Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, is threatening Congress to impose cap and trade legislation on the American public. If Congress choses to listen to its constituents, and decides not to adopt a "cap and trade" law, Ms. Jackson will impose "command and control" regulations on the American economy. As Ms. Jackson says in her own words:
"If you don't pass this legislation, then . . . the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."
Who does Ms. Jackson intend to command? The American public -- especially when Americans are exchanging value for value -- in other words, economic transactions. Who is Lisa Jackson, anyway? She is an unelected technocrat that most voters have never heard of of. But she wants dictatorial powers over the American public. She is desperate because Congress, which must answer to the American people from time to time, is starting to balk at the outrageous costs and dubious science associated with the climate change hoax. Tell your Representative that you do not want to give in to threats by a power hungry bureaucrat like Lisa Jackson.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Friday, December 04, 2009
A message to the people in Iran
We stand with the people of Iran. The Iranian regime is a Islamofascist gangster state, one in which the regime has an unlimited amount of power and authority to use arbitrary edicts to rule the people through fear, intimidation, and harassment. The people of Iran need to stand up, say "no more!", and remove this regime. Your leaders are using the power of the government to enslave you and to enforce conformity among the entire public. This is not the proper role of a government. The proper role of a government is to protect your individual rights, protect you from foreign invaders, and provide a court system that uses objective law to decide disputes among men. Your government is not following this form of government, and you are free to abolish it.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The United States Postal Service is a Failure. Privatize it.
The United States Postal Service lost $3.8 billion dollars for this fiscal year. Isn't it great that we have given this government agency a monopoly over mail? Think about this for a moment: despite the fact that competition with the United States Postal Services' first class mail monopoly is a federal crime, it still is not able to turn a profit! Imagine that!
The Postal Service exists for one purpose alone: to provide union jobs for government employees. Of course, the other reason is that this present (Democrat) Congress does not believe in liberty and does not like the idea of anyone challenging an iron-clad government monopoly. This is important to keep in mind because once the "government option" (ephetistaically referred to as the "public option" in the health care debate) becomes the law of the land, Congress will also resist any effort to open up competition with a failed government agency. We do not expect privatization efforts to succeed with this Democrat-controlled Congress, but now is the best time to campaign on a platform of privatization of the United States Postal Service.
The Postal Service exists for one purpose alone: to provide union jobs for government employees. Of course, the other reason is that this present (Democrat) Congress does not believe in liberty and does not like the idea of anyone challenging an iron-clad government monopoly. This is important to keep in mind because once the "government option" (ephetistaically referred to as the "public option" in the health care debate) becomes the law of the land, Congress will also resist any effort to open up competition with a failed government agency. We do not expect privatization efforts to succeed with this Democrat-controlled Congress, but now is the best time to campaign on a platform of privatization of the United States Postal Service.
American voters do not believe in man-made global warming.
Does anyone believe in global warming anymore? Everywhere we go, we see signs at retrailers promising "green" products. Politicians propose programs that will "create" so-called "green jobs." (What is a green job? Installing expensive, hazardous lightbulbs that do not properly illuminate houses?)
For those of us who sometimes wonder if we live in an irrational, anti-scientific era, there is some promising news. According to Rasmussen Reports polling, 47% of the nation's voters believe that changes in climate are due to "planetary trends." Only 37% believe that humans are the cause of any changes in the world's climate. The idea that humans can change the Earth's climate has always striked us nothing more than the projection of superhuman powers onto mere mortals. Of course, the real reason for the global warming myth has been an excuse to transfer power and wealth from millions of Americans to the Statists, who have an insatiable appetite for control.
For those of us who sometimes wonder if we live in an irrational, anti-scientific era, there is some promising news. According to Rasmussen Reports polling, 47% of the nation's voters believe that changes in climate are due to "planetary trends." Only 37% believe that humans are the cause of any changes in the world's climate. The idea that humans can change the Earth's climate has always striked us nothing more than the projection of superhuman powers onto mere mortals. Of course, the real reason for the global warming myth has been an excuse to transfer power and wealth from millions of Americans to the Statists, who have an insatiable appetite for control.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The United States has always been defined as a beacon for freedom. Freedom is under threat in the USA!
"We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times." --George Washington, letter to Philip Schuyler, 1777
The United States has always been a unique nation precisely because of its founding principles. From the beginning, it has attracted friends of liberty like a magnet, while at the same time being the target of all those who oppose liberty. This group has consisted in various times the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Islamofascist regime of Iran, and others. Today, the greatest threat to liberty comes from within.
