Misunderstanding the Recession

It should be no surprise that journalists have very little conception concerning the true cause of the high unemployment rates faced in America today. Accordingly, it also should be no surprise the the proposed remedy is absolutely worthless and counterproductive. An article in the news today, entitled "Why Everyone Suffers When Job Seekers Give Up", clearly misses the mark with its analysis of the economic realities.

Among the surprises in last month's job report was the downward slide in the unemployment rate from 9.7 percent to 9.5 percent. Most of the time, high unemployment rates are bad and low unemployment rates are better. But when the percentage of out-of-work Americans dipped in June, it was driven largely by a 652,000 drop in the labor force.

Some job seekers might see this, on its face, as a good thing--fewer labor force participants means less competition for jobs. The truth is much less helpful. When able workers drop out of the job market, their households make do with less income, and their long-term financial health may be threatened, as savings are depleted. The aggregate economy suffers, too, as it chugs its way out of recession--it loses their contributions as workers and their buying power as consumers.

The aggregate economy might suffer from workers abandoning their jobs and ceasing productive ventures, but the economy does not suffer at all from job seekers abandoning seeking jobs. Since they currently are producing nothing of economic value, their continuing to produce nothing of value results in no economic net change. It only reduces the amount of job candidates for the infinitessimally small amount of available jobs from a supermassive number to a merely extremely excessive one. How will companies ever find suitable candidates now?

The growth in discouraged workers is clearly correlated with the high numbers of long-term unemployed--as people who have spent a year or two looking for work unsuccessfully begin to lose the will to keep searching. With five job seekers for every job opening, and some jobs not likely ever returning, the search has been incredibly difficult for many. This is worrying, says Sung Won Sohn, an economist at Smith School of Business and Economics. "If you look at the total unemployment, about 50 percent are long-term unemployed ... and I suspect that a lot of these people are just dropping out of the labor force, saying 'this is just a waste of time,'" Sohn says. "It's not only an economic problem but a social problem as well. Many of these people are very able--they're in their forties, fifties, they still have quite a few years left in them."

Oh my, what a shocker! After unsuccessfully searching for a job for a long time, people are really giving up the search? I never would have guessed! How could they be so socially irresponsible? It's obviously not a waste of time to keep applying to jobs with a negligible chance of being hired and a slim chance of even getting an interview.

Discouraged workers can't help the economy move toward recovery, as they generally can't contribute to the aggregate demand without generating income, paying much in taxes, or consuming much, Autor says. Over the longer term, some discouraged workers will never return to the labor force and may depend on financial support from family members, or public programs such as federal disability benefits or Medicaid. "In addition to the losses these individuals suffer as a result of not remaining active in the labor market, their withdrawal is also an expensive proposition for the public," Autor says. "Prime age adults who exit the labor force permanently will generally receive considerably more in public benefits and transfer income than they will pay in taxes. Thus, in net, their withdrawal increases the dependency ratio, that is the ratio of non-workers to workers."

Now we're getting a little closer to the real issue. Although, a pivotal point is being missed. Not only are discouraged workers incapable of helping move the economy towards recovery, employed workers are similarly unable to help move the economy towards recovery. Our economy is lying in shambles because of the pervasive government intervention into the economy, the oppressive weight of taxes and regulations, and the global lack of understanding the long-term impact of debt, on a national or an individual basis. There is nothing economically wrong with discouraged workers depending on support from family members. However, when there exist public programs that support those who are not contributing economically to society, it distorts labor incentives. When the available jobs are extremely hard to get, and when there is incentive to give up and rely on government support, guess what choice people will generally make? The problem has two sides, but both sides have the same root cause. They are two sides of one coin. The reasons behind the lack of jobs and the reason why people can survive without jobs are one and the same: government intervention.

Retraining programs will likely be key to getting discouraged workers back into the workforce. "What's worrying is you have this sea of unemployed people who seem to not have the right skill sets for where jobs may be being created in this economy," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR, an economic consulting firm in New York.

Of course, the solution advocated by our all-wise media is the same one propagated in society at large. If we just had more education and training programs, our economy would be better off. If people were better trained, or had more specialized training then there would be plenty of productive economic activities for everyone. As with most of the diagnoses and solutions offered by our benevolent social guardians, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem isn't a matter of education and training. Higher education is becoming increasingly useless in the modern economy. The reason we have an inadequate number of jobs is because incentives are distorted due to the government tinkering with labor prices, levying excessive taxes, creating an ever-increasingly incomprehensible labyrinth of regulations, and monkeying with the monetary system through the Federal Reserve System.

