As someone who firmly values liberty and justice, I am quite excited to see how well Rand Paul fared in the Kentucky primaries earlier this week. Given that our senate is quite out of control, and is currently filled with corrupt individuals who cater to corporate whims and seek to expand government intervention, I strongly believe that if there is to be any hope for America, we must elect officials who take firm stances against more unjust government intervention into people's lives. As such, I wholeheartedly support and endorse Rand Paul's senate campaign.
Of course, the corrupt liberal media is opposed to anything related to freedom or integrity. As such, they are more than happy to twist his words and write headlines that are blatantly and knowingly false. Here in the news, Rand Paul is reported as drawing fire for stating his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While he does oppose discrimination in the public realm and in politics, he also believes that privately-owned businesses should have every right to choose whom they wish to hire. Discrimination laws, in his opinion, should not extend to private businesses. Now, the media posted a new article with the headline, "Paul changes course, now supports Civil Rights Act in full." Of course, this most certainly isn't what Rand Paul himself said in any interview or public statement.
As usual, the media has no qualms with directly twisting peoples' words and stances to fit the media's own institutional agendas, no matter how much deception and blatant dishonestly is used in the process. Rand Paul's stance is concerned with the laws that impact the liberties of business owners, while the politically-correct media seeks to frame the issue in terms of racism. At first, when I read that second headline, I felt disappointed that Rand Paul would backpedal on his stance on the issue. Then, in researching it more, I discovered that he hadn't backpedaled at all. The lies that are daily fed to us require a skeptical mind and willingness to search for the truth in order to overcome. Especially when they are the covering issues of any importance, the media is more likely to lie and twist the facts than not. Be wary!
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Political Correctness - A Preclude to Thoughtcrime
Political correctness is something that is both strongly encouraged and strongly opposed, depending on which parties you are looking at. Some people feel that using politically correct language is a necessary way to treat others with respect and dignifiy them as human beings. Others feel that the entire political correctness movement unjustly strips people of liberties that they should have. My stance falls squarely in that of the latter group of people. Yesterday, I had a fascinating discussion with a politically conservative friend, and our conversation veered towards the new immigration laws in Arizona and the ridiculous racial meme that many try to conflate with this new legislation.
Political correctness can be defined as: "a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts." Taken to an extreme, political correctness would result in the following three things. Individuals would not treat anyone differently, regardless of nearly any meaningful difference. Individuals would not use language that denote others as different. Individuals would not even hold ideas or think thoughts that perceive others as different. Everyone who is working towards achieving a politically-correct utopia is working towards the enforcement of those three things. Already, we have a plethora of anti-discrimination laws that affect employment and housing. Already, we have hate speech laws, severely restricting free speech.
The next logical progression of the political correctness movement is to take an even more authoritarian stance by cracking down further on both behavior and speech. Following that, the only remaining goal left to achieve is that of creating legislation banning thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime, of course, is any idea or opinion that is deemed unacceptable by the ruling elite. The prohibition of thoughtcrime would mark the complete end to all liberty. If those in power say that 2+2=5, then it must be true. If those in power say that men and women are no different, then it's a crime to think otherwise. If the ruling elite say that that there is no distinction between the elderly and the young, then such must be the established facts. Any thinking contrary to this is criminal behavior, worthy of whatever punishments are deemed appropriate.
Politically correct thinking, even though it has not reached its natural end, already involves massive amounts of doublethink. Ideologically, political correctness denies that there is any functional correlation between social diversity and individual ability. It denies that the very real diversity that exists has any practical effect on life. A woman can do a job as well as a man. A hispanic immigrant will be as well-suited for a computer programming job as a college-educated white man. An elderly man is as capable of working hard and being profitable as a young fellow. The simple fact is, even though there may be rare exceptions, generally those differences are substantial. It is irrational and insane to suggest otherwise. Those who turn everything into a debate about racism or sexism invariably deny that race or sex has any effect on one's ability to perform certain tasks, be good tenants, or even be decent people. They insist that all individuals engage in doublethink by simultaneously recognizing the very real diversity that exists, while simultaneously denying both the existence of diversity and the inescapable implications of that diversity.
For the same reason that I oppose all unjust restrictions on peoples' liberty, I also oppose political correctness in both its aims and its practical application. Whatever actions are just ought to be allowed, regardless of whether they are "fair" or not, as defined by the modern liberal. Whatever words are accurate (and even a good many that are not) ought to be permitted, regardless of whether they are offensive. Whatever thoughts and opinions a person has, they should be allowed to hold them. Only those actions which are unjust should be restricted by law. Political correctness tramples all over justice and freedom by restricting not merely unreasonable thoughts, words and actions, but also a great many reasonable ones. Political correctness, in its present incarnation, is a formal prelude to the concept of thoughtcrime.
Political correctness can be defined as: "a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts." Taken to an extreme, political correctness would result in the following three things. Individuals would not treat anyone differently, regardless of nearly any meaningful difference. Individuals would not use language that denote others as different. Individuals would not even hold ideas or think thoughts that perceive others as different. Everyone who is working towards achieving a politically-correct utopia is working towards the enforcement of those three things. Already, we have a plethora of anti-discrimination laws that affect employment and housing. Already, we have hate speech laws, severely restricting free speech.
The next logical progression of the political correctness movement is to take an even more authoritarian stance by cracking down further on both behavior and speech. Following that, the only remaining goal left to achieve is that of creating legislation banning thoughtcrime. Thoughtcrime, of course, is any idea or opinion that is deemed unacceptable by the ruling elite. The prohibition of thoughtcrime would mark the complete end to all liberty. If those in power say that 2+2=5, then it must be true. If those in power say that men and women are no different, then it's a crime to think otherwise. If the ruling elite say that that there is no distinction between the elderly and the young, then such must be the established facts. Any thinking contrary to this is criminal behavior, worthy of whatever punishments are deemed appropriate.
Politically correct thinking, even though it has not reached its natural end, already involves massive amounts of doublethink. Ideologically, political correctness denies that there is any functional correlation between social diversity and individual ability. It denies that the very real diversity that exists has any practical effect on life. A woman can do a job as well as a man. A hispanic immigrant will be as well-suited for a computer programming job as a college-educated white man. An elderly man is as capable of working hard and being profitable as a young fellow. The simple fact is, even though there may be rare exceptions, generally those differences are substantial. It is irrational and insane to suggest otherwise. Those who turn everything into a debate about racism or sexism invariably deny that race or sex has any effect on one's ability to perform certain tasks, be good tenants, or even be decent people. They insist that all individuals engage in doublethink by simultaneously recognizing the very real diversity that exists, while simultaneously denying both the existence of diversity and the inescapable implications of that diversity.
For the same reason that I oppose all unjust restrictions on peoples' liberty, I also oppose political correctness in both its aims and its practical application. Whatever actions are just ought to be allowed, regardless of whether they are "fair" or not, as defined by the modern liberal. Whatever words are accurate (and even a good many that are not) ought to be permitted, regardless of whether they are offensive. Whatever thoughts and opinions a person has, they should be allowed to hold them. Only those actions which are unjust should be restricted by law. Political correctness tramples all over justice and freedom by restricting not merely unreasonable thoughts, words and actions, but also a great many reasonable ones. Political correctness, in its present incarnation, is a formal prelude to the concept of thoughtcrime.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Revolutions Start Small
Today, Joseph Stack's actions have been plastered all over the news. His anger and indignation at the corruption of the present American political system, the freedom that has been lost, and the injustices perpetuated by our government led him to crash his little airplane into an IRS building in Texas. Fifteen years ago, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building to decry the wrongful tyranny of the Federal Government and the injustice tax system, most people viewed him simply as a radical. He was merely a political outlier with some crazy ideas. Today, however, there is a much different attitude towards the American system of government. The sentiments expressed by Joseph Stack in his final letter are not merely the rantings of a radical. People are awakening to the truth. Many of the sentiments he expressed today are ones that increasing numbers of people are coming to agree with wholeheartedly.
