Thursday, June 17, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
George Orwell wrote of a day when the government would engage in flagrant acts of double-speak, and we all thought we'd be too smart for that. However, the subtleties the progressives used slipped by with little detection until now. The government, when it trashes the free market, is in fact demonizing the American people for we are the creators of and actors in the market, and it is only through our personal liberties that the market works, and yet our liberties rely on the market remaining free. It is similar to a symbiotic relationship with one major difference. A symbiotic relationship is between two different entities, however the free market is impossible to separate from us. We are the 'Free' in Free Market, and without our freedom, neither the market, nor the "individual" can survive.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/blogs/yeas-and-nays/Say-what__-Clinton_s-niece-living-on-food-stamps-92266554.html#ixzz0mPTSAHSZ
Also, I find it hard to believe that a Clinton could not find a good enough job to put food on the table. There are plenty of people who support themselves on meager jobs, they just have to live a meager lifestyle. She is taking the easy way out, and there is no question about that.
Lastly, she blames her situation on her father. Well, being too poor to be able to afford food should have been a sufficient motivator for her to either make amends or request help from her Uber-rich uncle Billy. Unfortunately, she instead turned to welfare which only eased her current situation. She still has all the problems that got her to where she is at.
Throwing money at a person or problem rarely fixes it, especially when the real issue is not a lack of money, but a lack of responsibility (on all sides).
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Flythe was among the patients Monday at the Walltown Clinic, a joint program of Duke University and Lincoln Community Health Center that serves the low-income neighborhoods near Duke's campus. The clinic serves 3,000 to 4,000 patients a year – 80 percent don't have health insurance – and charges co-pays based on what patients can afford.
"People will come in and say, 'I suddenly don't have a job. I've lost my insurance. Can you help me?'" said Kaity Granda, a physician's assistant at the clinic.
Norman Rucker said he hasn't had health insurance in almost 10 years because his employers haven't offered it.
"I'm not a person who gets sick a lot, so I didn't think I'd need any medicine," said Rucker, who racked up about $100,000 in hospital bills over that period by going to the emergency room whenever he needed care. "I'm trying to pay them off. Collection agencies call me all the time." ~WRAL.com Link here.
So if he doesn't have to worry about his bills, why can't I stop caring about mine? This seems to be an inequality of non-responsibility. Shouldn't we all have an equal right to be equally irresponsible without being unfairly penalized by the consequences just because of our class: economic or social, or any other trait. If anything, this mentality rewards those who are a drain on the system while hurting those who prop the system up by their own hard work and personal sacrifices.
As sad as it is for people like Flythe, It is neither moral nor practical for his personal debts, decisions, and unfortunate circumstances to be paid by someone else who is of no fault. I'm sorry, but he was laid off 3 years ago and couldn't find a job? I can get a job at McDonald's and get benefits almost immediately. An acquaintance of mine just started working full time in a kitchen wash room to support himself and he gets medical coverage for as little as $18 a month.
Of course, not everyone can find these jobs, but have they really looked? Have they made the hard choices such as moving to a new area or city where the economy is flourishing. Or have they even spent their "time off" doing anything productive? That time could have been used to learn new skills and become more marketable, but instead many use those extended times of unemployment as a paid vacation, and paid by who? You.
This story puts the lie to all the stories that we have heard over the last year and a half. There are free clinics everywhere where people who don't have insurance can get the care they need to survive. However, it is up to them to provide for themselves if they want more. We are all in the same position, we all must obey the law of Nature: which is the laws of human nature, economics, physics, biology, etc. -- or better yet: Reality.
As much as we would like to legislate a utopia, it is not possible to accomplish that which violates these laws. A piece of paper with words on it, however noble they may be, can not stand up to nor overpower the laws that govern the universe.
"Norman Rucker said he hasn't had health insurance in almost 10 years because his employers haven't offered it. "I'm not a person who gets sick a lot, so I didn't think I'd need any medicine," said Rucker, who racked up about $100,000 in hospital bills over that period by going to the emergency room whenever he needed care. "I'm trying to pay them off. Collection agencies call me all the time."
So just because someone didn't extend it to him on a silver platter, Rucker "couldn't" get care. He could have changed jobs, picked up personal insurance, or moved to another state that was more friendly to his situation (after all that is what the states are for, options, opportunity, and competition).