The enemies of freedom work in our highest positions of power--from the Presidency, to the Speaker of the House, and the Majority Leader of the US Senate. Obama wants to restrict your ability to reach your economic potential by redistributing your wealth to those who are parasites--the non-producers.
Obama believes that you should look to the government when it comes to major economic transactions, whether it is receiving health care, buying a home, attending school, or starting a business.
Take the issue of health care in America: the debate over health care has very little to do with 'health care' and everything about empowering Washington to control every aspect of our economy, including medicine.
This Saturday, the Democrats in the United States Senate voted to "proceed" with a debate on the health care takeover. This did not happen easily. In order to get there, Harry Reid bribed US Senator Marry L. Landrieu with $300 million dollars for her home state.
If the American people had an opportunity to vote on this bill, it would lose in a landslide. According to Rasmussen, only 38% of Americans support the governmentalization of health care. It's easy to understand why Americans do not want this bill to pass. It increases taxes on literally everyone. It gives bureaucrats the authority to determine what every health insurance policy must include. This will raise costs, and thus, only result in more people being uninsured. Of course, the Democrats tax the uninsured, which is quite astonishing. The idea that such an atrocious bill could be imposed upon the people in a free country is frightening indeed. Are we still a free country? The American people need to rise up and say no way--not now, and not ever!
George Washington's statement, made above, shows that while our situation is certainly difficult, we have faced difficult situations in the past, and if we "put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times," we will overcome these obstacles that the Obama Democrats have imposed on us.
The United States has always been a unique nation precisely because of its founding principles. From the beginning, it has attracted friends of liberty like a magnet, while at the same time being the target of all those who oppose liberty. This group has consisted in various times the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Islamofascist regime of Iran, and others. Today, the greatest threat to liberty comes from within.
The enemies of freedom work in our highest positions of power--from the Presidency, to the Speaker of the House, and the Majority Leader of the US Senate. Obama wants to restrict your ability to reach your economic potential by redistributing your wealth to those who are parasites--the non-producers.
Obama believes that you should look to the government when it comes to major economic transactions, whether it is receiving health care, buying a home, attending school, or starting a business.
Take the issue of health care in America: the debate over health care has very little to do with 'health care' and everything about empowering Washington to control every aspect of our economy, including medicine.
This Saturday, the Democrats in the United States Senate voted to "proceed" with a debate on the health care takeover. This did not happen easily. In order to get there, Harry Reid bribed US Senator Marry L. Landrieu with $300 million dollars for her home state.
If the American people had an opportunity to vote on this bill, it would lose in a landslide. According to Rasmussen, only 38% of Americans support the governmentalization of health care. It's easy to understand why Americans do not want this bill to pass. It increases taxes on literally everyone. It gives bureaucrats the authority to determine what every health insurance policy must include. This will raise costs, and thus, only result in more people being uninsured. Of course, the Democrats tax the uninsured, which is quite astonishing. The idea that such an atrocious bill could be imposed upon the people in a free country is frightening indeed. Are we still a free country? The American people need to rise up and say no way--not now, and not ever!
George Washington's statement, made above, shows that while our situation is certainly difficult, we have faced difficult situations in the past, and if we "put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times," we will overcome these obstacles that the Obama Democrats have imposed on us.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Democrats are driving a Ferrari on the road towards socialism. Americans want to hit the brakes.
Democrats are more determined than ever to push through the federal takeover of health care. Citizens have faxed, e-mailed, and phoned their elected representative; attended tea parties, townhall meetings, protested on DC, met with Members of Congress, voted heavily for Republican Governors of NJ and Virginia in November, and yet, Democrats in Congress are even more determined to press forward with health care fascism and socialism.
Democrats do not believe that citizens should be able to exchange their wealth for a doctor's services. Instead, Democrats want to confiscate the wealth of citizens, transfer it to a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., and control the doctor by imposing regulations, taxes, and mandates on what they are able to do in their day to day practice.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare," according to OpinionJournal.com, part of the Wall Street Journal. If health care 'reform' (which we'll call destruction) is so great, then why would a majority party do something that it knows will result in losing a large number of seats in the federal legislature? It is not because the people want it. They don't. It is not because they want to do what is good for the people. All of the evidence from around the world suggests that such legislation will result in higher costs, the denial of care, and lower quality health services.
