• Obama Cronies vs. American Citizens: Whose Medical Decisions?: Part I
  

  There was a time when rushing a thousand-page bill through Congress so fast that no one has time to read it would have provoked public outrage. But now, this has been attempted twice in the first 6 months of a new administration.
  The fact that they got away with it before, with the “stimulus” bill, may have led them to believe that they could get away with it again. But the first bill simply spent hundreds of billions of dollars.

  The current “health care” bill threatens to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats.

  People are taking that personally– as they should. Your life and death, and that of your loved ones, is as personal as it gets.

• Obamacare’s Phony Arguments: Whose Medical Decisions?: Part II
  

  The logic of their collectivist thinking– and the actual practice in some other countries with government-controlled health care– is that you cannot even pay for some medical treatments with your own money, if the powers that be decide that “society” cannot let its resources be used that way, or that it would not be “social justice” for some people to have medical treatments that others cannot get, just because some people “happen to have money.”

• Obama’s “Bait and Switch”: Whose Medical Decisions?: Part III
  

  Despite incessant repetition of the fact that millions of Americans do not have medical insurance, hardy souls who have actually read the mammoth medical care legislation being rushed through Congress have discovered all sorts of things there that have nothing whatever to do with insuring the uninsured– and everything to do with taking medical decisions out of the hands of doctors and their patients, and transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats.

How many racist, marxist/communist policies, comments, advisers, associates and staff members does it take for us to agree we’ve elected an aspiring collectivist dictator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

I know nothing else about congressman Mike Rogers, but this dialogue was right on the money.

On the health care “debate” is summed nicely with the following excerpt:

The Virtue Of Selfishness: Chapter 10 - ‘Collectivized Ethics’

…The hallmark of such mentalities is the advocacy of some grand scale public goal, without regard to context, costs or means. Out of context, such a goal can usually be shown to be desirable; it has to be public, because the costs are not to be earned, but to be expropriated; and a dense patch of venomous fog has to shroud the issue of means—because the means are to be human lives.

“Medicare” is an example of such a project. [Or socialization of health care to any degree]

“Isn’t it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness?” its advocates clamor.

Considered out of context, the answer would be: yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And it is at this point that the mental processes of a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight—it’s the good, isn’t it?-it’s not for myself, it’s for others, it’s for the public, for a helpless, ailing public… The fog hides such facts as the enslavement and, therefore, the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice, and the sacrifice of the professional integrity, the freedom, the careers, the ambitions, the achievements, the happiness, the lives of the very men who are to provide that “desirable” goal—the doctors.

After centuries of civilization, most men—with the exception of criminals—have learned that the above mental attitude is neither practical nor moral in their private lives and may not be applied to the achievement of their private goals. There would be no controversy about the moral character of some young hoodlum who declared:

“Isn’t it desirable to have a yacht, to live in a penthouse and to drink champagne?”—and stubbornly refused to consider the fact that he had robbed a bank and killed two guards to achieve that “desirable” goal.

There is no moral difference between these two examples; the number of beneficiaries does not change the nature of the action, it merely increases the number of victims. In fact, the private hoodlum has a slight edge of moral superiority: he has no power to devastate an entire nation and his victims are not legally disarmed.

[emphasis and comments added]

Richard Salsman’s list of currently established government endeavors leads to a very important question for socialized-medicine advocates.

Considering the following, on what grounds could one suggest that government run health care would achieve any better results?

• Money – The Federal Reserve, which perpetually debases our money, manipulates interest rates, and instigates systemic risk
• Pensions – he Social Security Administration, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. – which are insolvent by multi-trillions of dollars
• Schooling – the “public” (government) schools are a mess, and generate mass illiteracy-innumeracy
• 1st Class Mail – the U.S. Post Office is badly run and a perpetual money-loser
• Passenger Trains – Amtrak is also badly run and always a money-loser
• Residential Mortgages – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae and the FHA-HUD have lost trillions and have brought ruin to millions

There is no reasonable justification for suggesting they would.

