Sunday, September 27, 2009

Once the government takes over the health care industry, it will fight against any competition with its monopoly.

When you are in a hospital receiving care, do you often think, "If only the government would take control of this entire enterprise, the system would truly be effecient and run a lot better"? Don't laugh, that is the argument being made in Washington!

Do doctors think that things would improve in health care once Washington politicians, bureaucrats, and courts override the will of their patients?

No one thinks this way. Doctors don't think this way, and neither do patients.

Further, once the government takes over health care, it is aggressive in its attack against any alternative to the government-run monopoly.

Let's look at Canada for a moment. There is a movement in Canada to offer more privatized health insurance there. However, the "government-run" monopoly advocates are screaming at the top of their lungs that such voluntary, individualistic care is harming the government-run monopoly system.

"What it means is that people who have no money, who are chronically ill, disabled, who require medical attention frequently, are going to suffer dramatically," said Leslie Dickout of the B.C. Health Coalition, as quoted in the LA Times. In other words, the government-run system is not paying doctors sufficiently, and offers long lines to patients, but the private-sector alternative is able to lure doctors through better pay, and patients with less waiting times, and that's considered unfair. These government-run health care advocates do not care at all about health care. What they care about is control over doctors and patients in a totalitarian, government-run health care utopia.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Democrats in Congress believe in restraints on individuals, but no restraints on the government.

It's getting harder and harder to read the news lately. Everyday there is a new plan, policy, or speech by President Obama demanding that we surrender even more of our liberty, transfer more of our wealth to the government, and most of all, to keep quiet.

The politicians are trying to take away our liberty to decide our own health care and instead ensure that we're forced--from now until the end of time--into an authoritarian, top-down, government-run health care system that will ration care, deny treatment, and tax Americans into an oblivion. This is the type of policy that one would get from a dictatorship. Yet our elected officials seem quite content to ram this down our throats despite what we have said all across the country. It's sad. Very sad. But we are not dispirited. We do not give up hope! Never surrender!

The politicians answer to us. They are our employees. If they are unwilling to listen to us, ultimately it is our duty to show up in great numbers on election day and defeat them. They are abusing their power -- and therefore, it is up to us to vote in great numbers and defeat the authoritarian Democrats presently in control of Congress.

Friday, September 04, 2009

Government-run health care is NOT compassionate.

The idea that government-run health care is "compassionate" is refuted by the fact that people who live in countries where the government runs the health care market only have access to a waiting list. Why is it that those in Canada who truly need treatment trade their waiting list for the US system, even after they have paid a fortune in taxes for their "free" health care in Canada? Government-run health care leads to rationing, and rationing eventually leads to death panels. How is that compassionate? I don't want to be a statistic on a government budget. There are ways to reduce health care costs in America: a) allow Americans to buy health insurance from companies in all fifty states; b) tort reform: stop frivolous lawsuits; c) shift tax bias from employer- to consumer- health insurance; d) eliminate health insurance mandates.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Government-run health care is not a free-market reform. I realize it is obvious, but Obama's drones on Twitters continue to spread lies.

The most remarkable part of life is having people distort the obvious meaning of words into something that it was never intended to mean. Recently I had the fortune of arguing with a 'liberal' who claimed that government-run health care is a "free-market" reform! I have never heard of something this irrational.

However, a lot of the liberals have read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," in which he trains radical leftists to use the framework that people are used to (capitalism) in order to support the Statists' perverted and unpopular radical views. Thus, when trying to create a government-run, authoritarian health care system, it makes sense to lie and call this "free-market" than to call it what it is -- a dark road towards serfdom, where citizens become subjects, and those within government become our masters.

For those who had the misfortune of going to a government-run school, a "free-market" is one in which an individual, freely and voluntarily, purchases products and services from another, or works or invests with another, without coercision, and without subsidies or mandates to interfere in this judgment. From the definition in Wikipedia: "A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government." Thus, by definition, the ObamaCare proposal is not a free-market reform.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Democrats want to take away your health care options. Meanwhile, you have a million films available to watch on Netflix!

If President Barack Obama had his way, the entire health care system would be run by a centralized, authoritarian, government-run scheme, which, incidentally, enough, would have "death panels."

What this means is that President Obama does not believe that individuals should be in charge of their own health care. He believes that he should be in charge of your care. However, he does not say that the care that he would grudgingly provide would be superior care. That is a major reason why individuals have gone to town hall meetings to tell their elected representative that they do not want the government to take away their health care options.

In a free society, individuals should be free to make their own health care decisions. People should have thousands of health insurance options, and the best way is to permit individuals to purchase health insurance from a company in any state of the nation.

It is ironic that the politicians want to take away one's health care options even when, in other parts of life, there are literally hundreds of choices for cereal, e-mail providers, cars, and movies on Netflix. The only part of our life that should be free from choices is health care! Your life is now property of ObamaCare, Inc. Go figure!