Few things get me as irate as this already-passed travesty of a healthcare bill (Obamacare). Nancy Pelosi, one of our special California representatives in Congress and current Speaker of the House, as well as one of the main promoters of Obamacare and it's "pass at any cost" strategy, is STILL trying to sell it to us.
One of the bills finer points, according to Pelosi, is that it is "entrepreneurial", meaning that it allows people to leave their jobs to instead work on their "talents". Apparently the two don't go hand in hand. Maybe she's not really advocating welfare . . . maybe.
This Pelosi-redefinition of entrepreneurial is completely disingenuous. Sure, if healthcare actually followed individuals rather than employers it would be a lot easier to take that risk of a new job or start-up a new business, but forcing individuals to purchase healthcare through the government (it's in the bill!) is not going to make people more willing to take risks, but rather less willing.
Risk-takers often fail, and with these new mandatory health insurance costs that just means one more monthly payment that has to be made whether you're actually in the black or not. Since when does creating a governmental monopoly compare to creating a free market of nationalized competition? Since when does sorting through bureaucratic rules, regulations and restrictions make people feel safe to try new things? Unless of course we're all on government welfare and we don't need to worry about little things like creating jobs or paying taxes.
And with the current economy, unemployment and continuing breakdown of California's financial viability maybe we'll all be "working on our talents" in other states before long.
Watch her in action (courtesy of uncoverage.net):
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The Nature of Government
I've recently been told that it is the governments' job "to take care of us". Apparently this is the prevailing, if simplified version, of what those in Washington believe these days. I have also been astounded by the reporters and proponents of various legislation who seem to think those protesting current bills somehow don't understand what they'll get as a result of those policies.
There is a definite division between two world views. Although many things contribute to this division, there is a fundamental basis for it that has no compromise. One believes we should maintain our limited government and promote personal responsibility; the other believes that it is the government's job to ensure that everyone have a job, a house, health care and anything else one might need. One is a recipe for many variations and levels of income, comfort, health and safety with personal freedoms and responsibility as a requirement and the other is a recipe for a safe and secure nanny state with few personal freedoms or responsibility. The second is looking good to many people these days, but don't expect everyone to buy it just because there are some perks thrown in.
People around the world, who currently live in what I consider heavy-handed governments, genuinely don't see what we're all worked up about. That isn't because they live in such a state of utopia, but because humankind is an adaptable species. We like what we know. If we don't know freedom (and the accompanying responsibility), then we won't know to miss it . . . until we descend into the pit of unrestrained government and its accompanying abuses. Once we start on that path there is no real power of the people to restrain a government who is "responsible" for everyone's welfare. It's becomes a parent-child relationship and the governmental parent will pick and choose which complaint to hear and disregard the rest . . . then find a minimally acceptable (or not) solution which will be the final decision.
The nature of government is to grow itself, in money and power. A government is not capable of charity. A government is not capable of love or empathy. A government is not capable of limiting its own power. But now, we are supposed to disregard the basic nature of government and trust that this time it will be different . . . better. A person, an individual, is capable of charity, of love, of empathy. Each individual can be restrained to some degree by their own personal morals and the relationships with those around them. Individuals who refuse to restrain themselves and lack empathy or love reek havoc on society (murders, rapists, thieves) . . . how much more dangerous then is a government?
In our continuing quest for safety and security, let's not be lulled into the false promise of governmental "care". Care can only come from individuals who take personal responsibility for themselves and show charity to those in need. This is a hard sell to those seeking only the easiest way, but BEWARE . . . in the search for ease it is assured by both human nature and the nature of government that we will lose the most precious of gifts: Freedom.
There is a definite division between two world views. Although many things contribute to this division, there is a fundamental basis for it that has no compromise. One believes we should maintain our limited government and promote personal responsibility; the other believes that it is the government's job to ensure that everyone have a job, a house, health care and anything else one might need. One is a recipe for many variations and levels of income, comfort, health and safety with personal freedoms and responsibility as a requirement and the other is a recipe for a safe and secure nanny state with few personal freedoms or responsibility. The second is looking good to many people these days, but don't expect everyone to buy it just because there are some perks thrown in.
People around the world, who currently live in what I consider heavy-handed governments, genuinely don't see what we're all worked up about. That isn't because they live in such a state of utopia, but because humankind is an adaptable species. We like what we know. If we don't know freedom (and the accompanying responsibility), then we won't know to miss it . . . until we descend into the pit of unrestrained government and its accompanying abuses. Once we start on that path there is no real power of the people to restrain a government who is "responsible" for everyone's welfare. It's becomes a parent-child relationship and the governmental parent will pick and choose which complaint to hear and disregard the rest . . . then find a minimally acceptable (or not) solution which will be the final decision.