Here are some excerpts from his letter:
Today's events are but a harbinger of what lies ahead. Having forsaken that end and those principles which were original set forth as the aims of the American experiment, there is a spirit of unrest in the air that is palpable. Revolution is not yet upon us, but perhaps it is not nearly as distant as some might think. Already I know of many who discuss their desire for anarchy rather than the present form of government. Some friends of mine are beginning to purchase weapons and train themselves in the use thereof. Another friend of mine, a philosopher, often asks how different people in our social circle would respond to revolution. As Thomas Jefferson prophetically declared: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." On this day we see that one man has spilt his blood for the sake of liberty. The yearning for freedom is something that is reawakening in the hearts of many, and there is little doubt that unless the government lessens its tyrannical grip on its citizens, there will be blood. We have nearly completed a full circuit in returning to many of the opinions and ideals espoused by the Founding Fathers at the birth of our nation. Either America must be politically cleansed and reborn, or it shall fall and be replaced. There is no other alternative.
Here are some excerpts from his letter:
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.This is a pivotal truth. While our government is supposed to truly provide liberty and justice for all, it certainly doesn't provide that. It provides a "more equal" justice for some people than for others. Joseph insightfully raises the point that representation isn't the same as merely being able to cast a vote every year or two. Properly understood, representation means that someone in a place of political power is actually acting on behalf of its constituents. One isn't being represented unless their best interests are being acted upon and protected by the governing body. When legislative politicians pass laws that actively harm a large percentage of the people they supposedly represent, this is not "representation," it is tyrannical oppression.
While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!Not only is the current tax code utterly indecipherable by even the brightest of the master scholars, but every taxpayer is required to contractually bind themselves to validity of their tax returns. Even minor tax issues can cause major complications, which are extremely difficult to rectify, even when the mistake is made by the IRS and not by the taxpayer. Last year my dad had some major difficulties with the IRS because of the mangled ways they handle personal and business income. Every time they called him, some new person, unfamiliar with his case, would follow up to try to amend his tax return properly. My dad spent countless needless hours justifying his return and re-explaining the situation, simply because of the ridiculously complex tax laws, the ineffectivity of the IRS, and the clerical errors made on their end.
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.Often, when a person voices a complaint about the way the government is handling things, well-meaning people reply, "If you really care about the issue, then you should get involved." As Joseph Stack quickly discovered, even getting involved and being vocal about an important issue rarely yields any real results. While I certainly haven't invested as much of my time and money as he did, I certainly have written quite a number of letters to my Senators and Representatives. Every single time I have done so, I have always received a short, generic response, before my politicians quickly go and vote in opposition to my will. I have send letters protesting the economic bailout programs, protesting hate crimes legislation, protesting the Healthcare Reform bill, as well as other various pieces of tyrannical legislation. The government is primarily concerned with gaining more power and stealing more money from its citizens. The Federal Government continues to take more from its citizens while giving less and less in return. This directly affects us.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.Presently, the system serves to redistribute wealth in an injust and unequal manner. Unlike Robin Hood, who at least had the decency to steal for a somewhat reasonable cause, the Federal Government steals from the middle class to give to the rich (and to throw a few rotting remnants to the poor to keep them dependent) and to fund their own problematic plethora of programs. When ordinary people are financially irresponsible, they must reap what they sow, but when large corporations and banks are fiscally irresponsible, the government is quick to step in and give them free money... our money. Irresponsibility and greed are encouraged and incentivized. Stealing is actively encouraged, so long as you are a government official, a government agency or a large corporation. Justice? I think not!
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.Here's a man who is willing to take a stand for what he believes in. Here is someone who values liberty and justice, and was willing to sacrifice his life for his ideal. Regardless of your position on his actions, it is clear that his courage and resolve are admirable. Perhaps he was misguided, and perhaps his actions were foolish, but he truly took a stand for what he believed in. No one can rightfully call him ignorant, and no one can rightfully call him cowardly. When systemic solutions and political involvement ceases to make a difference, people's anger provokes them to violence.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.
Today's events are but a harbinger of what lies ahead. Having forsaken that end and those principles which were original set forth as the aims of the American experiment, there is a spirit of unrest in the air that is palpable. Revolution is not yet upon us, but perhaps it is not nearly as distant as some might think. Already I know of many who discuss their desire for anarchy rather than the present form of government. Some friends of mine are beginning to purchase weapons and train themselves in the use thereof. Another friend of mine, a philosopher, often asks how different people in our social circle would respond to revolution. As Thomas Jefferson prophetically declared: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." On this day we see that one man has spilt his blood for the sake of liberty. The yearning for freedom is something that is reawakening in the hearts of many, and there is little doubt that unless the government lessens its tyrannical grip on its citizens, there will be blood. We have nearly completed a full circuit in returning to many of the opinions and ideals espoused by the Founding Fathers at the birth of our nation. Either America must be politically cleansed and reborn, or it shall fall and be replaced. There is no other alternative.
The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)
A revolution of government is the strongest proof that can be given by a people of their virtue and good sense.
John Adams (1735 – 1826)
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. - Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison (1751 - 1836)
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Political Kleptomania
While my Christmas was very nice overall, I stumbled across a small piece of news that angered me grreatly. Rather than giving us a gift of any sort, the Senate decided to royally screw our nation on Christmas Eve's day. The healthcare reform bill, which I've written about here, here, here and here, was finally voted on by the Senate. On Wednesday I wrote a lengthy e-mail to both of my senators, imploring them not to bring further ruin to our nation and detailing the great evils that the healthcare reform bill will unleash. As usual, both of them happily disregarded my warnings and proceeded to vote "yes" on the healthcare reform bill.
To me this is a tragedy of no small import. While it is not unexpected, it is very sad to see our freedoms eroded further, our rights to our own possessions further rescinded, and our number of choices reduced. Apparently running up a deficit of over one trillion dollars this year simply isn't enough for our nation's benevolent guardians in DC. The kleptomania of our current legislature is being disguided as a humanitarian impulse, and deadly poison is being sold to us labelled as antidote. Obama is delivering the change he promised--by increasing the tyrannical grip of our monstrous government on each and every American citizen. The liberal wet dream of completely removing personal autonomy and having the government provide for everyone's daily needs is closer to fruition than ever before in our nation. Continually I find myself more able to indenify with the antihero of Dominici's O3 musical trilogy. From O3, Part 2:
The beginning of the end has come and gone in America. The passage of this bill will hasten the setting of the sun on the American experiment. While we may still raise our voices in protest, there is very little that any one person can do, so long as the masses are deadset on electing confused, demagogic, kleptomanical politicians. The ignorant and brainwashed majority is inflicting their will on everyone else, and the politicians are more than happy to play the power game regardless of its ruinous effect on our nation. In the end, all I can really ask is, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
To me this is a tragedy of no small import. While it is not unexpected, it is very sad to see our freedoms eroded further, our rights to our own possessions further rescinded, and our number of choices reduced. Apparently running up a deficit of over one trillion dollars this year simply isn't enough for our nation's benevolent guardians in DC. The kleptomania of our current legislature is being disguided as a humanitarian impulse, and deadly poison is being sold to us labelled as antidote. Obama is delivering the change he promised--by increasing the tyrannical grip of our monstrous government on each and every American citizen. The liberal wet dream of completely removing personal autonomy and having the government provide for everyone's daily needs is closer to fruition than ever before in our nation. Continually I find myself more able to indenify with the antihero of Dominici's O3 musical trilogy. From O3, Part 2:
Corrupt politicians, purveyors of law
Give us daily bread, but not a crumb more
Premiers, Presidents and leaders of men
Fleece us like sheep again and again
All we can do is suffer the grief
And shake our heads in disbelief
A penny here, a dollar there
We’re nickel’d and dime’d into despair
If we should ever come on days
When all would start to change their ways
There’d still be some who would only see
A brand new opportunity
I’d go along and wag my tail
But still they’d throw me in their jail
The beginning of the end has come and gone in America. The passage of this bill will hasten the setting of the sun on the American experiment. While we may still raise our voices in protest, there is very little that any one person can do, so long as the masses are deadset on electing confused, demagogic, kleptomanical politicians. The ignorant and brainwashed majority is inflicting their will on everyone else, and the politicians are more than happy to play the power game regardless of its ruinous effect on our nation. In the end, all I can really ask is, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Healthcare Reform Media Surge
Today, everyone keeping up with the news has been bombarded with stories about the Senate's first cohesive healthcare reform bill, and the alleged desire of the uninsured to have a public plan. The liberal, tyrannical, fact-twisting nature of it all makes me absolutely sick! Here's a little breakdown of some of the goodies we can expect if the bill passes:
Not only is the present bill absolutely horrendous, but both the media and the government have joined forces to spread deception and propagate the message that it is downright immoral that medical providers are profit-seeking companies, since peoples' health is on the line. Of course, any Austrian economist knows that a competitive medical market consisting of for-profit companies can provide cheaper and higher-quality healthcare than any government-run system, but the gatekeepers of public information would rather disseminate lies in order to gain more money and power than they would even lift a finger to try to, God forbid, benefit people's lives. This story encapsulates the attitudes and stances of our liberal media. The headline says, "Uninsured Americans hope reform brings health coverage." In it they quote a 32 year old, former music teacher:
Regarding lowering the cost of healthcare there is one thing that liberals either forget or conveniently ignore. Liberal agendas are always very tempting and attractive to uninformed citizens because they promise people what the people want. What do people want? Here is a hierarchy of desires, from most desirable to least desirable:
1. Free stuff
2. Cheap stuff
3. Ordinarily-priced stuff, as long as it is affordable
4. Expensive stuff, on rare occasions
Therefore, when liberals offer people free stuff, or cheaper stuff, it all sounds good. Those who neglect one basic principle will happily vote for more free and cheap stuff. The principle is:
Nothing is ever truly free.