The solution is a return to true laissez-faire capitalism, where people can actually be rewarded for working hard and being innovative. Until there exist enough incentives for innovation and jobs for those who wish to be employed, it should be no surprise that people are abandoning the search for work. Until the systemic obstructions to the creation of jobs and economic innovation are removed, the incentives are distorted enough that people are simply going to play it safe. But, again, we the people are having the same tired cliches fed to us. More training, higher education and endless perseverance are the keys to individual economic stability. The problem couldn't possibly be a systemic or institutional one.

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:

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?"

Preposterous Shaming Words: Narrow-minded

While there are certain times and situations where shaming may be appropriate, most attempts to verbally or socially shame another person are completely uncalled for. Today, during a discussion, someone referred to certain ideas as "narrow-minded." Strictly speaking, all that means is the the person in question didn't like the ideas. But, the word "narrow-minded" has very specific connotations attached to it, which turns such an expression from being one of simple personal distaste to verbal shaming based on the implications of a fixed standard. While the literal meaning of the term doesn't imply any shame, in today's world calling someone "narrow-minded" is a major insult, akin to calling someone a "racist," a "bigot," a "sexist" or a "homophobe." Why do we allow such a generic, yet connotation-laden word to be used? I don't know, but I certainly oppose it.

My reason for opposing it is that the word "narrow-minded" really doesn't mean anything at all. Allow me to explain. Strictly speaking, something that is narrow is limited or constricted. Therefore, narrow-minded simply means that an idea or belief is limited or constricted. Alternately, in colloquial usage, narrow-minded means that some idea or belief is inflexible, intolerant or prejudiced. As a culture, we have been conditioned to view such thinking as unreasonable and petty. We have been brainwashed into thinking of narrow-mindedness as a character flaw of the highest sort. However, simply a moment's consideration is required to dismantle this ridiculous perception. I must ask, which idea or opinion isn't narrow? Supposing that I believe the sky looks blue in the daytime, by definition my belief is exceedingly narrow. That I think the sky looks blue necessarily means that I do not think it is red, yellow, purpose, green, black, turquiose or maroon. Nor do I think that it is invisible. Similarly, my belief must be inflexible or it isn't a belief at all. If I am certain that the sky appears blue, then it would take a lot of arguing and persuading for me ever to consider changing such a belief. If I am so uncertain that I can be easily swayed, then I don't really believe the sky is blue at all. Therefore, so long as I think that the sky is blue, such a thought must intrinsically be both narrow and inflexible.

Allow me to utilize another example. Let us suppose that grape popsicles are my favorite dessert. If grape popsicles are my favorite, then it is necessarily true that no other dessert is my favorite. Key lime pie, chocolate chip cookies, rainbow sherbet and candy canes may be perfectly delicious, but none of them is my favorite. Only grape popsicles are. My taste is intrinsically narrow. Additionally, if my taste in desserts is too flexible, then the concept of favorite means almost nothing. If my favorite dessert changes ever day or two, then saying that grape popsicles are my favorite means nothing at all. Only if my preference for grape popsicles is fairly static does my preference carry weight at all. Therefore, favorites are intrinsically narrow and inflexible. Moving on to a more serious example, let us suppose that I believe murderers should be put to death. If I believe that murderers should be subjected to the death penalty, then it logically follows that I do not believe murderers should be paid to kill more people, go on vacations to Hawaii, or shop for clothes at my local Target. My belief that they should die necessarily excludes those things. Similarly, my belief must be relatively static or else it doesn't mean anything at all. My belief in the death penalty is by definition narrow and inflexible. Likewise, if you oppose the death penalty, then you believe that murderers should not be drowned, shot in the head, stabbed in heart, injected with lethal poison, nor electrified. Your opinion also is narrow, since it necessarily exlcudes a great many things, and it is inflexible, else you don't really oppose the death penalty. I could list a thousand more examples, but my simple point is this: all serious ideas, opinions, tastes and beliefs are necessarily narrow and inflexible.

Granted that all serious ideas, opinions, tastes and beliefs are necessarily narrow and inflexible, it logically follows that all is strictly meant by calling something "narrow-minded" is that it is actually a thought. Since all ideas are ideas, all opinions are opinions and all beliefs are beliefs, calling something "narrow-minded" means nothing at all. The fact that it is a word laden with connotations means that when you call something "narrow-minded" you are trying to shame the other person for holding an idea, simply on the grounds that it is an idea.