The nature of government is to grow itself, in money and power. A government is not capable of charity. A government is not capable of love or empathy. A government is not capable of limiting its own power. But now, we are supposed to disregard the basic nature of government and trust that this time it will be different . . . better. A person, an individual, is capable of charity, of love, of empathy. Each individual can be restrained to some degree by their own personal morals and the relationships with those around them. Individuals who refuse to restrain themselves and lack empathy or love reek havoc on society (murders, rapists, thieves) . . . how much more dangerous then is a government?
In our continuing quest for safety and security, let's not be lulled into the false promise of governmental "care". Care can only come from individuals who take personal responsibility for themselves and show charity to those in need. This is a hard sell to those seeking only the easiest way, but BEWARE . . . in the search for ease it is assured by both human nature and the nature of government that we will lose the most precious of gifts: Freedom.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Universal Healthcare - The Cost of Freedom
Many who oppose universal care talk about the financial cost of universal health care, but I want to focus on the real cost.
I believe in human rights. I am committed to compassionate causes. I believe we have an obligation to care for the poor, the sick and the needy among us. We also have a duty to watch over and protect the elderly, the disabled and the very young. In general, I think we're happier when we watch over and help each other.
Genuine compassion is an important ingredient to fixing our health insurance woes, but it is under the very guise of compassion that many proponents of universal health care do more harm than good. I've been told that there is no compassion in a system that allows people to suffer and die because they can't afford insurance. In response, I ask, is it compassionate to ask those very people who most deserve our help and protection to commit to a path that leads away from freedom and happiness? The answer is NO. This cost is too high.
The founding fathers of our country believed that what we now call human rights were God-given and self-evident. Self-evident, god-given rights are rights we are born with in our most natural, least hampered state. Humans are universally endowed with these natural rights. All people in this natural state can be born, use their mental capacities, and seek for what makes them happy, without government assistance or even the knowledge of government. While the government can take away a life through a death or prison sentence, it cannot give it. It can take away our liberty by creating a police and nanny state, but it has only to get out of the way for us to have it again. In protecting us from each other, a power-hungry government has found a million incremental ways to take away our freedoms in exchange for "security".
A progressive society strives to replace "god-given" with "government-given" and "self-evident" with "politically prudent". Progressives claim that health care is a right. By making this claim they propose that human rights are "government-provided". Social programs like universal health care are not "self-evident" or "god-given", they are a direct attack on the very foundations of our country and must be met head-on.
If we agree to this progressive definition of human rights, then we capitulate to the idea that it is the government, not a higher power, who provides those rights. If the government provides our rights, it will be the government who decides our rights. Who merits rights, how, what and when we receive them all become open to the whims of politicians and the trends of the moment.
Since the government would then be in charge of your health, it will also have a direct interest in making sure you are making healthy (i.e. cost efficient) choices. This is a slippery slope of direct and universal governmental intrusion into daily life.
What the government gives, the government can and will take away, ration and control.
Of course, there are other concerns regarding universal health care. If we were today to accept universal health care we would not only pay directly, but also indirectly in the form of increased taxation. The government will take our money and using new and improved rules decide what our doctors can charge, what procedures we can do, and limit our pharmaceuticals to whichever they've been able to buy in bulk. Such programs cannot be maintained unless there are more people putting in more money than are taking out. This balanced triangle quickly becomes inverted in times of population flux, economic downturn and a multitude of other factors. Those still supporting the programs will be increasingly relied upon to fund it. As we've seen in European countries, universal health care is also a blinking neon light to all those who most need it, adding increasingly complicated immigration issues that create further imbalances in the system.
A study on health care in the U.S. concluded that "competition occurs at the wrong level, over the wrong things, in the wrong geographical markets, at the wrong time." (Porter & Teisberg). It's time to do something right where health care is concerned.
I think it's not only time to recognize the real problems of our health insurance industry, but to also remember that there is always more than one solution to any problem. Those who'd like to see us become like France, or anywhere else in Europe, have failed to recognize the greatest benefit of living in a country that still recognizes and protects true human rights and restrains the arm of the government. Let's be a little less concerned about letting the government protect us from each other and a little more concerned about who is going to protect us from our own government should we continue to surrender our rights for "security".
Let us be compassionate to our children as they grow up in a world that still protects their freedom from such governmental power and intrusion.
Universal care is not the answer because the ultimate cost is our freedom.