The corollary to this principle is: Cheap stuff is either cheap for a reason, or it is not truly cheap.
In the BraveNewWorldOrder that liberals are promising, everyone will have everything they want provided for them by the government. But, there is a reason why conservatives, libertarians and intelligent people are actively opposing this push toward more free stuff. It is because the price tag is much higher than it appears. Someone has to pay for everything. Either someone has to pay for it now, or we can do it on credit and pay tomorrow. But, one way or the other, the price must be paid. For this reason, the present incarnation of the bill has almost zero Republican support. As the news story says:
The bill by Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate panel, would make major changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring most people to purchase insurance coverage or pay a fine and prohibiting insurance companies from charging more to people with more serious health problems.Clearly, this will hurt people who are presently uninsured and don't want insurance. The new bill will require people to purchase insurance or pay a fine. For some odd reason, I thought that this bill was designed to help the poor, underprivileged, uninsured people, not subject them to spend more of their hard-earned money on things that they may not want, or can't afford. Also, the bill has the nice added bonus of raising taxes and fees. This will likely start putting major pressure on medical providers. With the limits on yearly patients' health care costs, medical providers may not be able to make ends meet. I would not be surprised if an implementation of this bill leads to more medical bankruptcy filings, as we've seen with the flurry of business bankruptcy filings in other sectors of the economy.
Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and limits would be placed on patients' yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees charged to insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.
Not only is the present bill absolutely horrendous, but both the media and the government have joined forces to spread deception and propagate the message that it is downright immoral that medical providers are profit-seeking companies, since peoples' health is on the line. Of course, any Austrian economist knows that a competitive medical market consisting of for-profit companies can provide cheaper and higher-quality healthcare than any government-run system, but the gatekeepers of public information would rather disseminate lies in order to gain more money and power than they would even lift a finger to try to, God forbid, benefit people's lives. This story encapsulates the attitudes and stances of our liberal media. The headline says, "Uninsured Americans hope reform brings health coverage." In it they quote a 32 year old, former music teacher:
"No insurer will cover me because of my condition," Baty said. "I don't know what Americans feel they would be giving up with a public option. But just from a philosophical standpoint you will never convince me that someone making a profit from my healthcare would make the best decisions on how to treat me."It's sad that they have to stoop to interviewing people who are philosophically and economically vacuous to present their viewpoint. Anyone who properly understands economics knows that having people competing to take care of you better is a good thing and will result in better care. For-profit companies are personally invested in your well-being, because their financial success depends on them providing quality care at a reasonable cost, so that you, as the consumer, don't take your money elsewhere. Any other sort of company or organization is not personally invested in your well-being, and therefore feels no obligation to provide you with the best. From an economic and philosophical standpoint, I am completely convinced that someone who needs my money to make a profit will do everything in their power to obtain and keep my business.
Regarding lowering the cost of healthcare there is one thing that liberals either forget or conveniently ignore. Liberal agendas are always very tempting and attractive to uninformed citizens because they promise people what the people want. What do people want? Here is a hierarchy of desires, from most desirable to least desirable:
1. Free stuff
2. Cheap stuff
3. Ordinarily-priced stuff, as long as it is affordable
4. Expensive stuff, on rare occasions
Therefore, when liberals offer people free stuff, or cheaper stuff, it all sounds good. Those who neglect one basic principle will happily vote for more free and cheap stuff. The principle is:
Nothing is ever truly free.
The corollary to this principle is: Cheap stuff is either cheap for a reason, or it is not truly cheap.
In the BraveNewWorldOrder that liberals are promising, everyone will have everything they want provided for them by the government. But, there is a reason why conservatives, libertarians and intelligent people are actively opposing this push toward more free stuff. It is because the price tag is much higher than it appears. Someone has to pay for everything. Either someone has to pay for it now, or we can do it on credit and pay tomorrow. But, one way or the other, the price must be paid. For this reason, the present incarnation of the bill has almost zero Republican support. As the news story says:
In the end, Democrats believe Snowe may be the only Republican to support the bill, though she wasn't ready to commit her support.I quite agree with that last statement. Only in the land of the corrupt and the power-hungry does it make sense to penalize those who can't afford or don't want health insurance. Only in the land of delusion and fool's gold does anyone believe that higher taxes, more fees and artificially capped costs will ever result in a better life for its inhabitants. But, with the American zeitgeist of entitlement no-one wants to be told that they can't have more free stuff!
"This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy."
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Is Opposition to a Public Healthcare Plan a Sign of Miserliness?
Recently several friends and I were having a discussion about whether people with medical conditions (specifically obesity) should be charged more than other people for healthcare coverage plans. In response to my opinion that people's premiums should be proportionate to the amount of services actually used, someone wrote:
If the government were skilled at determining who to help, and actually put a large percentage of the money towards helping people, then I would be in favor of such a thing. But, when I know for a fact that a large percentage of the money I give is going to line the pockets of corrupt politicians rather than actually helping people, I feel disinclined to give (through that means) at all.
Addditionally, I don't believe in the "good of everyone." "Everyone" is not some single entity like a corporation or a nation. Everyone consists of a large number of individual people. Paying money for a public healthcare plan or making a donation to a research group that seeks a cure for cancer does not benefit everyone. It benefits a few specific individuals (or for a larger group, a specific subset of individuals) at the expense of everyone else. For example, in the case of a public healthcare plan, if I am giving money, my money does not directly benefit you. My money does not benefit people who are denied access to the program. My money does not benefit healthy people who have no need of health services. It only helps the subset of people who are eligible to receive benefits and who actually utilize those benefits. Therefore, even things that are for the "good of everyone" only benefit a select few.
The raises the question of whether more benefits are granted or costs are incurred. Since with a mandatory public healthcare plan, all citizens are required to pay into the plan, even if they can barely afford it, every single contributor directly incurs a cost. Each person who puts in more than they receive is being harmed by the plan, proportional to the difference between contribution and services received. Each person who receives more than they put in is being benefitted by the plan, proportional to the difference between the services received and the amount contributed. Given the fact that any administrated solution necessarily involves inefficiency, it is clear that out of 100% of the monies put in, even with a highly efficient system only 95% percent (at most) of the monies actually go towards the desired result. Therefore the total benefits received by society is only 95% of the costs cumulatively incurred. Though a few individuals will be better off, society as a whole finds themselves collectively worse off than if no public plan was enacted.