Although, there is one other way such a statement could be meant. Perhaps one is not complaining that an idea is narrow (since all ideas are), but that the given idea is narrower than it should be. For an idea to be narrower than it should be, there must exist a standard for acceptable and unacceptable amounts of narrowness. Unless this standard is fully stated and supported, then it is simply an unfounded accusation. But, it is an unfounded accusation that is usually used by people who have embraced modern political correctness and are attempting to use political correctness as the standard for any idea. In that sense, saying that someone is narrow-minded simply means that their beliefs do not conform to acceptable social norms. But why should an idea conform? Political correctness is tyrannical demagogic excrement. Political correctness is used as a shield for the fearful to live in denial of reality and socially shame others into doing the same.

Therefore, any reasonable and courageous person would do well to completely reject the idea that narrow-mindedness should be opposed or frowned upon. In its literal usage, narrow-mindedness is intrinsically unavoidance. In its colloquial usage by those who support the modern system, narrow-mindedness is generally something that should be supported and applauded, since "narrow-minded" individuals are the only ones courageous enough to step outside of the box, think for themselves, say what's on their minds and question popular consensus. As a non-conformist, I take pride in being called narrow-minded or having people object to certain ideas I have. Holding "narrow-minded" ideas is the only way to move towards reform, oppose democratic tyranny, and fight for liberty and justice. When I do dicuss ideas with people I disagree with, I use logic and rationality to oppose their ideas, and don't stoop to using cowardly tactics like simple name-calling and shaming. No reasonable, courageous, logical person should ever refer to another person or idea as "narrow-minded."

Tyrannical Health Tax

Today in the news, Obama is celebrating the newest revision of the Health Reform Bill. Being one of Obama's big-ticket items, the hype for this bill is absolutely insane. Previously, I've written about the the whole ideology behind such a bill being based on lies, and the unavoidable rising healthcare costs that would result from the passage of such a bill. As expected, the propaganda surrounding the present incarnation of the bill is as loaded with lies as usual.

Speaking on the steps of the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress was at a "historic moment" and lawmakers were "on the cusp of delivering on the promise of making affordable, quality health insurance available to every American."

While populist demagoguery always sounds appealing, it always promises what it cannot deliver. No entity can provide truly free (or cheaper than cost) goods or services to people. The simple fact of scarcity guarantees that "affordable, quality health insurance" for everyone is impossible. You can possibly have two of the three, but not all three. Affordable, quality health insurance could be provided to a privileged few. Quality, but expensive healthcare could be available for everyone. Affordable, low quality health care could be available to everyone. But, the laws of supply and demand ensure that there can be no such thing as affordable, quality healthcare for everyone. Liberals are very good at promising what they cannot deliver, and as we have conclusively witnessed with the economic bailout their fairytale promises demonstrate a clear ignorance of both basic economics and simple arithmetic.

Large firms would be required to cover their workers, and most individuals would be required to carry insurance.
The bill would require nearly everyone by 2013 to sign up for health coverage either through their employer, a government program or the new exchange.

Of course, while this would accomplish the goal of expanding healthcare coverage, I for one, think that mandating coverage is a horribly tyrannical idea! Not only will the cost of the healthcare rise, the quality and speed of service drop, and the government become even a larger and more extensive monster than it already is, but mandating coverage essentially amounts to a health tax. While pretending that they want people to be healthy and focus on preventative medicine, the government simultaneously forces healthy people who take good of themselves to spend money they wouldn't otherwise spend. Right now, since I eat well, stay fit and take good care of my body, my health is excellent and I have no need of health services of health insurance. Not having health insurance allows me to walk home with $1,300 more cash every year. If this bill passes, the government is effectively penalizing my health, responsible lifestyle by requiring to pay $1,300 in exchange for... wait for it... absolutely nothing! This "healthcare reform" bill is really just a tyrannical tax on being healthy.

For my own sake, for the sake of all Americans, for the sake of decent healthcare and for the sake of freedom, I will oppose this bill adamantly! Join me!

A Malevolent God?

Last week I posted a blog with several quotes by well-known agnostics and atheists. It was a half-serious, half-humorous reply to those who live irreligious lifestyles and encourage others to do the same. One of my commenters insightfully wrote:

I would be curious to know your fuller answer to Mr. Dawkin's quote about the God of the Old Testament. This seems to be one of the hardest questions for Christians to answer, and perhaps the one most commonly asked by the skeptic of the Christian God. How could a loving, creator God destroy his creation? Or suggest, nay command, "his people" to slaughter whole nations?

