Healthcare and Economic Realities by Dr. Ron Paul

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
With passage of last week?s bill, the American people are now the unhappy recipients of Washington?s disastrous prescription for healthcare ?reform.? Congressional leaders relied on highly dubious budget predictions, faulty market assumptions, and outright fantasy to convince a slim majority that this major expansion of government somehow will reduce federal spending. This legislation is just the next step towards universal, single-payer healthcare, which many see as a human right. Of course, this ?right? must be produced by the labor of other people, meaning theft and coercion by government is necessary to produce and distribute it.

Those who understand Austrian economic theory know that this new model of healthcare will cause major problems down the road, as it has in every nation that ignores economic realities. The more government involves itself in medicine, the worse healthcare will get: quality of care will diminish as the system struggles to contain rising costs, while shortages and long waiting times for treatment will become more and more commonplace.

Consider what would happen if car insurance worked the way health insurance does. What if it was determined that gasoline was a right, and should be covered by your car insurance policy? Perhaps every gas station would have to hire a small army of bureaucrats to file reimbursement claims to insurance companies for every tank of gas sold! What would that kind of system do to the costs of running a gas station? How would that affect the prices of both gasoline and car insurance? Yet this is exactly the type of system Congress is now expanding in health insurance. In a free market system, health insurance would serve as true insurance against serious injuries or illness, not as a convoluted system of third-party payments for routine doctor visits and every minor illness.


While proponents of this reform continue to defy all logic and reason by claiming it will save money, I worry about cataclysmic economic events. Already investors are more reluctant to buy US Treasuries, fearing that the healthcare bill, along with other spending, will cause government debt to explode to default levels. I had the opportunity last week to address my concerns with both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, especially about the potential for the coming serious inflation. I am not optimistic that these important decision makers truly understand what is coming, why it is coming, and how best to deal with it.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Federal Reserve finds itself in an unprecedented and unenviable position. To keep up with government spending and corporate irresponsibility, it has increased the monetary base by nearly $1.5 trillion since September of 2008. Excess bank reserves remain at historically high levels, and the Fed's balance sheet has ballooned to over $2 trillion. If the Fed pulls this excess liquidity out of the system, it risks collapsing banks that rely on the newly created money. However, if the Fed fails to pull this excess liquidity out of the system we risk tipping into hyperinflation. This is where central banking inevitably has led us.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The idea that a handful of brilliant minds can somehow steer an economy is fatal to economic growth and stability. The Soviet Union's economy failed because of its central economic planning, and the U.S. economy will suffer the same fate if we continue down the path toward more centralized control. We need to bring back sound money and free markets ? yes, even in healthcare ? if we hope to soften the economic blows coming our way.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]See the Ron Paul File[/FONT]​
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Conflict or Cooperation by Walter E. Williams

Conflict or Cooperation by Walter E. Williams

Conflict or Cooperation

by Walter E. Williams

**** TU, please don't beat me up because I posted something from a Conservative Black Man ****

:nono: :nono: :nono:

I posted something from a Conservative, who tends to lean Libertarian, he's Black? :shrug:


A MINORITY VIEW

Different Americans have different and often intense preferences for all kinds of goods and services. Some of us have strong preferences for beer and distaste for wine while others have the opposite preference -- strong preferences for wine and distaste for beer. Some of us hate three-piece suits and love blue jeans while others love three-piece suits and hate blue jeans. When's the last time you heard of beer drinkers in conflict with wine drinkers, or three-piece suit lovers in conflict with lovers of blue jeans? It seldom if ever happens because beer and blue jean lovers get what they want. Wine and three-piece suit lovers get what they want and they all can live in peace with one another.
It would be easy to create conflict among these people. Instead of free choice and private decision-making, clothing and beverage decisions could be made in the political arena. In other words, have a democratic majority-rule process to decide what drinks and clothing that would be allowed. Then we would see wine lovers organized against beer lovers, and blue jean lovers organized against three-piece suit lovers. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Why? The prime feature of political decision-making is that it's a zero-sum game. One person's gain is of necessity another person's loss. That is if wine lovers won, beer lovers lose. As such, political decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict.
Take the issue of prayers in school as an example. I think that everyone, except a maniacal tyrant, would agree that a parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school. Similarly, a parent has a right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer. Conflict arises because schools are government owned. That means it is a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not. A win for one parent means a loss for another parent. The losing parent, in order to get what he wants, would have to muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use. If education were only government financed, as opposed to being government financed and produced, say through education vouchers, the conflict would be reduced. Both parents could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice and instead of being enemies, they could be friends.
Conflict in education is just one minor example of how government allocation can raise the potential for conflict. Others would include government-backed allocation of jobs and education slots by race and sex, plus the current large conflict over government allocation of health services. Interestingly enough, the very people in our society who protest the loudest against human conflict and violence are the very ones calling for increased government resource allocation. These people fail to recognize or even wonder why our nation, with people of every race, ethnic group and religious group, has managed to live together relatively harmoniously. In their countries of origin, the same ethnic, racial and religious groups have been trying to slaughter one another for centuries. A good part of the answer is that in the United States, there was little to be gained from being a Frenchman, a German, a Jew, a Protestant or a Catholic. The reason it did not pay was because for most of our history, government played a small part in our lives. When there's significant government allocation of resources, the most effective means of organizing for the gains are those proven most divisive, such as race, ethnicity, religion and region.
[FONT='Helvetica','sans-serif'] As our nation forsakes our founders' wisdom of constitutional limitations placed on Washington, we raise the potential for conflict.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com
 
Last edited:

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
I still can't believe he had the nerve to post that bullshit.

I post stuff from Libertarians,

Now I see this ass hat Bill Richardson saying we don't need to stregthen the border !

ARRRRGH !

Mexican Drug Gangs Attack Army Bases Near the Border

Attempts to blockade soldiers inside their bases were part of seven attacks across two northern border states of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon.


Drug gangs in Mexico have attacked two army bases in a serious escalation in the country's drug war.

Eighteen gang members died in the ensuing gun battles, in which gunmen attacked in force in bulletproof vehicles, using hand grenades and assault rifles.

The attempts to blockade soldiers inside their bases were part of seven attacks across two northern border states of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon - areas that have seen escalating violence in recent months.

Army General Edgar Luis Villegas called the attacks "desperate reactions by criminal gangs to the progress being made by federal authorities" on

He said gunmen parked trucks and SUVs outside a military base in the border city of Reynosa trying to block troops from leaving. At the same time, other armed men blocked several streets leading to a garrison in the nearby border city of Matamoros.

And yet another gang opened fire from several vehicles on soldiers guarding a road in General Bravo, in Nuevo Leon.

Troops fought back, killing 18 gunmen and wounding two.

The violence mainly involves a fight between the Gulf cartel and its former allies, the Zetas - a gang of hit men.

The cartel, which has apparently formed an alliance with other cartels seeking to exterminate the Zetas, has been warning people in the region that the conflict would get worse over the coming months.



They want to disarm us, RFID us and hell, why not just run a high-speed train from Southern Mexico into Los Angeles.

It's time to extract head from ass people. Take heed from us who live right next door to the open border. I don't know if any of you have had to deal with MS 13, but these pricks are violent,evil, dirty MOFO's. Well, I am twice as Nasty. Are you ?
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
You Might Be a Statist If??

You Might Be a Statist If??

You Might Be a Statist If??

Having always liked those you-might-be-a-[whatever] lists, it seems that now might be a time to come up with one of my own. No doubt some entries have been left off, but this is a good start.

You might be a statist if?

You vote in every election, but soon after your candidate takes office, you wonder aloud (or secretly) about his qualifications.
You have voted for political candidates in your own party, expecting them to care more about you than the people who actually paid for them to be elected.
You have voted for political candidates in different political parties than your own, expecting a different result than voting for a candidate in your own party.
You believe some bureaucrat in Washington, who doesn?t know you from Batman, actually cares about you.
You complain to all who will listen about the terrible policies of The Other Guy, but somehow think Your Guy?s policies, demonstrably no different, are better.
You think that a person who happens to show great skill in one narrow area, such as public speaking, is qualified to make decisions about the lives of others across many areas, as if the fastest runner in a tribe is automatically qualified to be Chief.
You hate greedy corporations, but think an organization such as a government ? itself beholden to (and factually a horribly-mutated form of) a greedy corporation ? will protect you from (? wait for it ?) greedy corporations.
You think welfare only happens when the government gives money to poor people, or to rich people, or to people of another race, or to people of another socio-economic strata, or to corporations, versus whenever any organization takes money from one person via violence or coercion and gives it to another.
You think it is possible for a government to change the laws of supply and demand or determine an appropriate response to scarcity.
You?ve ever used the terminology "public option" and weren?t talking about making a Number 2 in the woods.
You think the land mass ? and the people inhabiting it ? on one side of an imaginary line in the sand called a border, are objectively better than the land mass ? and the people inhabiting it ? on the other side of that imaginary line in the sand.
You think some guy in a special uniform is objectively different from you in terms of morality and rights.
You believe that rights are obtained by declaration, or via guns and violence, or by the application of all three.
You think that rules written by members of the State can be used to control the State, as if consulting an old piece of parchment very closely and then yelling "Article 76!" was ever a reasonable response to a corrupt man holding a gun.
You get squeamish about shooting someone yourself, but have no compunction with having a nameless, faceless representative of the State shoot someone on your behalf. (The further away this person lives, particularly if it?s someplace you cannot find on a map without help, the better.)
You think it is morally justified to install an army base in the vicinity of a so-called foreign people, but would cry foul at the top of your lungs if the roles were reversed.
You think it can be morally justified to withhold trade with the people of a country ? called an embargo or imposing sanctions ? in order to blackmail the ostensible ruler of that country to do your bidding, but do not understand that such an action is morally equivalent to holding an innocent person hostage in order to illicit a certain action from someone who knows them.
You think your neighbor, or some guy on the other side of town, should be restricted from owning a firearm, since he might be psychopath, while simultaneously assuming that some other guy, who also might be a psychopath, can be armed because a third guy or group of people ? none of whom you have ever met ? authorizes it.
You think that one person can morally make decisions about the appropriate use of the private property of another person.
You think the moral nature of theft, murder, slavery, assault, and kidnapping change dependent upon the size of the group that authorizes these actions.

Conclusion

The moral nature of a man is unchanged by the existence of an organization or his position within that organization. Organizational pursuits wherein the only real criteria for participation is desire and the threat of negative market response is non-existent ? such as politics and government bureaucracy ? will, given time, attract those who are both desirous of the benefits afforded by the available ways and means and motivated by the lack of negative feedback. (In other words, losers.) Inevitably, such organizations morph toward becoming chronically inefficient or oppressive, or both. (It is ironic that one of the main arguments against anarchy is also the reason one should most urgently support it.) This will happen no matter if people are inherently good or inherently bad since the ability to off-load responsibility and rent-seek ? intrinsic qualities of any state ? increase given a monopoly of violence and coercion. If there is no penalty for doing dumb stuff, more dumb stuff gets done. While this situation might ultimately be worse if people are inherently evil it makes sense to keep the old fable in mind. Since it was a snake when you picked it up, eventually you will get bitten.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]April 1, 2010[/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Wilt Alston [send him mail] lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three children. When he?s not training for a marathon or furthering his part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Best of Wilton D. Alston[/FONT]
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top