(The 95% efficiency figure is deliberately a low-end figure. Here are a couple of studies on the current administrative costs of the Medicare system: Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance, Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs)
Let us contrast this with personal giving or giving through non-profit organizations. For example, let us suppose that I have a friend who needs an expensive medical operation and has no insurance. If I give him $100 to help him cover the expense, 100% of that $100 goes directly toward helping him cover the cost. This is a maximally efficient system since there is no loss due to administration. Also, I know for a fact that whoever receives the money that I give will actually spent it to cover their need, because I know the people that I give money to. For this reason, I love giving anonymous gifts to people who need help. I know that all of my money is going directly towards a good purpose and benefits society a maximal amount. If I give $100 to the government to help someone out, I have to wonder how much of it will really help those in need.
Likewise, if I give to organizations whose values I admire, I can be sure that even though some administrative inefficiency may be involved, that they will have a better selection process in determining whom to help. The government will never go and hand out bagged lunches to homeless people. If I give money to CrossStreets, I know that 100% of the money goes directly to helping the homeless. Since all of the members of CrossStreets are unpaid volunteers who willingly give their time and resources, I have assurance that they will go and find people who are truly in need, give them food, offer them clothing and tell them about the gift of salvation that Jesus Christ offers, which is a power that can break the devastating cycles of addiction and irresponsibility that most of them face. The government isn't going to help those people. They aren't going to offer friendship, love and spiritual support.
Because of this, I believe that helping individuals directly (or through more efficient means) provides society with a greater benefit than a public healthcare plan. The necessary government inefficiency guarantees that a percentage of resources are lost in the process of providing healthcare. As the study from the Heritage Foundation shows, when you have something as vast a public plan, not only is there a higher administrative cost per person, but there are many times more dollars being funneled through the system, which guarantees millions and millions of dollars of waste. Additionally, when giving is more personal and directly, there are relational benefits to society that the government can never hope to provide.
Lastly, I am strongly opposed to any form of mandantory "giving." The whole point of giving (and the joy of giving) stems from giving something completely out of the goodness of your heart. That which is mandatory neither has the same value to the recipient, nor provides the same joy to the giver. The beauty of giving is that you are freely contributing to the well-being of another person just because you want to. That makes it special. Personal giving is relational in nature. Contrarily, when you are forced to contribute to something, the obligation strips the joy of blessing someone with your gift. Whether you want to give or not, you have to. You have no idea who is going to be benefitted by your contributed. You will probably never see the happiness of the person receiving your gift. The giving is reduced to a mere mechnical process, devoid of any heart-to-heart emotional connection. Also, in the case of government-mandated "giving" it is much more akin to robbery, since there is a material threat to your well-being if you don't comply. If you don't contribute to the mandatory public plan, then you are subject to prosecution, fines and possible jail time. How is this different than a mugger threatening you with violence if you don't "give" him your money and possessions? The method is intrinsically one that dehumanizes the process of giving and is enforced by a method that has more similiarity to organized crime than it does to a benevolent organization looking for generous donors.
As you can see, I am not at all opposed to giving and to helping people in need. I typically give about 20% of my income to charitable organizations. However, I don't think that the government is very skilled at helping people, and I certainly believe that they have no right to demand contribution.
I didn't take you for the type who would rather keep that little bit of cash per month instead of helping your fellow man. Is a relatively insignificant amount of money really that important to people when it's going towards the good of everyone?I certainly believe in giving money to help my fellow man. However, I think that the government is horribly inefficient and ineffective at actually helping people in need. More specifically, I am convinced that paying the government to help people results in less help for people in need at a higher cost than contributing directly to the needy or through a non-profit organization.
If the government were skilled at determining who to help, and actually put a large percentage of the money towards helping people, then I would be in favor of such a thing. But, when I know for a fact that a large percentage of the money I give is going to line the pockets of corrupt politicians rather than actually helping people, I feel disinclined to give (through that means) at all.
Addditionally, I don't believe in the "good of everyone." "Everyone" is not some single entity like a corporation or a nation. Everyone consists of a large number of individual people. Paying money for a public healthcare plan or making a donation to a research group that seeks a cure for cancer does not benefit everyone. It benefits a few specific individuals (or for a larger group, a specific subset of individuals) at the expense of everyone else. For example, in the case of a public healthcare plan, if I am giving money, my money does not directly benefit you. My money does not benefit people who are denied access to the program. My money does not benefit healthy people who have no need of health services. It only helps the subset of people who are eligible to receive benefits and who actually utilize those benefits. Therefore, even things that are for the "good of everyone" only benefit a select few.
The raises the question of whether more benefits are granted or costs are incurred. Since with a mandatory public healthcare plan, all citizens are required to pay into the plan, even if they can barely afford it, every single contributor directly incurs a cost. Each person who puts in more than they receive is being harmed by the plan, proportional to the difference between contribution and services received. Each person who receives more than they put in is being benefitted by the plan, proportional to the difference between the services received and the amount contributed. Given the fact that any administrated solution necessarily involves inefficiency, it is clear that out of 100% of the monies put in, even with a highly efficient system only 95% percent (at most) of the monies actually go towards the desired result. Therefore the total benefits received by society is only 95% of the costs cumulatively incurred. Though a few individuals will be better off, society as a whole finds themselves collectively worse off than if no public plan was enacted.
(The 95% efficiency figure is deliberately a low-end figure. Here are a couple of studies on the current administrative costs of the Medicare system: Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance, Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs)
Let us contrast this with personal giving or giving through non-profit organizations. For example, let us suppose that I have a friend who needs an expensive medical operation and has no insurance. If I give him $100 to help him cover the expense, 100% of that $100 goes directly toward helping him cover the cost. This is a maximally efficient system since there is no loss due to administration. Also, I know for a fact that whoever receives the money that I give will actually spent it to cover their need, because I know the people that I give money to. For this reason, I love giving anonymous gifts to people who need help. I know that all of my money is going directly towards a good purpose and benefits society a maximal amount. If I give $100 to the government to help someone out, I have to wonder how much of it will really help those in need.
Likewise, if I give to organizations whose values I admire, I can be sure that even though some administrative inefficiency may be involved, that they will have a better selection process in determining whom to help. The government will never go and hand out bagged lunches to homeless people. If I give money to CrossStreets, I know that 100% of the money goes directly to helping the homeless. Since all of the members of CrossStreets are unpaid volunteers who willingly give their time and resources, I have assurance that they will go and find people who are truly in need, give them food, offer them clothing and tell them about the gift of salvation that Jesus Christ offers, which is a power that can break the devastating cycles of addiction and irresponsibility that most of them face. The government isn't going to help those people. They aren't going to offer friendship, love and spiritual support.
Because of this, I believe that helping individuals directly (or through more efficient means) provides society with a greater benefit than a public healthcare plan. The necessary government inefficiency guarantees that a percentage of resources are lost in the process of providing healthcare. As the study from the Heritage Foundation shows, when you have something as vast a public plan, not only is there a higher administrative cost per person, but there are many times more dollars being funneled through the system, which guarantees millions and millions of dollars of waste. Additionally, when giving is more personal and directly, there are relational benefits to society that the government can never hope to provide.
Lastly, I am strongly opposed to any form of mandantory "giving." The whole point of giving (and the joy of giving) stems from giving something completely out of the goodness of your heart. That which is mandatory neither has the same value to the recipient, nor provides the same joy to the giver. The beauty of giving is that you are freely contributing to the well-being of another person just because you want to. That makes it special. Personal giving is relational in nature. Contrarily, when you are forced to contribute to something, the obligation strips the joy of blessing someone with your gift. Whether you want to give or not, you have to. You have no idea who is going to be benefitted by your contributed. You will probably never see the happiness of the person receiving your gift. The giving is reduced to a mere mechnical process, devoid of any heart-to-heart emotional connection. Also, in the case of government-mandated "giving" it is much more akin to robbery, since there is a material threat to your well-being if you don't comply. If you don't contribute to the mandatory public plan, then you are subject to prosecution, fines and possible jail time. How is this different than a mugger threatening you with violence if you don't "give" him your money and possessions? The method is intrinsically one that dehumanizes the process of giving and is enforced by a method that has more similiarity to organized crime than it does to a benevolent organization looking for generous donors.
As you can see, I am not at all opposed to giving and to helping people in need. I typically give about 20% of my income to charitable organizations. However, I don't think that the government is very skilled at helping people, and I certainly believe that they have no right to demand contribution.