This is a legitimate and important question to consider. What sort of God is the God of the Bible? Modern popular Christianity seems to present a smiley-face version of God who is ultra-loving and compassionate. Yet, the Old Testament seems to present a clear depiction of God as anything but a "nice" deity. In fact, there are some people who are strongly opposed to the God of the Old Testament because of the things He says and how He acts towards people. As Christians, it is crucial to know who God is, what He is like and whether He is really a good God or not. Is the God of the Bible a benevolent being, or is He malevolent, cruel, vicious and unreasonable? In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, writes:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Within that quote, we have a list of accusations that would take volumes of scholarly dissertations to properly reference and debate. His statement, quite frankly, is dynamite. It calls the whole of God's character into question. In considering how to address Dawkins' characterization of God, we first must see if his accusation is actually scriptural. Although his word-choice is deliberately provocative and excessively negative, to a certain degree He does accurately describe the God of the Bible.

-God is a jealous God.
-God does concern Himself even with seemingly trivial matters.
-God does kill people and order the killing of people.
-God does execute vengeance.
-God does establish inflexible rules and require people to abide by them.
-God does hold His own glory and majesty in high regard.
-God does differentiate between people and treat people differently based on their race and gender.

And clearly there are a few parts of Dawkins' statement that are not true:

-God is not unjust. Justice is one of His defining traits and He always renders to each person according to their deeds.
-God is not unforgiving. A desire for man's repentance and reconciliation is interwoven into all of His actions.
-God is not misogynistic, since He does not categorically hate women.
-God is not a bully. Any actions that may be regarded as cruel are always directed towards specific people for specific reasons.

Now that we have briefly examined the validity of Dawkins' claim, let us take a closer look at what Dawkins' is really saying, beneath all the provocative words. Ultimately, Dawkins is saying that the God of the Old Testament is unpleasant because He is self-centered, immoral, violent and unreasonable. Even supposing that Dawkins is correct, why does that matter? Even if God is unpleasant, does that have any bearing on whether God actually exists, or whether Christianity is true? None, whatsoever. Hitler and Napolean were certainly self-centered, immoral, violent and unreasonable men, but no one is denying their existence because of that. Therefore, if his statement is meant to be an argument against the existence of God or the veracity of Christianity, it lacks any merit.

What then is Dawkins trying to claim? Is he saying that supposing God really exists, that He is not a good God worthy of worship or obedience? This seems to be a more reasonable understanding of Dawkins' stance. By appealing to our moral sensibilities as modern, enlightened people, he is attempting to defame God's character by arguing that the Christian God (if He exists), is quite a horrific and evil sort of god. And what is his basis for such a claim? It is a moral claim, yet the moral basis for it is unspecified.

If he is arguing against violence, unreasonability and self-centeredness simply because of his own personal opinions, then he is making a faulty appeal to authority. Just because Richard Dawkins thinks something is immoral doesn't make it so.

If he is arguing against God's character based on the social construct theory of morality, then he is making a faulty appeal to popularity. The social construct theory of morality is inadequate as a foundation for criticism because it a relativistic standard that differs from people group to people group and therefore has no authority to critique any action outside of its own social sphere. Additionally, the social construct theory of morality cannot serve as a grounded foundation for morality because it uses a circular basis for claiming authority. For example, a community may say, "Whatever a majority says is right is okay and whatever a majority declares as wrong is prohibited." But then when asked, "Why do we have to follow the rules of the majority?" The only answer that can be given is, "Because the majority has agreed that you must abide by the rules established by the majority." Obviously, such a moral foundation wouldn't even support a house of cards, much less any argument of substance.

If he is arguing that self-centeredness and violence are intrinsically wrong, then he is attempting to use Christian morality as a basis for his argument. There are several problems with this approach. First of all, if he successfully uses Christian morality as a basis for arguing that God is immoral, then God would be disqualified from establishing any sort of universal rules for morality, which then renders Christian morality an insufficient basis for arguing that God is immoral. So, even if Dawkins' argument succeeds on such a basis, it still fails.

Secondly, if Dawkins' is attempting to use Christian morality as the basis of his critique, then his approach is flawed because his arguments against God's benevolence aren't actually grounded in Christian morality, but are grounded in a gross modern twisting of Christian morality. In fact, it is for this very reason that Dawkins' statement seems as powerful and convincing as it does. Because of our modern perspective of reality, we have taken some aspects of Christian morality and abrogated them while altering other aspects of Christian morality to match our enlightened, contemporary view of the world. Does Christian morality really condemn violence? Does Christianity oppose self-motivated behavior and glory-seeking? Does Christianity oppose absolute and inflexible moral rules? I think not! In a couple of future blogs I plan to address these three specific moral stances in more detail.

