my sons. you had a hell of a time with your CO & your wife. i am guessing that you — like me — are angry at the world. so, your questions here are mundane to me. what you really need/want is a good fight & a good cry. go to the gym, climb a mountain. i should. i have not answered you — in the way you would like — cos to be honest, it bores me. however, you — as a person — do not.
Meike Capps-Schubert: so this if fun , but still does that mean they only put out the fires of the people who payed for their service- and what makes it better – do they use evian water linke in the video?
Kyle Huwer: @Singrid: What does me and my CO or me and my wife have to do with this debate here? I will answer for you – nothing at all. You do not know me apart from what little tidbits you have read here and there. I am not angry at the world. Are you kidding me? I am the most peaceful person you will ever know. Obviously I will stand up for my beliefs but I am far from wanting a FIGHT. I have asked you many times to answer questions to better give me an understanding and you continually tap-dance around them. If you are going to debate, then DEBATE. Don’t pussy-foot with me. Just to let you know, I am quite active both on a personal sense and on a community/political sense. I have quite a nice life…. If the conversation and/or issue bores you, then quit responding… Simple. And thank you for not belittling me by calling me a kiddo this time around! Means a lot.
Kyle Huwer: @Meike: I didn’t quite get what you are saying but I will try to respond.
I think you are misunderstanding the issue with the FD.
In a public service the FD will use the city resources AND be paid by the city by tax dollars. With the public service there is no contract….
With the private service the FD will also use the city resources AND be paid by tax dollars. With the private service, there is a contract and if they do not do their job or do it well enough, they could lose their contract/job.
So, with the public option it does not matter how good or bad they do. Since there are no standards for termination or contract end date, they can do whatever. With a private service they are being watched. If they do a bad job then they can lose their contract job to someone else. So as a result, it is in their best interest to do it cheaply and provide good service.
This is a summary. But maybe you can understand this. If not, ask.

Formatting was no preserved. I don’t have time to format it all… Meike lives in Germany. Redjade I would assume lives in Hungary. And I have no idea where Singrid lives but I think they live in Germany as well.


Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy

As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore — and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan. The country is in a deep recession that will deepen even further with the coming collapse of the commercial real estate market. The last thing we need is for government to increase and expand taxes to pay for another damaging, wasteful program. Foreigners are becoming less enthusiastic about buying our debt, and creating another open-ended welfare program when we cannot pay for what is already in place, will not help. Champions of socialized medicine want to tax the rich, tax businesses that already cannot afford to provide health plans to employees, and tax people who don’t want to participate in the government’s scheme by buying an approved healthcare plan. Presumably, all these taxes are to induce compliance. This is not freedom, nor will it improve healthcare.

There are limits to how much government can tax before it kills the host. Even worse, when government attempts to subsidize prices, it has the net effect of inflating them instead. The economic reality is that you cannot distort natural market pressures without unintended consequences. Market forces would drive prices down. Government meddling negates these pressures, adds regulatory compliance costs and layers of bureaucracy, and in the end, drives prices up.

The non-partisan CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. But government crystal balls always massively underestimate costs. It is not hard to imagine the final cost being two or three times the estimates, even though the estimates are bad enough.

It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare. This should be between doctors and patients. But this has been the discussion since the 60’s and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, when government first began intervening to keep costs down and make sure everyone had access. The result of Medicaid/Medicare price controls and regulatory burden has been to drive more doctors out of the system — making it more difficult for the poor and the elderly to receive quality care! Seemingly, there are no failed government programs, only underfunded ones. If we refuse to acknowledge common sense economics, the prescription will always be the same: more government.

Make no mistake, government control and micromanagement of healthcare will hurt, not help healthcare in this country. However, if for a moment, we allowed the assumption that it really would accomplish all they claim, paying for it would still plunge the country into poverty. This solves nothing. The government, like any household struggling with bills to pay, should prioritize its budget. If the administration is serious about supporting healthcare without contributing to our skyrocketing deficits, they should fulfill promises to reduce our overseas commitments and use some of those savings to take care of Americans at home instead of killing foreigners abroad.