I believe in human rights. I am committed to compassionate causes. I believe we have an obligation to care for the poor, the sick and the needy among us. We also have a duty to watch over and protect the elderly, the disabled and the very young. In general, I think we're happier when we watch over and help each other.
Genuine compassion is an important ingredient to fixing our health insurance woes, but it is under the very guise of compassion that many proponents of universal health care do more harm than good. I've been told that there is no compassion in a system that allows people to suffer and die because they can't afford insurance. In response, I ask, is it compassionate to ask those very people who most deserve our help and protection to commit to a path that leads away from freedom and happiness? The answer is NO. This cost is too high.
The founding fathers of our country believed that what we now call human rights were God-given and self-evident. Self-evident, god-given rights are rights we are born with in our most natural, least hampered state. Humans are universally endowed with these natural rights. All people in this natural state can be born, use their mental capacities, and seek for what makes them happy, without government assistance or even the knowledge of government. While the government can take away a life through a death or prison sentence, it cannot give it. It can take away our liberty by creating a police and nanny state, but it has only to get out of the way for us to have it again. In protecting us from each other, a power-hungry government has found a million incremental ways to take away our freedoms in exchange for "security".
A progressive society strives to replace "god-given" with "government-given" and "self-evident" with "politically prudent". Progressives claim that health care is a right. By making this claim they propose that human rights are "government-provided". Social programs like universal health care are not "self-evident" or "god-given", they are a direct attack on the very foundations of our country and must be met head-on.
If we agree to this progressive definition of human rights, then we capitulate to the idea that it is the government, not a higher power, who provides those rights. If the government provides our rights, it will be the government who decides our rights. Who merits rights, how, what and when we receive them all become open to the whims of politicians and the trends of the moment.
Since the government would then be in charge of your health, it will also have a direct interest in making sure you are making healthy (i.e. cost efficient) choices. This is a slippery slope of direct and universal governmental intrusion into daily life.
What the government gives, the government can and will take away, ration and control.
Of course, there are other concerns regarding universal health care. If we were today to accept universal health care we would not only pay directly, but also indirectly in the form of increased taxation. The government will take our money and using new and improved rules decide what our doctors can charge, what procedures we can do, and limit our pharmaceuticals to whichever they've been able to buy in bulk. Such programs cannot be maintained unless there are more people putting in more money than are taking out. This balanced triangle quickly becomes inverted in times of population flux, economic downturn and a multitude of other factors. Those still supporting the programs will be increasingly relied upon to fund it. As we've seen in European countries, universal health care is also a blinking neon light to all those who most need it, adding increasingly complicated immigration issues that create further imbalances in the system.
A study on health care in the U.S. concluded that "competition occurs at the wrong level, over the wrong things, in the wrong geographical markets, at the wrong time." (Porter & Teisberg). It's time to do something right where health care is concerned.
I think it's not only time to recognize the real problems of our health insurance industry, but to also remember that there is always more than one solution to any problem. Those who'd like to see us become like France, or anywhere else in Europe, have failed to recognize the greatest benefit of living in a country that still recognizes and protects true human rights and restrains the arm of the government. Let's be a little less concerned about letting the government protect us from each other and a little more concerned about who is going to protect us from our own government should we continue to surrender our rights for "security".
Let us be compassionate to our children as they grow up in a world that still protects their freedom from such governmental power and intrusion.
Universal care is not the answer because the ultimate cost is our freedom.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The Subject of Health Care in the U.S.
Health care is a touchy subject these days. As Obamacare flags under Pelosi and Reid's whipping, California's own senator Mark Leno has finally gotten SB 810 Calfornia Universal Health Care Act to pass the State Senate Appropriations Committee (6 to 3) and it is now waiting to be voted on again, probably in the spring.
We'll discuss SB810 in great detail in another post, but it's clear that the subject of health care ignites the emotions of many Americans for many different reasons. Some are committed to the vision of universal health care, some are committed to a market-based solution, most are afraid of losing what they have for some shiny cheap new toy that will show its structural cracks within minutes of actually getting played with.
This current debate is a perfect opportunity to DO something to our current system, but let's be sure that in all the heat we don't lose sight of the end game: we need improvements, not just changes.
We'll discuss SB810 in great detail in another post, but it's clear that the subject of health care ignites the emotions of many Americans for many different reasons. Some are committed to the vision of universal health care, some are committed to a market-based solution, most are afraid of losing what they have for some shiny cheap new toy that will show its structural cracks within minutes of actually getting played with.
This current debate is a perfect opportunity to DO something to our current system, but let's be sure that in all the heat we don't lose sight of the end game: we need improvements, not just changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)