Though there are a few points of Dawkins' quote that I find are unsupported by Scripture, and though his wording is intentionally and unfairly negative, to a certain extent I agree with his characterization of God. Quite frankly, the God of the Bible is jealous. He is vindictive and does retain the right to execute vengeance. God does hold a position of authority and He demands that all people respect His position of authority and obey Him unswervingly. God does recognize that men and women are fundamentally different, and He does treat people differently based on gender. He does directly and indirectly bring death and destruction to nations who oppose Him and His people. God clearly declares that homosexuality is an evil perversion of nature that is punishable by death. Because of this, I can see what Richard Dawkins is trying to say. However, Dawkins fails to establish a reasonable criteria that would demonstrate any of God's actions as being truly evil or malevolent. Maybe God is violent. So what? Maybe God does treat different people and different groups of people differently. So what? Maybe God is radically self-centered and concerned with His glory. So what? Since Dawkins has failed to establish a baseline for his criticism, he is expressing nothing more than a personal opinion. Therefore, whenever I read his quote, this is what it says to me: "My personal opinion is that the God of the Old Testament is self-centered, violent, murderous, unjust and unfair." So what? Everyone has their own opinion. Dawkins' opinion just happens to be partially incorrect and completely devoid of moral potency.

What is wrong with being violent? What is wrong with seeking glory? What is wrong with jealousy? What is wrong with establishing clear and inflexible rules? As far as I can, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of these. In fact, all of these seem to coincide quite nicely with the image of a president or a king. If there is any sort of claim that God is evil or malevolent, the claim is more a reflection of our own personal and cultural biases than it is a meritorious accusation against the God of the Bible.

Freedom From Religion

Recently, I came across the website of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Currently they are running an ad campaign in San Francisco, displaying bus ads with various quotes by well-known "freethinkers." I have to say, if pithy quotes were the sole determinant of the validity of an argument then these quotes would completely obliterate religion. But, since we live in a world of rationality, empirical verifiability and logic, a witty one-liner packs about as much punch as a napping kitten. Just for fun, let's look at the quotes they chose:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

Where I come from, we call that ignorance, stupidity and denial. On a more serious note, how do know that Christianity isn't true? To properly claim something is false you must either present reasonable evidence to show that it is false or else show for certain that some antithetical claim is true. Since no-one has yet been able to disprove Christianity, then for this claim to have any base, Mark Twain has yet to show us any alternate explanation for the existence of the universe, for the unity and diversity exhibited therein, for the "mannishness" of man and for the regular divine interventions into human history.

If you are rejecting Christianity simply because you don't have a better answer then you are guilty of making the same irrational leaps of blind faith that you accuse religious people of making.

"I'm an atheist and that's it. I believe that there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people." - Katharine Hepburn

Yet another skeptic who isn't quite skeptical enough. Let me ask a quick question. How do you know that we should be kind to one another? You don't. So, you don't actually believe anything at all... Well, at least that's what you say you believe. Have fun enjoying your life of happy inconsistency. Oh wait... you already did.

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from slavery of religion." - Butterfly McQueen

I'm glad you think that. The apostle Paul might disagree with you, but who's to say that he really existed, anyway. Happily, you have my adamant support, since I am libertarian. Believing that freedom is one of God's greatest gifts to mankind, I would fiercely defend your right to remain a slave to sin and condemn yourself to hell. When you're there please send me a postcard. I'm sure the blazing inferno is horrifyingly resplendent!

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction." - Richard Dawkins

Maybe so, but I'd rather have an unpleasant fictitious character than a pompous, blathering, asshole like Richard Dawkins making his living off of mockery, blasphemy and uninspired demagogic literary fluff.

In any case, I definitely see where Richard Dawkins is coming from, and I think his quote is quite insightful. I mean, if I knew of some all-powerful being who wipes out 99% of earth's population when they displease Him, who kills the firstborn sons of stubborn fools who oppose worship, and who afflicts greedy liars with leprosy, and if I happened to fit nicely in all three of those categories, I doubt I'd have such a positive view of God either.

"I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose." - Clarence Darrow

Yeah, sure. And I don't drink water, because I eat carrots. For an attorney, you don't seem to make the best categorical distinctions. I guess the good thing about not believing in religious fairy tales is that you'll never have to experience the clichéd fairy tale ending of eternal bliss. Who would want that, anyway?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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!

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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!

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.

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 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?