The only plausible answer that one can arrive at is that the Democrats are trying to impose socialist health care because they believe that it is the best way to turn the country into a socialist, third-world country.
Democrats do not believe that citizens should be able to exchange their wealth for a doctor's services. Instead, Democrats want to confiscate the wealth of citizens, transfer it to a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., and control the doctor by imposing regulations, taxes, and mandates on what they are able to do in their day to day practice.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare," according to OpinionJournal.com, part of the Wall Street Journal. If health care 'reform' (which we'll call destruction) is so great, then why would a majority party do something that it knows will result in losing a large number of seats in the federal legislature? It is not because the people want it. They don't. It is not because they want to do what is good for the people. All of the evidence from around the world suggests that such legislation will result in higher costs, the denial of care, and lower quality health services.
The only plausible answer that one can arrive at is that the Democrats are trying to impose socialist health care because they believe that it is the best way to turn the country into a socialist, third-world country.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Democrats want to ration health care, fund abortion.
The Democrats are trying to nationalize health care as soon as possible. And what is interesting is what they intend to fund with their 1,900 page monstrosity. Despite comments made by Democrats that the bill does not fund abortion, it does. We found the provision in the bill that does so:
‘‘SEC. 340O. COMMUNITY-BASED COLLABORATIVE CARE
9 NETWORK PROGRAM.
10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may award grants
[Editor's note: In other words, in the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services]
11 to eligible entities for the purpose of establishing model
12 projects to accomplish the following goals:
‘‘(d) COMMUNITY-BASED COLLABORATIVE CARE
2 NETWORKS.—
3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
4 ‘‘(A) DESCRIPTION.—A community-based
5 collaborative care network described in this sub6
section is a consortium of health care providers
7 with a joint governance structure that provides
8 a comprehensive range of coordinated and inte9
grated health care services for low-income pa10
tient populations or medically underserved com11
munities (whether or not such individuals re12
ceive benefits under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI
13 of the Social Security Act, private or other
14 health insurance or are uninsured or under15
insured) and that complies with any applicable
16 minimum eligibility requirements that the Sec17
retary may determine appropriate.
‘‘(B) REQUIRED INCLUSION.—Each such
19 network shall include the following providers
20 that serve the community (unless such provider
21 does not exist within the community, declines or
22 refuses to participate, or places unreasonable
23 conditions on their participation)—
‘‘(iv) A community clinic, including a
2 mental health clinic, substance abuse clin3
ic, or a reproductive health clinic.
In other words, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides to fund "community-based collaborative care networks" (whatever that means), the government MUST fund "reproductive health clinics," which is a fancy way of saying abortion facilities. They thought they could burry this on page 1441, but we found it!
‘‘SEC. 340O. COMMUNITY-BASED COLLABORATIVE CARE
9 NETWORK PROGRAM.
10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may award grants
[Editor's note: In other words, in the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services]
11 to eligible entities for the purpose of establishing model
12 projects to accomplish the following goals:
‘‘(d) COMMUNITY-BASED COLLABORATIVE CARE
2 NETWORKS.—
3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
4 ‘‘(A) DESCRIPTION.—A community-based
5 collaborative care network described in this sub6
section is a consortium of health care providers
7 with a joint governance structure that provides
8 a comprehensive range of coordinated and inte9
grated health care services for low-income pa10
tient populations or medically underserved com11
munities (whether or not such individuals re12
ceive benefits under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI
13 of the Social Security Act, private or other
14 health insurance or are uninsured or under15
insured) and that complies with any applicable
16 minimum eligibility requirements that the Sec17
retary may determine appropriate.
‘‘(B) REQUIRED INCLUSION.—Each such
19 network shall include the following providers
20 that serve the community (unless such provider
21 does not exist within the community, declines or
22 refuses to participate, or places unreasonable
23 conditions on their participation)—
‘‘(iv) A community clinic, including a
2 mental health clinic, substance abuse clin3
ic, or a reproductive health clinic.
In other words, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services decides to fund "community-based collaborative care networks" (whatever that means), the government MUST fund "reproductive health clinics," which is a fancy way of saying abortion facilities. They thought they could burry this on page 1441, but we found it!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
I went to a TEA Party in Griffith Park, Los Angeles, Ca.
I just got back from a TEA Party Express event in Griffith Park in the Los Angeles area. What is quite apparent is that the passion against the statism-collectivism-altruistic vision of the Obama Democrats is growing, and becoming stronger by the day.
