I recently heard a news analyst ask a question similar to the following: "What if Obama is a socialist? Is that illegal?" The answer, of course, is no, it's not illegal. Mr. Obama is protected by the same constitution that protects us all and, as a result, is just as free to exhibit his ignorance as the rest of us. The fact that he would circumvent that same document, even to the point of rendering it obsolete, still doesn't preclude him from being protected by it.
Of course, many of those foolish enough to vote for him might not like the fact that he's a socialist, particularly because he ran his campaign as a moderate liberal. He certainly can't be accused of being the first politician to lie about his agenda in order to gain sufficient power to advance it. After all, had he run as a socialist, there's no doubt he would not have been elected to his current office.
While he is free to say and/or believe what he chooses, his ideology would preclude the remainder of us from that same freedom. Socialism requires the individual to subvert personal gain for the betterment of the whole. In short, the people subjected to a socialist regime are forced, against their will if necessary, to provide the fruits of their labor for the benefit of others. Another word for this is slavery. Now, last I recall, THAT is illegal.
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Monday, April 5, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Please allow us our daily bread
Yesterday, our socialist in chief made a very telling statement during a rambling response to an assertion that Americans are "over-taxed". At one point, the community organizer informed us, the people by whom he is employed, that "we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance." Of course, he was referring to the long-disputed uninsured number and was implying that we as a nation failed these underprivileged by allowing them to fall through the cracks.
However, the word "allows" does more than imply something else this president believes: that the government of the United States cedes rights to the citizens of this country rather than the other way around. In my twenties, I didn't maintain health insurance because I saw no need to do so. Now the right to make that choice has been taken away through the unconstitutional "mandate" which forces all citizens to maintain health insurance. Not only does this require the citizens of this country to purchase something as a requisite of citizenry, it places specific limitations on what is acceptable insurance. Somehow, unalienable rights are now something to which our elected officials have some veto power.
This is not a surprise, at least not to those of us who have been paying attention. Nor is it solely an affliction of the left, as evidenced by the "Patriot Act" encroachments forced through by the previous administration. Yes, fascism creeps in from all sides. The question is, how long will we tolerate this misconception by our elected representation. It is only when we the people stand up and correct such assertions and abuses of power that we will bring back the nation of Jefferson where freedom was valued above all.
However, the word "allows" does more than imply something else this president believes: that the government of the United States cedes rights to the citizens of this country rather than the other way around. In my twenties, I didn't maintain health insurance because I saw no need to do so. Now the right to make that choice has been taken away through the unconstitutional "mandate" which forces all citizens to maintain health insurance. Not only does this require the citizens of this country to purchase something as a requisite of citizenry, it places specific limitations on what is acceptable insurance. Somehow, unalienable rights are now something to which our elected officials have some veto power.
This is not a surprise, at least not to those of us who have been paying attention. Nor is it solely an affliction of the left, as evidenced by the "Patriot Act" encroachments forced through by the previous administration. Yes, fascism creeps in from all sides. The question is, how long will we tolerate this misconception by our elected representation. It is only when we the people stand up and correct such assertions and abuses of power that we will bring back the nation of Jefferson where freedom was valued above all.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Let's check on granny...
...when this thing actually starts choking us.
Yes, the person currently playing the role of big brother yesterday claimed that no grandmothers were harmed in the making of his health care abortion. What he didn't mention (nor would he) is that the overtly negative impacts of his scheme won't take affect until after he has had an opportunity to be reelected.
I first believed that perpetuating his regime was the only intention behind the plot design. However, it is merely a byproduct of the financial conundrum under which we will be suffocated. In order to pay for the billions of dollars of overhead required to administer the yoke, the plot was designed to amass a pool of money from which it could be launched. Additionally, and most importantly, the provisions of the scheme designed to dismantle the private health insurance industry will take time to fully mature. At that point, the only "option" will be to create a public one.
One thing that works against this particular big brother is his under-appreciation for the more important issue on the mind of the people: the economy. While his minions prepare the piles of red tape that will smother us, his tax collectors begin the task of amassing the necessary funds. This, in an economy with near record unemployment, will do little to soften the hearts of the great unwashed as they see further erosion of employment opportunities.
What our oppressor in chief is counting on is a short memory. He believes that telling sufficient lies between now and November will cushion the blow of the first phase of his plan. Perhaps it will. After all, people are fools. He may be myopic enough to believe that people of this country will become accustomed to living off the government dole, but he'll find that even fools have pride.
Yes, the person currently playing the role of big brother yesterday claimed that no grandmothers were harmed in the making of his health care abortion. What he didn't mention (nor would he) is that the overtly negative impacts of his scheme won't take affect until after he has had an opportunity to be reelected.
I first believed that perpetuating his regime was the only intention behind the plot design. However, it is merely a byproduct of the financial conundrum under which we will be suffocated. In order to pay for the billions of dollars of overhead required to administer the yoke, the plot was designed to amass a pool of money from which it could be launched. Additionally, and most importantly, the provisions of the scheme designed to dismantle the private health insurance industry will take time to fully mature. At that point, the only "option" will be to create a public one.
One thing that works against this particular big brother is his under-appreciation for the more important issue on the mind of the people: the economy. While his minions prepare the piles of red tape that will smother us, his tax collectors begin the task of amassing the necessary funds. This, in an economy with near record unemployment, will do little to soften the hearts of the great unwashed as they see further erosion of employment opportunities.
What our oppressor in chief is counting on is a short memory. He believes that telling sufficient lies between now and November will cushion the blow of the first phase of his plan. Perhaps it will. After all, people are fools. He may be myopic enough to believe that people of this country will become accustomed to living off the government dole, but he'll find that even fools have pride.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Concerning rights and privileges
This morning I heard a news article concerning the health care piracy bill signed into law today by the president. The commentator indicated that the question hinged on whether a person thought that health care was a right or a privilege. It occurred to me that those who pushed this down our throats don't consider it a right at all. Instead they consider it a responsibility. I base this assumption on the fact that they seem bent on forcing us to maintain insurance. If it were a right, then there would be no such requirement.
Of course, I understand why they created the requirement: their scheme breaks down if only a portion of the population participate. So, as is the case with government, they must force us to participate in order to take our money to give it to someone else. These people appear to believe that forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another, without their permission, is a moral act. I, however, understand this to be a rough definition of slavery.
Of course, I understand why they created the requirement: their scheme breaks down if only a portion of the population participate. So, as is the case with government, they must force us to participate in order to take our money to give it to someone else. These people appear to believe that forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another, without their permission, is a moral act. I, however, understand this to be a rough definition of slavery.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
As Goes Health Care
I begin this blog on a sad day for freedom in this country. Having just returned from our nation's capital, a place where I found a modest assembly of people at least moderately versed in the U.S. Constitution rallying against the attempted takeover of health care by our elected representation, I've come home to hear of the "momentous" beginning of socialized medicine in the land where liberty is thought to be an unalienable right.
While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.
Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.
Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.
Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.
Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.
These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:
Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.
Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.
Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.
Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.
These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.
While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.
Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.
Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.
Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.
Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.
These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:
Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.
Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.
Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.
Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.
These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