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Universal Healthcare Myth: Will Result in Rising Costs
I'm happy that some people in Congress are standing up and pointing out the flaws in Obama's healthcare reform bill. This morning House Republican Leader John Boehner wrote a short column on how the Democrats' prospective health plan will result in higher costs for everyone.
There are several reasons that healthcare costs have risen so dramatically: the cost of cutting-edge technology used in American medical facilities, stringent government regulations reducing competition for medical supplies, and health insurance plans that encourage consumer irresponsibility. These are all very simple economic reasons for why the price of healthcare has risen. Let's look at these factors briefly.
Living in country that is as technologically advanced as ours has its advantages. Many diseases and conditions that would be fatal in other countries are treatable here in the United States. However, this benefit comes at a high cost. The medicines and machines that are used for advanced medical proceudres are not cheap at all. As a column from Business Week says:
Another reason why healthcare is so expensive is because there are challenging barriers to market-entry, which results in fewer suppliers of medicines and medical technology. The high aggregate demand meets a lower than desirable aggregate supply, which sets the equilibrium prices higher than they should be. This is very similar to the problem of having a monopoly or oligopoly; prices are much higher than they would be if there was more competition. If this were a naturally-occuring phenomenon, it wouldn't be such a horrible thing; prices would be high simply because not many suppliers see a chance to make a profit. But, this is not a natural economic phenomenon. Instead, it is a case of market failure. The FDA is a branch of our Federal Government which oversees and regulates the medicines and medical products that can be legally sold. Before any drug or medical device is sold to the public or used in medical facilities, it must undergo a stringent period of testing and approval. The regulations governing health products are extremely restrictive, such that the sale of a product often entangles years of red tape and bureaucratic finagling. I currently work for a small company that manufactures cutting-edge blood testing devices that have dominated the veterinary market for years, but we're only just starting to be able to sell our machines to hospitals since it took us a long time to receive FDA approval. If we didn't already have a large client-base and ample cash-flow from our veterinary sales, our blood-testing machines, which are superior to all our competitors' blood-testing products, never would have reached the human medical market. The government's interference in the market, in the form of stringent regulations, sets a difficult hurdle for potential suppliers resulting in very little competition in the human medical market. To compete, you basically have to be a large, established company with lots of financial resources. Because of the lack of competition due to government intervention, healthcare costs are much higher than they would be in a free-market.
The third major factor contributing to high healthcare costs is the proliferation of health insurance. Health insurance is not an intrinsically harmful thing. However, the current health insurance system definitely enables consumers to make uninformed and costly decisions. Since most healthcare consumers pay only a small co-pay on most standard medical procedures, with the insurance company paying the remainder, it makes very little difference to consumers how expensive their medicines and treatments are. If you pay the same amount of out-of-pocket money for inexpensive, decent care or for expensive, cutting-edge care, you'll want the very best you can get. Since the insurance company eats most of the cost (at least initially), there is really little or no incentive for patients to find reasonably-priced treatments or perform significant research into the effectiveness of different methods of treatment. It's easier to go for the one that sounds the most modern and just pay the insurance policy's deductible than to put needless time and effort into making informed decisions. To be sure, an individual patient does economically benefit from getting expensive treatments at very low direct cost. What is not seen is the resulting effect of many patients using this sort of decision making. First of all, doctors are more likely to recommend expensive procedures rather than cheaper ones in order to maximize their profitability. Since consumers don't directly pay they cost, they are quick to consent. Then, the doctors send massive bills to the insurance companies who have to pay exorbitant piles of money for these expensive treatments. Having to pay so much for the various medical bills puts the insurance companies in a bind, and they quickly have to raise their premiums just to make ends meet. Consequently, because of the expensive treatments some patients elect to receive, the prices rise for everyone. Though individual consumers and doctors benefit in the short-term, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and soon the costs of health insurance skyrocket. The problem is that consumers do not have to directly pay for their own expenses, and so the consequences are artificially removed from their decisions. Separating the natural consequences of a choice from the choice itself always creates an environment that fosters irresponsibility or abuse. That's what our current proliferation of health insurance has done.
As you can see, all of these factors have contributed to the high costs of healthcare that we see today in America, which is why healthcase expenditures (as a percentage of GDP) have nearly doubled in the past thirty years. Based on these factors the solution that we need in order to achieve true healthcare reform and restore medical costs to reasonable levels must entail several factors. First of all, consumers need to take responsibility for their own healthcare and make informed, cost-effective decisions. Consumers will naturally do this as long as they face the consequences of their decisions and have to pay for their own costs rather than riding on a system where everyone contributes. Americans will be more likely to be proactive towards their own health if they don't have a safety net of insurance and government guarantees to pay for an infinite array of costly medical treatments. Secondly, the FDA needs to take a step back and reduce their smothering regulations on medical products, so that more suppliers will be able to compete in the medical market. Once more suppliers enter the medical market, all medical suppliers will be forced to be more efficient, eliminate waste and cut costs in order to sell high-quality products at reasonable prices. Those companies who don't find ways to lower their prices dramatically will quickly find their market share decreasing as new suppliers create superior products and sell them at better prices. No longer will a few companies have so much market dominance that they can engage in price-fixing. In short, what we need to ensure effective healthcare reform is a narrower form of health insurance that leaves more responsibility with the consumer and we need less government medical regulation.
Now, let us examine what the government is seeking to do with the currently proposed healthcare reform bill. They are seeking to increase government regulation over the medical industry and they are seeking to expand healthcare coverage to those who can't afford it. As regulation increases further, there will be even less competition in both the health insurance market and the medical products market. Because there will be even fewer medical suppliers, the current medical suppliers will solidify their iron grip on the market, allowing for more price-fixing and ultimately causing treatment costs to rise further. Additionally, since there will be more insured Americans, if the government's new insurance program is even remotely like the current HMOs, the government will be directly encouraging more consumer irresponsibility. Because more people will be electing to receive expensive treatments than before, premiums and healthcare expenditures will rise even further. The effect of the proposed healthcare bill will be exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Rather than bringing prices back down and ensuring that healthcare is affordable for everyone, this bill will cause the already out-of-control prices to leap for the sky and guarantee that only the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare.
Therefore, we see that not only is the new healthcare bill founded on a lie, but it will only serve to exacerbate the conditions that currently haunt the American healthcare market, resulting in higher costs and lower-quality service than before. Do not be deceived by government propaganda about the alleged benefits of this brand of healthcare reform. America would be stupid to adopt any such legislation!
Last week, Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) sent shockwaves through Washington when he told Congress that the Democrats’ plans would make health care more costly. Throughout this debate, President Obama has spoken of the need to “bend the cost curve” or drive health care costs down. During a congressional hearing, however, Mr. Elmendorf testified that the Democrats’ plans would have the opposite effect, saying that under their proposals, “The curve is being raised” and costs would “significantly expand.” That’s because the Democrats’ plan adds a new layer of taxes, mandates, and bureaucracy on top of the current system. If that’s not bad enough, the Democrats’ plan cuts Medicare and takes away choices for millions of seniors. What does all of this mean? Higher costs for the medicine and treatments you need.I'll be honest, the objectives of the healthcare reform bill actually sound quite reasonable. Keeping costs low and having a broad array of affordable health care choices for consumers are definitely laudable goals. I also agree with the government's stance that healthcare costs are rising too rapidly and may cause major economic problems for our nation both now and in the future. However, the current ideas that are being discussed and analyzed are not a solution to any of these problems. Instead, the proposed bill will have the opposite of its desired effect.
There are several reasons that healthcare costs have risen so dramatically: the cost of cutting-edge technology used in American medical facilities, stringent government regulations reducing competition for medical supplies, and health insurance plans that encourage consumer irresponsibility. These are all very simple economic reasons for why the price of healthcare has risen. Let's look at these factors briefly.