The leadership in Washington persists in a fantasy world of unlimited money to spend on unlimited programs and wars to garner unlimited control. But there is a fast-approaching limit to our ability to borrow, steal, and print. Acknowledging this reality is not mean-spirited or cruel. On the contrary, it could be the only thing that saves us from complete and total economic meltdown.



Cash for Clunkers, Good or Bad?

Market value. What is it an how does it work? It works by the laws of supply and demand as far as I know. You make too much or make it poorly and the demand for such an item is not high. Because it’s demand is low, the price has to drop to get rid of the inventory. Likewise, if you have something that is very high quality and/or rare, then the demand for that item is high and therefore the price goes up.

As a side note, this is even true of our labor. If we graduate high school and nothing more, the demand for our labor is minimal because nearly everyone has a diploma. Likewise, if we go to school for 15 years to get a Ph.D in neuro-science then not many people are going to have those skills and therefore we get paid more. Important subject on labor cost, but not the focus of this article.

What I want to talk about is the government program entitled Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) and also commonly known as the Cash for Clunkers program. As I understand it, if your car is less than 25 years old and gets a low miles per gallon, you can trade it in for $3500 – $4500. Great right? The auto dealers get to sell cars and get cars off their lots. You get a new fuel efficient car that will save the world’s ecosystem. The auto manufacturers will be saved because you are letting them continue to make cars and thus keep all their people employed. And most importantly you will be able to pick up babes more effiently in your new car instead of your clunker.

Perfect! Or is it?

Where is this money coming from? What does the forced trade-in of a worthless pile of junk for $3500 – $4500 do to the market demand price? What about your continued debt? What about all these offers from dealerships/manufacturers where they say if you lose your job you can suspend payments or just give the car back. Then what?

On the surface it addmitedly seems like a great plan. But once I look into it, it doesn’t seem like such a swell idea. More than anything, I don’t care for the continued debt on the individual. Debt is slavery, if you haven’t already noticed this. I also don’t like the idea that tax dollars are being used to buy out garbage and screw up the fair market value of goods in the free-market system. And let’s face it and make this crystal clear, CARS isn’t about getting you a nice new car, it is about a covert bailout for the auto industry.

Our government knows that giving direct bailout money to corporations isn’t flying. Americans don’t want to hear that their tax dollars is being doled out to corporations to do as they please. So, to continue giving money to the corporations, the government has come up with a new way to funnel money to them. Of course, the Socialist trick is to make you think that the government is helping you out, not the corporations.

I want to make it clear that I have nothing against giant corporations – what I do hate is when government meddles, especially heavily, in their affairs and their livelihood. If companies are as mismanaged as the auto industry is… then let them fail. I am interested to see how this debacle ends when people get their new cars and then lose their jobs and then try to sell them off and they can’t because of stipulations in the bill and/or something else likewise stupid.


Forced Health Coverage

Excellent! Mandated (read: forced) health coverage, whether or not you want it or need it!

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s dream of dramatically remaking the nation’s health-care system is still a long way from reality. But if lawmakers can reach an accord, one thing is virtually certain: For the first time ever, every American would be required to carry health insurance.

The requirement, known as an individual mandate, is among the most far-reaching changes envisioned this year by those pushing for health-care reform. And it is one of the few common threads running through all three bills being considered in Congress, greatly increasing the likelihood it will survive the legislative process. Obama continued Tuesday to push lawmakers struggling with the large costs and scope of health legislation to move forward, pronouncing reform to be “closer than ever.”

Just as drivers must purchase auto insurance, the medical system of the future would put responsibility for health coverage first and foremost on every adult.

For the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance, the change would mean little more than submitting a form with their tax returns proving that the plan they carry meets certain minimum standards. Many of the nation’s 47 million uninsured people, however, would be required to purchase a health policy or face financial penalties, though waivers or discounts would be provided for lower-income Americans.