Rucker made a simple value judgement, the implications of which are severe and far reaching. Not only did Rucker value the status quo of every other part of his life above the cost of improving the status of his healthcare, He thought he didn't need insurance because he rarely got sick. In the second case he may have made a good judgement because he may not have wanted or needed the "state dictated minimum coverage," but he clearly misjudged the importance of his health in relation to the importance of all his other desires. If Rucker would have either paid for a catastrophic plan, or budgeted his money to provide for those times when he would get sick or injured--because we all do, and it is fool hardy to believe otherwise--he would most likely not be in this position. Also, I find it hard to believe that this man rarely got sick, yet ended up with a $100,000 bill. If that is true, then he was simply foolish in the method he chose to solve his problem. It would be akin to a person using single dollars as toilet paper instead of using much less of that same money to buy a product that did the job better and for a more reasonable cost. In any case, his original problem of relying on employer based coverage was a problem caused by the state, but I cover that issue elsewhere: Insurance: Hedging yourself; The Fallacy of the Single Payer System.
Although unfortunate, Rucker's situation could have been foreseen, but he made his decisions and now must live by them. This may seem a harsh reality, and that is exactly what it is. I have no problem with private individuals helping him out, and they should--and history has proven that they will without the safety net of government discouraging private charity. but to have me by threat of force from the government pay for his mistakes and poor value judgments is not the remedy, it only masks the symptoms of the disease. The symptoms being the unfortunate circumstances he is experiencing right now. If we [government] can quell his discomfort of the symptoms by getting the collective to pay his price, then he is only being delivered to his own sickness, and in doing so, is spreading it further. This is the ultimate end of statism and the errant belief that men can become gods in which they attempt to manipulate the laws of the universe for their own liking and personal gain. It is a fantasy and it is being perpetuated by those whom we have put our trust in to lead us. How dare they! Yet, if we are aware of this and do nothing then I think it more appropriate to say: How dare us.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
MADDOW: Should we not expect the public option anytime soon?
BROWN: No. Just—Rachel, you know history. I‘ve seen your show enough to know that you understand sort of how progressive—the progressive movements worked. When we passed, what, Social Security was passed in the ‘30s. It wasn‘t all that great at the time. When Medicare was passed, it was good, but not great.
… That‘s what happens here. This—you can bet that a lot of us are going to introduce a public option bill.
As soon the president signs this, we‘ll start working towards it. It may take a year. It may take five years. There are a lot of things we‘re going to do to continue to improve this system. We obviously don‘t give up on it. We don‘t get everything we want. But we work—we look how this bill works, we look how this new law works, and we continue to try to improve it.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
"Market entrepreneurs like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Hill built businesses on product and price. Hill was the railroad magnate who finished his transcontinental line without a public land grant. Rockefeller took on and beat the world's dominant oil power at the time, Russia. Rockefeller innovated his way to energy primacy for the U.S.
Political entrepreneurs, by contrast, made money back then by gaming the political system. Steamship builder Robert Fulton acquired a 30-year monopoly on Hudson River steamship traffic from, no surprise, the New York legislature. Cornelius Vanderbilt, with the slogan "New Jersey must be free," broke Fulton's government-granted monopoly.
If the Obama model takes hold, we will enter the Golden Age of the Political Entrepreneur. The green jobs industry that sits at the center of the Obama master plan for the American future depends on public subsidies for wind and solar technologies plus taxes on carbon to suppress it as a competitor. Politically connected entrepreneurs will spend their energies running a mad labyrinth of bureaucracies, congressional committees and Beltway door openers. Our best market entrepreneurs, instead of exhausting themselves on their new ideas, will run to ground gaming Barack Obama's ideas.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]"
Olbermann is trying to make this about race so he can have an explination as to why Obamacare failed. It couldn't be because we are smart enough to elect someone on ideas. No, we are only simple minded country folk who are all racist white people who only care about race. If that isn't sterotyping (aka racism) then I don't know what is.
Even though Olbermann is wrong, it doesn't matter. The past votes of a party don't matter as much as the current ones do. If my principles dictate liberty, then I must be against this healthcare bill, along with many other government "fixes." And If Olbermann thinks that wanting to maintain liberty means that I am a racist then he must be so consumed by race that it is always on his mind. It seems to be that way for many democrats and progressives. So many seemed to question Obama's blackness. Reid and other key figures were caught discussing his qualities of being light skinned and negro dialect-free. Those are the people who keep telling us that we always make it about race, but we don't. Those who favor liberty, true freedom for all mankind, don't think about the messenger, they think about the message.
It is not men but ideas that this country looks to, and if an idea is a bad, regardless of the man who has it, then we will say so. We don't care if it appears racist, because we can defend our position from every angle of attack. The progressives and liberals use race as their trump card, their last line of defense, or their first strike weapon. When they can't win the debate on the issues, then they try to deflect to another issue that has strong emotional ties, and is easily used to smear the other side (even though, as you can read in the link above, the republicans have always been the party for blacks).
Monday, January 18, 2010
"Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.
The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower."