With the masses screaming for every sort of lynching imaginable, The gulf disaster is an immense gift for Obama and the czars. While nationalizing (to any extent) BP would doubtless bring pleasure to Che’ Hollywood, I suspect he’ll opt for the more lucrative option, i.e., using the incident as political capital.

First, exactly what would qualify a team of bureaucratic goons to better handle the situation than those who’ve spent their engineering and scientific careers in the industry? Just like handing an iPad to a caveman, government would have neither the intellectual ability nor the proper motivation necessary for efficacy. Moreover, “receivership” would have the political baggage of constituent outrage from at least some segment (albeit minor) of our population. Even though most Americans don’t understand the proper role of government, there are now more of those with the awareness that they *should* know, and who are on the lookout for the statist machine which steamrolled the auto and healthcare industries. I don’t think this administration would dare risk the potential backlash (from even a small segment of voters) that would result if they assumed any type official dominance over BP.

Instead, consider the widespread anti-business and environmental rage that this ordeal has invoked, and how that rage could be funneled into a moral crusade with enough leverage to push through cap-n-trade and/or virtually any other suite of environmentally oriented regulations and economic controls.

Can a pragmatist think long(er)-term?

Why risk it when they can play it safe and hit the power jackpot? Why offend 30% of the population for a quickie when you can coddle 90% of them and get a lusty lifetime affair? What tyrant would trade short-term power with a political cost for long-term, farther reaching power which also bolsters their political image? Who was it that said “never let a crisis go to waste“?

This event could be the most generous gift of political capital the thug administration could wish for. Who knows, maybe they did?

save –verb

1. the fallacious suggestion of decreased costs which excludes from consideration an inevitable trend towards DMV-quality service, severely muted market competition, an army of new bureaucratic goons, the introduction of inestimable stress to everyday life, an exodus of talented professionals, skyrocketing taxes and/or skyrocketing inflation, and an inevitable *increase* in all associated costs for all involved parties: The healthcare bill will save Americans money.

A recent story from Michigan depicts an egregious attempt by the state to regulate babysitting which leads to an unavoidable question: To what extent will America condone state involvement in parenting?

The victims in this particular scenario seem only to be concerned with the specific limitations of how the state can regulate child care, but the far more important question is, should the state have any say in the matter of private child-care arrangements?

When you fail to argue on principles, in favor of quibbling over superficial details of implementation, then the possibility of any objective determination of where to draw the line is discarded. Once you throw out the map, there’s no telling where you’ll end up – especially when all passengers compete for their turn to steer the car.

This is yet another symptom of America’s suicidal march into the bowels of socialized education. Once the principle (that the state has a right to our children) is conceded, there is no way to decide the proper extent. If it’s proper for Government to establish compulsory education according to their standards, why start at age 5? Why not pre-school? Why not daycare?

If parents are incapable of adequately providing intellectual guidance according to the state, why not regulate all supervision? Why allow any parental involvement? Why not seize the child just after weaning and just have the parents send in a monthly check?

Better yet, socialize it by calling it free and make it a mandatory element of payroll tax for everyone.

This Orwellian nightmare shouldn’t sound far-fetched considering it’s based on the exact premises of public education - only applied consistently. If America continues to tolerate Public Schools in principle, we should expect more and more of the above.

Children are not property of the state. In a free society, individuals properly have the right to enter into voluntary contractual agreements for child care according to their own wishes, and according to their own financial capabilities. Child care providers, like all other market entities, stand to erect or erode a positive reputation for quality care based on objective standards – those of the parent (the customer). That reputation vouches for their service record objectively.

Conversely, when the state oversees and regulates child care, that objective reputation is replaced with the subjective approval of the state, an artificial facade of quality based on subjective standards that are potentially incompatible with those of the parent.

Many parents unwittingly assume that “state approval must vouch for something!” Yes, parents should consider the conditions for childcare diligently regardless of the state, but phony state approval urges them to shortcut the process under the premise that government is looking out for them.

I’m aware of countless horrifying examples of Daycare establishments, which bear the state approved mark of acceptability, where the conditions are such that I wouldn’t leave my dog in their care. Children wander around in waste-soiled clothing, snot running from their nose, essentially unsupervised by mindless sloths chatting on their iPhone is a common sight in supposedly state-regulated facilities. Very few offer security measures which could prevent any motivated scoundrel from walking off with a child. Just like in other markets, the state regulation has destroyed the notion of an objective reputation that only a free-market can provide, and should be considered irrelevant as metrics of quality or value.

This type of intrusion should be opposed on the basis of individual rights - specifically, a parent’s right to control the education, care and upbringing of their children.

By what right can the state tell a parent or caregiver how many children they can manage effectively? Such terms are properly agreed upon by parents and the caregiver. So long as the terms of service are properly disclosed and adhered to, that agreement is sovereign.

An individual has the right to choose who, where, and on what terms their child can be cared for. The state has no moral, logical, or economical base for involvement the matter.

The role of government is to protect individual rights through the enforcement of objectively defined criminal law. In For the state to be involved with any other aspect of childcare, commercial or private, is beyond the proper scope of government.

In a sickening attempt to memorialize one tragedy, a more profoundly reproachful one is carried out in the name of justice.

“We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things,” park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said. [emphasis mine]

What concern are one man’s rights in the face of the USSA?

Of all the contemptible evils being carried out by our leaders, eminent domain is perhaps the most blatantly vicious. I can hardly imagine a more despicable and inadequate manner of offering a supposed tribute to a horrible event.

If I had lost a friend or loved-one on 9/11, this would undoubtedly add insult to injury. A monument built on theft is very unbecoming in the context of solemnity.

Read the whole disgusting piece.

More Here:

• Flight 93 - Eminent Domain

My current job lends itself to substantial visibility into any congressional activity pertaining to health care. I see weekly summaries listing all medically related bills. The irrational nonsense they try to pull off is remarkable.

This one is especially evil - Section 3 (a-b):
S. 623

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS UNDER GROUP HEALTH PLANS.

(a) Application Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974-

(1) ELIMINATION OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS- Section 701 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181) is amended–

(A) by amending the heading to read as follows: ‘elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions’;

(B) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

(a) In General- A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, with respect to a participant or beneficiary–

‘(1) may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion; and

‘(2) in the case of a group health plan that offers medical care through health insurance coverage offered by a health maintenance organization, may not provide for an affiliation period with respect to coverage through the organization.’;

(C) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

‘(3) AFFILIATION PERIOD- The term ‘affiliation period’ means a period which, under the terms of the health insurance coverage offered by the health maintenance organization, must expire before the health insurance coverage becomes effective.’;

(D) by striking subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g); and

(E) by redesignating subsection (f) (relating to special enrollment periods) as subsection (c).

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The item in the table of contents of such Act relating to section 701 is amended to read as follows:

‘Sec. 701. Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions.’.

How compassionate! They want to to remove pre-existing condition exclusions for group insurance policies. Essentially, insurance companies will be required to cover you regardless of your health. If an insurer is required by force to cover any patient, they are essentially required to provide coverage that might be a guaranteed loss. Of course, they can’t operate at a loss, so they have to recoup the losses from some other avenue. That avenue is the other policy holders.

Just as the result of mandatory ER coverage increases costs, our insurance premiums will skyrocket if this repulsive bill passes. Of course the rise in costs will be attributed to “greedy” insurance companies and used to justify more regulation - typical regulatory recursion, i.e., controls breed controls.

Statists never quit and they’re attacking from every possible angle - a relentless army of irrationality. The attack in the field of medicine is especially deadly. FIRM is the organization offering the only rational mindset that will save American medicine from stagnant rot.

UPDATE: Apparently Insurance companies have see this mandate as inevitable and opted to leverage the statist force as an opportunity to cash-in. Such is the tactic of our valiant mixed-economy barons.

• Insurers offer to start charging healthy people more
• Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil

Government that is…

Congress is working really hard to take government meddling in the economy to the next level.

The bill, which passed on a 247-171 vote, would give the U.S. Treasury broad powers to prohibit “unreasonable and excessive” compensation and bonuses that are not based on performance standards.

The “Pay for Performance Act of 2009″ is among a number of efforts by Congress to claw back bonuses and curb pay in the wake of public anger over recent executive bonuses at insurer American International Group, which has received a bailout worth up to $180 billion.

“The Pay for Performance Act is based on two simple concepts. One, no one has the right to get rich off taxpayer money, and two, no one should get rich off abject failure,” said one of the bill’s authors, Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat who co-authored the measure. “We should not pay an arsonist to put out his own fire, and we should not be paying an executive to ruin his own bank.”

Congress represents the pure embodiment of that which of both stipulations aim to curb! Why should politicians be exempt from these standards? Don’t worry though, the free-market republicans will stop this madness right?

“There’s no question we need more performance-based pay decisions, but the government deciding and judging the performance of employees in private companies, the secretary of the Treasury deciding whether an employee is performing? I think not,” said Representative Spencer Bachus, an Alabama Republican. “The answer is not a dramatic expansion of government control.“

In other words, “we need more government controls, but only so many new government controls.”

Just another nail in America’s coffin…