Living in country that is as technologically advanced as ours has its advantages. Many diseases and conditions that would be fatal in other countries are treatable here in the United States. However, this benefit comes at a high cost. The medicines and machines that are used for advanced medical proceudres are not cheap at all. As a column from Business Week says:
Technological advances go hand in hand with productivity gains in most industries, but in medicine, better technology almost always means higher expenses.We have made a trade-off in America. Longevity and survival is something that we have determined is worth any cost. Therefore, when given an option between a less-expensive treatment and a more-expensive modern treatment, many patients are demanding the higher-cost option, even if it will not provide a significantly better treatment. The Pareto Principle states that 80% of the results are derived from 20% of the inputs. To improve something beyond a certain level of functionality requires a relatively large investment for a very small functional gain. In the case of medical procedures, many doctors and patients are choosing to use hugely expensive machines and medicines that are only slightly better than ordinary ones. You see a similar phenomenon with cars or computers, where a car lover would rather buy a Lamborghini, even though it is not much functionally better than less expensive car, or where a computer-lover will spend $4,000 for a computer than is only marginally better than one which only costs $1,000. A premium price is paid for something just because it is cutting edge, even though its actual function rarely merits such a price-tag. One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive is because many Americans have chosen to pursue premium healthcare, regardless of the cost.
Rising costs could be seen as a sign of progress: The cheapest medical outcome, after all, is death. Major advances in the treatment of heart disease, cancer, pulmonary disorders, and a broad range of once-fatal diseases have prolonged life, but the longer the life, the higher the medical costs. "We're not realizing cost reductions as a result of increased longevity," says Michael Thompson, principal with PriceWaterhouse Coopers. Survive a heart attack, for example, and you raise your chances of living long enough to die of cancer or Alzheimer's disease, two of the most expensive diseases. Not to mention the cost of the drugs and follow-up care you'll need to avoid another heart attack.
Another reason why healthcare is so expensive is because there are challenging barriers to market-entry, which results in fewer suppliers of medicines and medical technology. The high aggregate demand meets a lower than desirable aggregate supply, which sets the equilibrium prices higher than they should be. This is very similar to the problem of having a monopoly or oligopoly; prices are much higher than they would be if there was more competition. If this were a naturally-occuring phenomenon, it wouldn't be such a horrible thing; prices would be high simply because not many suppliers see a chance to make a profit. But, this is not a natural economic phenomenon. Instead, it is a case of market failure. The FDA is a branch of our Federal Government which oversees and regulates the medicines and medical products that can be legally sold. Before any drug or medical device is sold to the public or used in medical facilities, it must undergo a stringent period of testing and approval. The regulations governing health products are extremely restrictive, such that the sale of a product often entangles years of red tape and bureaucratic finagling. I currently work for a small company that manufactures cutting-edge blood testing devices that have dominated the veterinary market for years, but we're only just starting to be able to sell our machines to hospitals since it took us a long time to receive FDA approval. If we didn't already have a large client-base and ample cash-flow from our veterinary sales, our blood-testing machines, which are superior to all our competitors' blood-testing products, never would have reached the human medical market. The government's interference in the market, in the form of stringent regulations, sets a difficult hurdle for potential suppliers resulting in very little competition in the human medical market. To compete, you basically have to be a large, established company with lots of financial resources. Because of the lack of competition due to government intervention, healthcare costs are much higher than they would be in a free-market.
The third major factor contributing to high healthcare costs is the proliferation of health insurance. Health insurance is not an intrinsically harmful thing. However, the current health insurance system definitely enables consumers to make uninformed and costly decisions. Since most healthcare consumers pay only a small co-pay on most standard medical procedures, with the insurance company paying the remainder, it makes very little difference to consumers how expensive their medicines and treatments are. If you pay the same amount of out-of-pocket money for inexpensive, decent care or for expensive, cutting-edge care, you'll want the very best you can get. Since the insurance company eats most of the cost (at least initially), there is really little or no incentive for patients to find reasonably-priced treatments or perform significant research into the effectiveness of different methods of treatment. It's easier to go for the one that sounds the most modern and just pay the insurance policy's deductible than to put needless time and effort into making informed decisions. To be sure, an individual patient does economically benefit from getting expensive treatments at very low direct cost. What is not seen is the resulting effect of many patients using this sort of decision making. First of all, doctors are more likely to recommend expensive procedures rather than cheaper ones in order to maximize their profitability. Since consumers don't directly pay they cost, they are quick to consent. Then, the doctors send massive bills to the insurance companies who have to pay exorbitant piles of money for these expensive treatments. Having to pay so much for the various medical bills puts the insurance companies in a bind, and they quickly have to raise their premiums just to make ends meet. Consequently, because of the expensive treatments some patients elect to receive, the prices rise for everyone. Though individual consumers and doctors benefit in the short-term, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and soon the costs of health insurance skyrocket. The problem is that consumers do not have to directly pay for their own expenses, and so the consequences are artificially removed from their decisions. Separating the natural consequences of a choice from the choice itself always creates an environment that fosters irresponsibility or abuse. That's what our current proliferation of health insurance has done.
As you can see, all of these factors have contributed to the high costs of healthcare that we see today in America, which is why healthcase expenditures (as a percentage of GDP) have nearly doubled in the past thirty years. Based on these factors the solution that we need in order to achieve true healthcare reform and restore medical costs to reasonable levels must entail several factors. First of all, consumers need to take responsibility for their own healthcare and make informed, cost-effective decisions. Consumers will naturally do this as long as they face the consequences of their decisions and have to pay for their own costs rather than riding on a system where everyone contributes. Americans will be more likely to be proactive towards their own health if they don't have a safety net of insurance and government guarantees to pay for an infinite array of costly medical treatments. Secondly, the FDA needs to take a step back and reduce their smothering regulations on medical products, so that more suppliers will be able to compete in the medical market. Once more suppliers enter the medical market, all medical suppliers will be forced to be more efficient, eliminate waste and cut costs in order to sell high-quality products at reasonable prices. Those companies who don't find ways to lower their prices dramatically will quickly find their market share decreasing as new suppliers create superior products and sell them at better prices. No longer will a few companies have so much market dominance that they can engage in price-fixing. In short, what we need to ensure effective healthcare reform is a narrower form of health insurance that leaves more responsibility with the consumer and we need less government medical regulation.
Now, let us examine what the government is seeking to do with the currently proposed healthcare reform bill. They are seeking to increase government regulation over the medical industry and they are seeking to expand healthcare coverage to those who can't afford it. As regulation increases further, there will be even less competition in both the health insurance market and the medical products market. Because there will be even fewer medical suppliers, the current medical suppliers will solidify their iron grip on the market, allowing for more price-fixing and ultimately causing treatment costs to rise further. Additionally, since there will be more insured Americans, if the government's new insurance program is even remotely like the current HMOs, the government will be directly encouraging more consumer irresponsibility. Because more people will be electing to receive expensive treatments than before, premiums and healthcare expenditures will rise even further. The effect of the proposed healthcare bill will be exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Rather than bringing prices back down and ensuring that healthcare is affordable for everyone, this bill will cause the already out-of-control prices to leap for the sky and guarantee that only the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare.
Therefore, we see that not only is the new healthcare bill founded on a lie, but it will only serve to exacerbate the conditions that currently haunt the American healthcare market, resulting in higher costs and lower-quality service than before. Do not be deceived by government propaganda about the alleged benefits of this brand of healthcare reform. America would be stupid to adopt any such legislation!
Friday, July 17, 2009
One Trillion Dollars Short
As of this week, our government now has accumulated a deficit of more than one trillion dollars from this year alone. Personally, I find this shocking and appalling and perhaps a little bit surprising. You would think that being elected to some sort of government position would require at least basic math skills and perhaps a touch of personal responsibility. I guess not!
Though economics can be complicated at some times, balancing the budget is definitely not. Any elementary school student capable of basic subtraction could figure out how to balance the budget. The equation is very simple: Income - Expenses = Remaining Money. If your remaining money is greater than zero, then you have have a surplus. If the remainder is zero, then you have a balanced budget. If you have less than zero dollars left, then you have a deficit. Therefore, if you wish to avoid a deficit, all you must do is ensure that you don't spend money that you do not have.
Just to put this year's deficit into perspective, let us see how much this deficit will cost us. Supposing the federal government chose to collect enough money to pay off our deficit, every single man, woman and child in America would have to pay $3,268 to cover the deficit of the last six months alone. Projections for this year suggest that by the end of 2009 the deficit will rise to $1.84 trillion, essentially costing each person $6,013. That is six thousand dollars more than we've already paid in taxes. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to have to give the government that much money!