• For a market to be prosperous, both consumers and producers need to be free to act in their best interest. Our current market enables substantial freedom for consumers, but not for producers. Government imposed regulations, controls and mandates have substantially driven up operating costs for producers - increases which are passed directly to consumers. Most Americans sense the freedom they have as consumers, but are ignorant of how, and to what detrimental extent, government regulation and intervention stifles producers. Failure to consider the producer aspect leads them (along the encouragement of statists pining for power) to incorrectly blame the “free market” as faulty and inadequate. They are right to advise doing something, but wrong in the something they condone (increased government intervention). The solution is to free the other essential realm in the market - the producers.
  
  Consumptive Freedom + Productive Freedom = Prosperity
  Consumptive Freedom + Production Regulation = Escalating Costs/Declining Value
  Consumptive Regulation + Production Regulation = Market Stagnation

• Americans have tolerated (and confessedly bought into) the welfare state out of altruistic default. We’ve dealt with more and more wealth being confiscated in countless new ways to fund seemingly endless streams of income redistribution. We can only hope that enough people will sense that this collectivist endeavor is a different beast altogether. Socializing medicine differs in that it moves beyond simply confiscating money through taxation to buy other people’s widgets - it effectively (in time) stifles and stagnates the entire widget market for everyone.
• Until recently, I never imagined a day would come where I’m actually considering which of my physician friends would function as my “Black Market Doctor”.
• The only way a private business gains any kind of immunity to economic forces is through some form of government influence impinging upon it. Without such influence, businesses (regardless of size) are subject to consumer choice. They may have immense capital assets and infrastructure, but they still have to keep the customer happy or in time they’ll go bankrupt. This is the key difference between economic and political power - only the latter, the power of government, can be legally forceful. The only way insurance companies, the most commonly demonized player in this scenario, obtain any power to operate in a manner which may appear to be immune to market forces is as a result of some government distortion of economics. The demand for medical expertise, usually through insurance coverage, is so high that any lack of efficiency or uncompetitive offerings would present an opportunity for other players in the market to seize the chance for expanding their market share. However, if some unnatural force prevents new players from entering the market, or prevents existing competitors from acting upon the opportunity, then the market goes unchecked and prices may rise while quality of service declines. This should sound very familiar.
• Insurance companies are typically condemned for the amount of profit they earn, but this can only be an issue in a mixed-economy, i.e., an unfree market. A producer can increase profits by either raising the market price of their goods to consumers, or lowering their costs of production through efficiency - the high-price method, or the low-cost method. In a free market, competition urges producers to compete on the latter, because competing on high prices would be contrary to the law of supply and demand. This competitive dynamic leads to lower prices, because any savings from the low-cost method can be used to gain a competitive advantage and are transferred directly to consumers. But, when that competitive dynamic is retarded or eliminated by barriers to market entry, or oppressive regulations that stifle competitive pressure, prices tend to trend upwards. This escalating trend that appears immune to supply/demand is what grants certain businesses the facade of power - political power. The only way insurance providers, or any business in any market for that matter, can obtain political power on consumers is when equipped with government assistance.
• When prices in a given market escalate at a higher rate than inflation without a comparable increase in value to the consumer, some force is distorting the economics. That force could be a natural one, e.g., a shortage in some vital resource (labor, materials, etc.), or an unnatural one - which, in a mixed-economy, is most often government intervention in some form or manner.

I have tangential exposure to Bob Brozman from my resophonic guitar journey over the past 13 years. He’s a very good lap style player, but his talent extends (and excels IMO) well beyond that context.

Here’s my official self-flagging notification for the thugs in Washington.

I’m officially flagging myself as one of those radical Capitalists spreading “fishy” information regarding the socialization of American medicine.

I am, in fact, adamantly opposed on both moral and practical grounds to any and all measures that socialize the field of medicine, or any segment of our economy for that matter. I have, and will continue to, thoroughly, coherently and boldly express my opposition to as many individuals as I can effectively reach.

I am neither a partisan hack, nor an insurance lobbyist. I’m just an honest, productive individual who understands the founding principles of America and loves life, my family and the use of my mind - all of which stand to suffer greatly considering the path down which America is headed.

In the moral context, socialization blatantly contradicts the principle of individual rights on which America was founded. The rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one’s happiness are incompatible with a system designed to operate on the confiscated wealth, compulsory participation, and involuntary servitude of productive individuals – all in the name of an allegiance to a supposed common good.