The concept is modeled after a requirement instituted in Massachusetts three years ago as part of that state’s broad health-care overhaul. And like the Massachusetts law, the individual mandate proposed by congressional Democrats would be paired with a much more controversial new requirement that nearly every employer contribute to the total cost of care.

‘More affordable for everyone’
“Without an individual mandate, you’re never going to get to universal coverage,” said Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins University.

Bringing everyone into the insurance pool — particularly young, healthy customers — spreads the risk and lowers overall costs. “That will make it more affordable for everyone,” Herring said.

Some proponents of a European-style, nationalized single-payer approach say an individual mandate places an unfair financial burden on lower-income consumers. Some conservative analysts argue that such a requirement forces individuals into an overpriced, underperforming health system.

Yet in a nation that prides itself on having freedom of choice, it is striking that such a wide and diverse coalition has formed around the individual mandate. Labor unions, economists, the medical industry, big business, some prominent Republicans and Obama all support the requirement, which has its roots in the conservative philosophy of self-reliance.

In the debate over Massachusetts’s measure, then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican with presidential aspirations, touted the approach as a “personal responsibility system.”

Ferocious lobbying
Hospitals, insurers and drug manufacturers — salivating at the prospect of up to 50 million newly insured customers — have lobbied ferociously for the federal provision.

Obama, after sparring last year with his Democratic presidential primary opponents over the concept, is a convert, as long as there are “hardship exemptions” for those least able to pay.

“I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was, the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come,” he said in a recent interview with CBS. “I’ve been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down.”

Nearly one-third of the uninsured in the United States in 2007 were between the ages of 19 and 29, and 42 percent were between 30 and 54, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A fair number of young, healthy workers choose not to purchase insurance, believing they do not need it.

Advocates of universal coverage want to lure that group into the insurance pool because they tend to use fewer medical services and help keep premiums down. If only the sick buy coverage, premiums will be high. And visits to emergency rooms by uninsured patients increase premiums for the insured — by $1,000 per person per year, according to some estimates.

The Massachusetts experience with an individual mandate has provided a model, as well as some unexpected results.

“Massachusetts changed everything in the policy community and the political arena,” said Karen Ignagni, president of the industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans.

The penalty for Massachusetts residents who do not carry health insurance was $220 in late 2007 and rose to about $1,020 this year. Still, relatively few residents have balked at the idea — and an additional 432,000 people have signed up for health coverage.

Today, less than 3 percent of Bay State residents lack health insurance, compared with about 16 percent nationwide.

Out of the 3.9 million people who filed taxes in Massachusetts in 2008, 86,000 paid the penalty, and 71,000 were exempted because they did not meet the minimum income levels.

One of the great surprises is how many more people — an additional 148,000 — have enrolled in plans offered through the workplace, most likely nudged by the individual mandate.

“It’s worked out better than I would have guessed,” said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who serves on the board of the Massachusetts program. “We didn’t anticipate the increase in employer-sponsored insurance.”

Last year, the average price nationwide for health insurance purchased through an employer was $12,680 for a family plan and $4,700 for an individual, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In Congress, lawmakers are weighing slightly different proposals. A bill being debated in the House this week would charge individuals a penalty of 2.5 percent of income above $9,000, up to the price of the average premium sold nationwide. The fines would begin in 2013.

A bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week would set the penalty at $750 per person. Individuals earning less than 150 percent of the poverty level, or about $16,245, would be exempt.

Negotiations are continuing in the Senate Finance Committee, where Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has argued for months that an individual mandate is central to achieving Obama’s goal of near-universal coverage and cost controls.

Stuart Butler, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees that bringing everyone — especially young, healthy patients — into the risk pool would be advantageous.

But he advocates beginning with a voluntary “opt out” approach similar to automatic enrollment programs for retirement accounts. If policies are reasonably priced, he expects that few will turn down the coverage.