In the case of our federal government, there are several possible reasons for why we have a deficit. The first option is that politicians simply can't do math. The second option is that politicians are simply irresponsible, evidenced by their unwillingness to trim unnecessary expenses from our budget and by their increasing government spending on numerous fronts. The third option is that perhaps politicians believe that everyone's money belongs to them and they are free to spend it how they see fit, without any accountability. Truthfully, I wouldn't be surprised if it is combination of all three.
If we actually wanted to cut our expenses it would be very simple to do. Ending the broken and out-of-control Social Security program ($617 billion a year), the poorly-managed Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP program ($599 billion a year) and withdrawing from all the pointless wars we're fighting ($625 billion a year) would save us $1.81 trillion per year. Even if we've already spent half of that on such programs this year, ending them now would save us $900 billion dollars. But, of course, the government views those all as good and necessary programs... in fact, maybe we need a few more such programs...
I'm sure that poking a few more holes in our fiscal boat will keep it from sinking!
Though economics can be complicated at some times, balancing the budget is definitely not. Any elementary school student capable of basic subtraction could figure out how to balance the budget. The equation is very simple: Income - Expenses = Remaining Money. If your remaining money is greater than zero, then you have have a surplus. If the remainder is zero, then you have a balanced budget. If you have less than zero dollars left, then you have a deficit. Therefore, if you wish to avoid a deficit, all you must do is ensure that you don't spend money that you do not have.
Just to put this year's deficit into perspective, let us see how much this deficit will cost us. Supposing the federal government chose to collect enough money to pay off our deficit, every single man, woman and child in America would have to pay $3,268 to cover the deficit of the last six months alone. Projections for this year suggest that by the end of 2009 the deficit will rise to $1.84 trillion, essentially costing each person $6,013. That is six thousand dollars more than we've already paid in taxes. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to have to give the government that much money!
In the case of our federal government, there are several possible reasons for why we have a deficit. The first option is that politicians simply can't do math. The second option is that politicians are simply irresponsible, evidenced by their unwillingness to trim unnecessary expenses from our budget and by their increasing government spending on numerous fronts. The third option is that perhaps politicians believe that everyone's money belongs to them and they are free to spend it how they see fit, without any accountability. Truthfully, I wouldn't be surprised if it is combination of all three.
If we actually wanted to cut our expenses it would be very simple to do. Ending the broken and out-of-control Social Security program ($617 billion a year), the poorly-managed Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP program ($599 billion a year) and withdrawing from all the pointless wars we're fighting ($625 billion a year) would save us $1.81 trillion per year. Even if we've already spent half of that on such programs this year, ending them now would save us $900 billion dollars. But, of course, the government views those all as good and necessary programs... in fact, maybe we need a few more such programs...
I'm sure that poking a few more holes in our fiscal boat will keep it from sinking!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Universal Healthcare Myth: Based on a Lie
Apparently, Democrats have vowed to pass some sort of healthcare reform bill by August. Personally, I am quite upset by the government's insistence on unreasonably interferring with the market and the free-choice of individuals in order to propagate their own socialist agenda. The truth is, the current healthcare reform bill is being enacted on the basis of a lie, it removes choices rather than adds more consumer choices, resulting in a collective loss of freedom for both businesses and individuals, and despite the claims that the government will be able to run a more efficient system, they will end up offering low-quality service at increasingly higher prices.
In the next few weeks, I plan to discuss each of those points and show why a universal healthcare plan will be very harmful to America, but today I just briefly want to talk about the lie that serves as the excuse for even trying to craft such a socialistic reform bill. Well, there are actually two lies. The first lie is that all Americans have a right to healthcare. The second lie is that there are 46 million helpless uninsured Americans who are too poor to afford healthcare. Let's break these down and see the fallacies with both.
The first lie is that all Americans should have a right to affordable healthcare. Do Americans really have a right to healthcare at all? I know that our Declaration of Independence declares that all people have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. John Locke, the philosopher, suggests that all people have natural rights to life, liberty and property. But, I don't know of any legitmate basis for claiming that people have a right to healthcare. No person is harmed by lacking healthcare. Though healthcare may be a benefit of living in a wealthy and technologically-advanced society, there can be no reasonable basis for claiming that people have a right to healthcase. If we're going to start making up imaginary rights, then I would like to cite my right to own a huge mansion on a 500 acre-property that I am entitled to as an American citizen! I am being unreasonably deprived!
The second lie is that there are 46 million uninsured Americans. The implication is these are underprivileged people who can't even afford the healthcare that they are so desperately in need of. But, as with many manipulated statistics, this is simply not the case. The 46 million that is frequently talked about comes from the Council of Economic Advisors Health Care Report as released in June 2009. It says:
To further support my point, let's look at some raw data. My conjecture is that healthy, fit people don't really need healthcare and are much more likely to try to save their money by choosing to be uninsured. What sort of people are usually the healthiest? Typically young adults who haven't been subjected to as much aging, who are naturally more energetic and active, who have stronger bones, and who haven't experienced as many health-affecting acccidents. Now, I would like to show you a graph that was included as part of the CEA Health Care Report:
According to this graph, the age group that has the highest level of uninsurance is Americans between the ages of 18-35. Young kids and elderly people are the most likely to have health coverage but there is a sharp rise in uninsurance at age 18, followed by a steady decline from 23 onwards. At 65 there is a sharp decline, since elderly people often have the most expensive medical needs. To me, this is exactly the sort of data I would expect if I believed that people are choosing to be insured or uninsurance based on economic factors. Children are typically insured under their parent's family plan. Those who are young and healthy want more money in their pockets, but if they start facing health conditions, they will buy health insurance. Also, when adults get married and start raising a family, they are more likely to have a health insurance plan that covers their family, and therefore they are more likely to be insured. This data would seem to be perfectly consistent with that idea that most uninsured Americans could afford health coverage if they wanted to, but choose not to. To provide further support for this conjecture, let me quote the Free Market Project report again:
In the end we see that Obama's push towards a health-care reform bill which will require coverage for all Americans is based on intentional deception. By suggesting that people are being denied an intrinsic right and by citing the existence of 46 million uninsured Americans, they are suggesting that the government must intervene for the good of the people. But, no person has such a right, and there certainly aren't 46 million who actually need healthcare. Should all Americans be forced to surrender more of their money and freedom so that the government can provide its low-quality, high-cost care to less than 6.6% of the population? I don't know how you could possibly justify such a thing either on principle or by appealing to the "greater good." Even supposing we use a utilitarian standard it would be better to leave 93.4% of the population alone, than to plunder them for the sake of 20 million people and the political careers of our "positive change" politicians.
In the next few weeks, I plan to discuss each of those points and show why a universal healthcare plan will be very harmful to America, but today I just briefly want to talk about the lie that serves as the excuse for even trying to craft such a socialistic reform bill. Well, there are actually two lies. The first lie is that all Americans have a right to healthcare. The second lie is that there are 46 million helpless uninsured Americans who are too poor to afford healthcare. Let's break these down and see the fallacies with both.
The first lie is that all Americans should have a right to affordable healthcare. Do Americans really have a right to healthcare at all? I know that our Declaration of Independence declares that all people have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. John Locke, the philosopher, suggests that all people have natural rights to life, liberty and property. But, I don't know of any legitmate basis for claiming that people have a right to healthcare. No person is harmed by lacking healthcare. Though healthcare may be a benefit of living in a wealthy and technologically-advanced society, there can be no reasonable basis for claiming that people have a right to healthcase. If we're going to start making up imaginary rights, then I would like to cite my right to own a huge mansion on a 500 acre-property that I am entitled to as an American citizen! I am being unreasonably deprived!