The notion of self-sacrifice to the collective is repulsive and irrational. It is a mental illness that served as the philosophical fuel for the bloodiest dictatorships in the history of man. Adding Americans to its list of over 100 million victims in the last century will be an accomplishment unmatched in history. No other country originated with ideals so contrary to those that are now strangling the American spirit. Driving America into utter ruin will indeed be its greatest victory.

In the practical sense, socialization can render a single logical result - stagnant misery. History illustrates that our standard of living increases when humans are left free to think, act and retain the profit from doing so. The human mind, in its natural and appropriate state, yearns for knowledge and achievement, both of which also have tremendous practical value in terms of mans survival. In a specialized economy, man can earn a profit from ideas and productivity. When man is left free to profit from and find joyous fulfillment in his thought, action and productivity – our standard of living benefits.

Socializing medicine negates both of these human needs. It stifles the profit motive by distorting the economics of the market by encroaching on the property rights of drug manufacturers, regulating rates and salaries, and legally eliminating consumption of health services outside of the socialized system in order to control costs. It stifles the freedom to think and act by forcing physicians and patients to abandon their judgment in favor of bureaucratic procedures and conformity to the artificial economics of the system.

In time, services will deteriorate, innovation will stagnate, prices will escalate and every single member forced to use it will suffer. There is no possible way this system will work. It is morally and economically unviable. You should accept this fact now and grant yourself extra time to fabricate palatable excuses.

I do realize that flagging myself may invite a myriad of “unfortunate” circumstances. I know that financial auditing, harassment, abduction, incarceration and elimination are all standard fare for dictatorships, but when compared to the thought of not voicing my opinion while the lives of my children expire in your dream Socialist-cesspool, any of the above seem quite preferable.

Please add me to your list of patriots.

Brad Harper
Statesville, North Carolina

More Related Links:
The Shallowness of a Demagogue: A Fishy Analysis
The Patriots List
Email To The White House
Flag Me

(Updated 08/10/09 @ 5:33PM to add the self-flagging of GVH)

Work:
I’ve stayed pretty much heads-down in programming over the past few weeks… hopefully things will slow down towards the end of this week. I ended up developing a full Java-based SQL parser that generates ad-hoc model objects for complex queries. The persistence framework now supports standard one-to-one entity/table OR’ish generation and the “sql2java” utility will handle any cross-sectional data that transcend table boundaries, but don’t align wholly with full relational objects, i.e., “Select two columns from every table”. The generation tool just takes the tedium out of setting up such data views. I’ve also templatized support for most of the prevalent MVC-type api’s. Essentially, you point the tool at a schema, generate the entities, generate any cross-sectional models, specify which front-end, and push the go-button. The result is end-to-end CRUD and precise finders for all entities and read-only views of the sectional models. Technically, ~75% of a java based web application will be up and running - depending on how fancy the front-end is.

Music
It’s Galax week. I’ll be heading up for an afternoon or two. Five years ago, I’d be burning a week of vacation to go Monday-Sunday and play music 10-12 hours a day until my fingers literally cramped to a halt - this year I’ll be totally content with a few hours total. Life changes.

Culture
Lots of stuff going on with health care “reform” and economy… none of it good. ;] The only positive I can cite is that it *seems* that more people are waking up to the deadly threat facing us with socialized medicine. Of course the growing objection is only on practical grounds, but this starting point creates a chance talk about the more important moral case for objection. That conversation gets a lot more interesting.

Home
Sam has changed. The first signs of a new sense of independence and freewill caught me a bit off guard. The ubiquitous terrible-twos are here I’m afraid. After seeing him transition into this phase, I’m convinced that all kids reach a point where their expressive cognition exceeds their language and reasoning. How long they stay in this phase and to what extent they actually escape it is largely due to how we as parents navigate the storm.

We’ve established very structured and consistent boundaries with Sam from the beginning and that work is already paying off. He has melt-downs, but in just about every case he can be reasoned out of the mindset. He does very well with either-or negotiations - binary reasoning. An example from a recent melt over leaving our shoes (flip-flops) on at the pool.

Mom/Dad: Either we take our shoes off, or we leave the swimming pool - your choice… but those are the only two options.

Sam: Shoes off….

The options have to be reasonable, and more importantly, they have to be absolute. To abandon the established options, e.g., allowing shoes in the pool, is a recipe for terror.

I find his ability to manage and accept this type of communication very promising.