The challenge, said Butler and experts in Massachusetts, is designing a basic benefits package that is affordable. Writing a law that requires individuals to purchase something they cannot afford is “inhumane,” Herring said.

When Massachusetts approved its individual mandate, proponents of the new law braced for a modern-day Tea Party. It never materialized.

“I don’t see people revolting over having to have a driver’s license or insurance to drive a car,” Gruber said. “And we haven’t seen it with the mandate.” (link)

Important or interesting parts bolded by me. So this is what I get out of this whole idea. Regardless of who you are, regardless of what care you need, regardless of what you choose to do… you are going to have to enroll. What the article does not tell you is that there are plenty of people that are enrolled and that don’t use their coverage – like me. I am covered by a nice plan and go to the doctor probably once every five years. Hell, I don’t even take medicine – OTC or perscription – unless I am near my deathbed. I do not use my medical coverage and never really will. It is my individual and personal choice to not participate in the system – partly because I prefer eastern/homeopathic medicine over western medicine and also because I have faith in my body to naturally recover from whatever ailment.

Quite frankly, I am not sure why I have not opted out of my coverage and pocketed the money.

So, why should I be forced into remaining in a plan? The answer they give is that people like me will help lower the cost for everyone. I doubt it. Like I alluded to above, I doubt that I am the only one that has coverage and does not use it. Yet, the coverage remains the same. The real answer is that the government wants to play games with us. They want to control what we can and cannot do. What a better way to control us than to control our health? As the article says above, they will require some sort of minimum coverage. So what does that mean? They will take care of you if you have the flu, but not if you need emergency surgery to remove your appendix? Or maybe that cancer that just popped up, well, that isn’t included in the minimum… but hey, thanks for paying anyways, schmuck.

History has shown and continues to show that the only way to drive prices down and quality up is to do it through competition. You read it right – free-markets. I’m not talking about this molested “free-market” we have now either, I am talking about free free-markets. When people are directly exposed to the prices of a product or service, they are directly responsible for the demand (and indirectly, the supply).  This balance is what gives us progression of products and service, not the enforcement of government to participate.

Furthermore, multiple studies have been shown that there is a large amount of people that are uninsured, can afford it, they just don’t want to enroll. If you don’t understand what I just said, then go watch the videos on my old posts, “Who is uninsured in America?” and “Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.”

Wake up America.


Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

From: Ron Paul

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.


Free-market vs Capitalism vs Socialism

Here is an interesting Rasmuseen Report on Free-market vs Capitalism vs Socialism.

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans – by an 11-to-1 margin – favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism.

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.

Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.

Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.

(Original here)


Socialism vs Free-Markets

As some of you know I am an advocate for the free-market. I do not support socialist markets. I felt this piece was a good analogy of how and why socialist markets do not work.

“Let’s never forget how America became great. We became great because for 190 years we have recognized that progress is achieved not through government doing more for people, but through people doing more for themselves.” – Richard Nixon, 1968

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied
hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name calling all resulted in hard feelings as no one would study any longer for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because under capitalism when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when the government levels the playing field and takes more of reward away; no one will try or want to succeed as much as before.

Could not be any simpler than that….

(Original here)


The Fed Creates a Crisis and Hampers the Recovery

by William Anderson (Original here)

When Ron Paul made eliminating the Federal Reserve System a centerpiece of his presidential primary campaign last year, media pundits and others scratched their heads in amazement.  After all, they reasoned, is not the Fed a collection of “conservative, buttoned-down” public officials who are given the mission of providing prosperity?

Indeed, whenever Ben Bernanke and his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, have traveled to Capitol Hill to testify before congressional committees, they are treated as royalty, economic geniuses whose every word is treasured, even if Congress and the press cannot comprehend all of them.  If there is any criticism for these men, it is that they have not inflated enough.