The second lie is that there are 46 million uninsured Americans. The implication is these are underprivileged people who can't even afford the healthcare that they are so desperately in need of. But, as with many manipulated statistics, this is simply not the case. The 46 million that is frequently talked about comes from the Council of Economic Advisors Health Care Report as released in June 2009. It says:
Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance. CEA projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. A key factor driving this trend is the tendency of small firms not to provide coverage due to the rising cost of health care.This statistic is intentionally misleading. First of all, that number includes people who are not American citizens. Personally I think it's stretching the truth quite a lot to claim non-Americans as part of your group of uninsured Americans, don't you? Quoting from a report by the Free Market Project:
However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.Secondly, the implication is that all these uninsured Americans are incapable of affording healthcare without government intervention of some sort. This is not the truth. The truth is that many Americans who are quite capable of affording health insurance simply don't need it. I can say this with complete confidence because I happen to be part of this group. As a healthy, fit, young person, I have no major health issues of any sort. My employer offers me health insurance but I have continually refused for the simple reason that it is more economical for me to pay for any possible health costs out of pocket than it would be to pay for health insurance. Health insurance would cost me $89 per month, or $1068 per year. In the past twelve months I have not needed to make any sort of visits to a healthcare provider. Therefore, I have saved myself $1068. The only forseeable medical cost I may have in the future is one dental filling, which would cost between $100-$250. Paying that out of pocket would still result in saving over $700 because of not being insured. And, I know for a fact that I am not the only one who is capable of affording health insurance but chooses not to be insured. I just had dinner with a friend on Friday night, and he also could afford health insurance but chooses not to. Recently, he needed some chiropractic work because of a sports incident, and he found a place that provided high-quality care at a very low cost.
A closer look at that report reveals the Census data includes 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.
To further support my point, let's look at some raw data. My conjecture is that healthy, fit people don't really need healthcare and are much more likely to try to save their money by choosing to be uninsured. What sort of people are usually the healthiest? Typically young adults who haven't been subjected to as much aging, who are naturally more energetic and active, who have stronger bones, and who haven't experienced as many health-affecting acccidents. Now, I would like to show you a graph that was included as part of the CEA Health Care Report:
According to this graph, the age group that has the highest level of uninsurance is Americans between the ages of 18-35. Young kids and elderly people are the most likely to have health coverage but there is a sharp rise in uninsurance at age 18, followed by a steady decline from 23 onwards. At 65 there is a sharp decline, since elderly people often have the most expensive medical needs. To me, this is exactly the sort of data I would expect if I believed that people are choosing to be insured or uninsurance based on economic factors. Children are typically insured under their parent's family plan. Those who are young and healthy want more money in their pockets, but if they start facing health conditions, they will buy health insurance. Also, when adults get married and start raising a family, they are more likely to have a health insurance plan that covers their family, and therefore they are more likely to be insured. This data would seem to be perfectly consistent with that idea that most uninsured Americans could afford health coverage if they wanted to, but choose not to. To provide further support for this conjecture, let me quote the Free Market Project report again:
But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.The truth of the matter is that of the 46 million uninsured Americans only 20 million could even be realistically counted as lacking insurance because they can't afford it. And of that number I would be quite surprised if even 15 million wanted healthcare but couldn't afford it. In any case, what has been clearly shown is that the "46 million uninsured" statistic that is mentioned by politicians and used to show the necessity of health-care reform is a clear-cut case of deception. This number is intentionally misleading and does not reflect the truth. Even supposing that all 20 million Americans really can't afford insurance, it is clear that the numbers reported are 130% larger than life. That's a big lie!
“Many Americans are uninsured by choice,” wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book “The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.” Gratzer cited a study of the “nonpoor uninsured” from the California Healthcare Foundation.
“Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health,” explained Gratzer.
In the end we see that Obama's push towards a health-care reform bill which will require coverage for all Americans is based on intentional deception. By suggesting that people are being denied an intrinsic right and by citing the existence of 46 million uninsured Americans, they are suggesting that the government must intervene for the good of the people. But, no person has such a right, and there certainly aren't 46 million who actually need healthcare. Should all Americans be forced to surrender more of their money and freedom so that the government can provide its low-quality, high-cost care to less than 6.6% of the population? I don't know how you could possibly justify such a thing either on principle or by appealing to the "greater good." Even supposing we use a utilitarian standard it would be better to leave 93.4% of the population alone, than to plunder them for the sake of 20 million people and the political careers of our "positive change" politicians.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Agenda-Laced Words: Underprivileged
Whenever I read a news story or opinion article that uses the word "underprivileged," I can't help but wince a little bit. Though I usually enjoy creatively altered English words, paradoxes and oxymorons, the use of this particular word seems to go far beyond mere benign and playful usage. Instead, it is a value-laden term that is used to promote a specific world paradigm which is often used to justify a socialist political agenda. It suggests a perspective that is quite far from the truth of the matter. "Underprivileged" is a word which officially entered dictionaries in 1897, and carries with it some relatively complex concepts:
The very definition of the word privilege divides people into two groups: those who enjoy a particular privilege and those who don't. There are the privileged and the non-privileged. Yet, the word underprivileged implies "that there is a standard of privileges to which everyone is entitled." What right does any person to claim entitlement to privilege? Though there are certainly arguments in favor of certain common rights, there can be no legitimate claim that any person is entitled to any sort of privilege. While those who have been unjustly stripped of an unalienable right may have a valid complaint, even someone who has no privileges cannot suggest that an injustice has been done. For an injustice to be present, some sort of harm must be shown, and no person is being harmed by not being granted privileges. The very concept of an underprivileged person is a contradiction of terms, since privilege implies that there can be no such thing as underprivilege.
Given the very specific sort of ideology that is suggested or propagated by suggesting that all people are entitled to a certain level of privilege, all rational thinkers must be wary whenever such a term is used. Often "helping the underprivileged" is used as a justification for promoting or implementing various social reform programs, placing a higher tax burden on a certain group, or enacting restrictive legislation. While many of these programs sound good, they are generally used to increase the power of the government and they typically result in more individual liberties being unjustly stripped from people in the name of "common good." Whenever the word underprivileged is used, it is critical to consider the ideologies that are being suggested. What is the author saying that a certain group of people is entitled to? Do they actually have a right to such things? Who does the author suggest should fix the problem? Could there be ulterior motives?
The notion of privileges for favored people--the wealthy, or those in the know, or those connected to the government--has been around as long as civilization. But the democratic notion of privileges for everyone came into its own in America with our adoption of the word underprivileged. To say someone is underprivileged is to imply that there is a standard of privileges to which everyone is entitled, privileges that have been unjustly withheld from the underprivileged.Yet the concept of being "underprivileged" seems to conflict with the definition of the word privilege. The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, defines privilege as, "A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste." If something is a special right or advantage, there is a clear implication that such a benefit is not enjoyed or possessed by all people; it is not normal or ordinary. Therefore, a privilege can only be considered a privilege if it is not something that is not common to all, since it must be something that is special. For example, if apples grown in Washington State are better than the rest of the apples in the nation, those who enjoy fresh Washington apples are privileged, since they enjoy a benefit that not all Americans enjoy. Likewise, if a charitable organization is not taxed by the federal government, it is a privileged organization, since it has been granted a special advantage.
The very definition of the word privilege divides people into two groups: those who enjoy a particular privilege and those who don't. There are the privileged and the non-privileged. Yet, the word underprivileged implies "that there is a standard of privileges to which everyone is entitled." What right does any person to claim entitlement to privilege? Though there are certainly arguments in favor of certain common rights, there can be no legitimate claim that any person is entitled to any sort of privilege. While those who have been unjustly stripped of an unalienable right may have a valid complaint, even someone who has no privileges cannot suggest that an injustice has been done. For an injustice to be present, some sort of harm must be shown, and no person is being harmed by not being granted privileges. The very concept of an underprivileged person is a contradiction of terms, since privilege implies that there can be no such thing as underprivilege.
Given the very specific sort of ideology that is suggested or propagated by suggesting that all people are entitled to a certain level of privilege, all rational thinkers must be wary whenever such a term is used. Often "helping the underprivileged" is used as a justification for promoting or implementing various social reform programs, placing a higher tax burden on a certain group, or enacting restrictive legislation. While many of these programs sound good, they are generally used to increase the power of the government and they typically result in more individual liberties being unjustly stripped from people in the name of "common good." Whenever the word underprivileged is used, it is critical to consider the ideologies that are being suggested. What is the author saying that a certain group of people is entitled to? Do they actually have a right to such things? Who does the author suggest should fix the problem? Could there be ulterior motives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