It's rare to see a true citizens protest movement. Most people are too busy to get active in political debates. That's reasonable because in a free society, there are thousands of different pursuits that one can engage in. Now that our country is headed down a very dangerous course, one that could affect the very foundation of the country, regular citizens are becoming far more involved. It was truly a remarkable experience to see so many people at this event.
I saw people from every walk of life there. I heard an American who immigrated from Russia who said that she is getting involved because she does not want America to go down the path that Russia once went through. People who have experienced tyranny know the signs of its development.
It's rare to see a true citizens protest movement. Most people are too busy to get active in political debates. That's reasonable because in a free society, there are thousands of different pursuits that one can engage in. Now that our country is headed down a very dangerous course, one that could affect the very foundation of the country, regular citizens are becoming far more involved. It was truly a remarkable experience to see so many people at this event.
I saw people from every walk of life there. I heard an American who immigrated from Russia who said that she is getting involved because she does not want America to go down the path that Russia once went through. People who have experienced tyranny know the signs of its development.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
President Obama, unlike our Founding Fathers, does not believe in liberty.
I have been reading David McCullough's "John Adams." When reading this book, it's clear that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington had a unique understanding of human nature. Human nature, they felt, resulted in government encroachment on the natural liberties of the people. Government, not the people, should be constrained in order to provide the maximum amount of liberty to the people.
Thomas Jefferson once said: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Notice that Thomas Jefferson wanted the chains on the government and not American citizens.
President Barack Obama does not want any limits whatsoever on his powers. He has not made any reference to the limitations on our federal government during his time as president. Even worse, prior to becoming president, he complained that the US Constitution acted to prevent government action, which he found problematic since he believes that it is the power and perogative of the government to involve itself in literally every aspect of our lives.
When listening to speeches and comments made by Obama, it's clear that he does not believe in the Declaration of Independent's clear reference to an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Every policy he proposes is intended to get in the way and block one's right to the pursuit of happiness. Just yesterday, Obama has proposed new limits on what higher level executives are able to make at their firms. Why does he propose this policy? Simple: He does not believe that individuals should pursue their rational self-interest by working hard and receiving a high salary to compensate them for their efforts. Rather than celebrate individual achievement, Obama believes in punishing it.
Thomas Jefferson once said: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Notice that Thomas Jefferson wanted the chains on the government and not American citizens.
President Barack Obama does not want any limits whatsoever on his powers. He has not made any reference to the limitations on our federal government during his time as president. Even worse, prior to becoming president, he complained that the US Constitution acted to prevent government action, which he found problematic since he believes that it is the power and perogative of the government to involve itself in literally every aspect of our lives.
When listening to speeches and comments made by Obama, it's clear that he does not believe in the Declaration of Independent's clear reference to an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Every policy he proposes is intended to get in the way and block one's right to the pursuit of happiness. Just yesterday, Obama has proposed new limits on what higher level executives are able to make at their firms. Why does he propose this policy? Simple: He does not believe that individuals should pursue their rational self-interest by working hard and receiving a high salary to compensate them for their efforts. Rather than celebrate individual achievement, Obama believes in punishing it.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Democrat Sen. John Kerry: You should be poorer!
Sen. John Kerry, authoritarian Democrat from Massachusetts, said:
"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6% reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14%." [emphasis added].
John Kerry is advocating a permanent reduction in our economy. This is an elected official who is openly stating that he wants America to be a poorer country. How will he do it? By 'capping' our economic growth by creating artificial and arbitrary restrictions on what individuals are able to do in the economy to improve their lives.
Thus, is it fair to say that John Kerry hates this country? Of course John Kerry hates America.
He does not like the fact that the US Constitution is a document intended to protect the individual from the iron fist of the state. Just look at what he says about this country and what he wants to do with the power that he holds.
Are the people from Massachusetts going to figure this out?
"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6% reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14%." [emphasis added].
John Kerry is advocating a permanent reduction in our economy. This is an elected official who is openly stating that he wants America to be a poorer country. How will he do it? By 'capping' our economic growth by creating artificial and arbitrary restrictions on what individuals are able to do in the economy to improve their lives.
Thus, is it fair to say that John Kerry hates this country? Of course John Kerry hates America.
He does not like the fact that the US Constitution is a document intended to protect the individual from the iron fist of the state. Just look at what he says about this country and what he wants to do with the power that he holds.
Are the people from Massachusetts going to figure this out?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)