However, in watching one exchange last year between Rep. Paul and Bernanke, I was struck not only by the lack of comprehension of economic logic that Bernanke possessed, but also his utterly wrong view of the actions of the Herbert Hoover administration.  In response to Rep. Paul’s criticism of the numerous Fed-oriented bailouts, Bernanke quoted Andrew Mellon, Hoover’s secretary of the treasury, who had advocated that the government permit weak businesses to go under in order to “purge the rottenness from our system.”

Unfortunately, Bernanke got it wrong.  After quoting Mellon, he assumed that Hoover had followed Mellon’s advice, which clearly is not what happened.  Instead, as Murray Rothbard conclusively pointed out in his classic America’s Great Depression, Hoover ignored Mellon and continued his attempts to bail out failing businesses and implement huge public works projects in order to “increase employment.”

The irony is that Hoover’s policies did “liquidate” the farmers, the bankers, and many others, despite the efforts of the government to keep it from happening.  Unfortunately, the liquidation was much worse than it would have been had Hoover done what his predecessors had done: not intervene into the economy during a downturn.  (President Warren G. Harding, although ridiculed by historians for his relative laissez-faire viewpoints, nonetheless understood the limitations of federal power in economic affairs and refused to intervene when the economy faced a serious downturn in 1921.)

Continue reading ‘The Fed Creates a Crisis and Hampers the Recovery’


Drew Carey on Politics

Old, but good (original here).

Price Is Right’s Drew Carey Shows His Libertarian Colors

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:55 PM

Comedian Drew Carey, who debuted Monday as the host of “The Price Is Right,” is showing his libertarian colors by participating in a series of videos for the Reason Foundation’s new Web site

The short videos will focus on the libertarian think tank’s belief in what it calls “free minds and free markets.”

Carey said in a statement issued by Reason: “We need Reason to help fight the stupid drug laws, the stupid immigration laws, and stupid big government in general.”

In his first video, Carey examines traffic congestion in Los Angeles and the ways the private sector – rather than taxpayers – can solve the problem.

Ten years ago, according to, Carey told Reason magazine about government: “The less the better. As far as your personal goals are and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have to do with the government. You should never depend on the government for your retirement, your financial security, for anything. If you do, you’re screwed.”

Carey has been politically active over the years. He performed at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in 2002, and the ex-Marine entertained troops in Iraq in 2003.

He’s been a financial backer of Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, Reuters reported, and in 1998 led a “smoke-in” in defiance of a no-smoking ordinance.

More recently, he has expressed his distaste for the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war.


Dear Government, Please Regulate All Aspects of My Life

Digg This So, a few months ago I got in a debate with some self-admitted Communists. Now before I get started, let me say that you can be whatever you want – I believe in individualism and am not going to try to say that you can be this and cannot be that. If you want to be a Communist, then so be it.

In this conversation with these Communist it was obvious that they were lustful of big government. In fact, I think they wanted to have everything regulated by the government. I mean, after all, we elect the officials so they will always be looking out for our best interests, right?

They wanted electricity to be [governmentally] re-regulated. That way we wouldn’t have California-Brown Outs. They want radio and television and all forms of news regulated. So that everyone with a political idea could be heard. They want all food production to be regulated. So that there is no surplus. They want universal “free” health care. So that everyone gets to go see a doctor whenever they want. Oh, and they want to burn the Constitution. So that everyone is free? Wait…

So, in part, I agree. Nobody wants to go through brown outs or have high utility bills. Everyone with a political idea wants to be heard. No farmer wants to be poor because their field did not yield crop. And everyone wants to be able to go to the doctor to get help. However, is the answer to all these problems to give all power and decision making to some entity? An entity that in the past has repeatedly proven itself to be (a) vastly incompetent in upholding it’s promises (b) providing a solution that is long-term (c) being more efficient than the private-sector (d) and not creating additional problems in the process.

One of the Communists dared to ask “is there anything that the government deregulated or privatized completely that has proven to run better or more effeciently (with the exception of the US army via blackwater)?” And below is my answer…

Continue reading ‘Dear Government, Please Regulate All Aspects of My Life’


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain