Matt Hawes HQ Location: Springfield, VA Last login: 03/17/10 RSS feed
-- "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
--
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? - Galatians 4:16
Reporter Tim Carney takes on the White House's favorite talking point for health care in his latest piece for the Washington Examiner.
The Obama team regularly dismisses opponents as industry lackeys. The Democratic National Committee blasted out e-mails this week warning that "for every member of Congress, there are eight anti-reform lobbyists swarming Capitol Hill" and "Congress is under attack from insurance lobbyists."
But drug industry lobbyists, according to Politico, spent the weekend "huddled with Democratic staffers" who needed the drug lobby to "sign off" on proposals before moving ahead. Meanwhile, we learn that the drug lobby is buying millions of dollars of ads in 43 districts where a Democratic candidate stands to suffer for supporting the bill. The doctors' lobby and the hospitals' lobby are also on board with the Senate bill....
PhRMA chief Billy Tauzin, who was vilified by Obama on the campaign trail, worked out much of this sweetheart deal in a West Wing meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Tauzin visited the White House at least 11 times. He left his imprint so deeply on the current bill that it should probably be called BillyCare rather than ObamaCare....
The New York Times takes a look at the growing nullification movement:
Whether it's correctly called a movement, a backlash or political theater, state declarations of their rights - or in some cases denunciations of federal authority, amounting to the same thing - are on a roll....
Posted by Matt Hawes on 03/17/10 Last updated 03/17/10
Congressman Paul takes on the Fed during his opening statement at today's House Financial Services Committee hearing on Fed bank supervision and monetary policy.
In the past Bernake said full employment and controlled inflation was the goal of the FED. He added price stability today - another way to say inflation, I suppose.
Just one time I would like someone to state the real purpose of the FED - THEFT!
For some reason when I heard Bernanke say that "maximum employment" was one of the Fed's mandates, it just dawned on me how communist that is. An arm of the federal government has absolutely no business directing employment in the private sector.
When Bernanke said that every major economy has a central bank Paul should have said something like, "well if everyone were jumping off a bridge would you do it too?" Bernanke is a kid, gotta treat him like one.
Economist Walter E. Williams answers that question in his latest column.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American....
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
For a more in depth discussion and analysis of the contrast between free market medicine and socialized medicine see George Reisman's article:
http://tinyurl.com/lvr4l5
Elsewhere on Reisman's website there is an offer to make available pamphlets written by him for distribution:
http://www.capitalism.net/gr_pamph.htm
I just came across this and am ordering the pamphlet about one's right to medical care under the free market and then will order fifty for one dollar each to distribute to physician colleagues at an upcoming medical society meeting in Boston.
I suggest that if each of us were to make our own physician aware of our movement, C4L, and let them know about our advocacy of the free market, our opposition to government intrusion in the practice of medicine, and an invitation for them to join with us it would be a worthy endeavor which might yield support and growth of our membership.
Health care is a right because life is a right, and how you going to live without health care? I mean, have you ever seen anyone live without health care? Case in point: I know a guy who had a heart attack. Now he can't live without health care, therefore no one can live without health care. Therefore, health care is a right.
"None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation."
I understand the argument I really do, leaving aside humanity and substituting behavior which is selfish, antisocial and lacking a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience I would be able leave my neighbor dying in the road of a heart attack.
If my neighbor's house was burning down I could let it burn without a qualm. The fire brigade would only attend with a credit card payment or insurance cover.
If my neighbor's house was invaded by criminals then I could choose to let it go. No problem police would only attend with a credit card payment or insurance cover.
If my neighbor is poor, can't afford to pay, is lying in the street dying with a knife in his chest and I am not feeling charitable enough to pay for the persons treatment at the point of delivery when the police and ambulance arrive. It OK to let him rot.
I understand your argument I really do. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
The man, with the heart condition, can live, for a little while, without health care. His time would be limited to a life of no quality, until he died. Sounds like a lot of my, former, chronic pain patients.
When they had a health care strike in Israel, decades ago, the death rate went down! But that did not mean it was because the doctors were not needed. There are many complicated procedures where death is a possibility, that one cannot be certain about statistics like this. No one has left this earth without dieing. Even Jesus died.
I guess if a doctor was given a salary and guaranteed enough to live on, comfortably $70,000/yr......? I think many prospective students will go into something more lucrative, like banking or government work. If a doctor would not have to worry about the bills, (educational debt, paying the help [5-7 employees per doctor in the practice], buying the supplies,or, just in general, running an office), he could see everyone for free! But, that sounds more like socialism than freedom.
John F
Based on your argument any death that has ever occurred in the US is a violation of our rights because we have a right to life.
In reality our right to life is simply a protection stating that no one else has a right to take our life from us. It is NOT a right to force others to save us. Just as you would not force another person to catch you if you fell out a window, you cannot force someone to perform any other life saving technique as that is a violation of their right to liberty.
rights are intended as a means to limit government power. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not provisions given to us by government, but are natural born rights that are constitutionally protected from government violation.
John F,
This article by Leonard Peikoff presents the most logical argument I have ever come across as to why health care is not a right. I know it is long, but it is worth the read. Please read it and give me your thoughts on his arguments.
Once again, we are talking about illness care, not health care. Health care is our right and something we should all be doing even though the government is doing its best to restrict our options in that area as well.
Jefferson said that to take a man's money and spend it on that of which he disapproves is the highest form of Tyranny!
Before all this government involvement we could always get illness care at the private doctors clinic and were not turned down even if we could not pay. Some accommodation would be made. If it was more serious there were charity hospitals. Of course, doctors were not being sued for missing a stitch in those days either.
"The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not provisions given to us by government, but are natural born rights that are constitutionally protected from government violation."
Constitutionally protected from government violation is a statement swirling with contradiction since the consitution is the framework of our government.
anyhow, it's funny when people invoke 'liberty' as a reason why healtcare is not a right. I mean, if you were ill, you would be screaming I deserve a chance at liberty, heal me. At times, liberty is a zero sum game
As the White House continues to pound Americans with the line that the drug industry is "clearly" against their version of health care reform, Politico brings us this update:
The drug industry, which has held off running ads until officials sign off on the final reconciliation bill, is growing more comfortable with the emerging legislation and is preparing a substantial pro-reform ad buy in 43 Democratic districts, according to a senior industry source....
Is there any wonder at all why this is happening? The back room deals, that got big pharma on board, are, likely, very substantial. There has to be a carrot involved. Why can't the people see it?
Well, maybe, I think most do understand the deception, realistically. Maybe they agreed to get on board, after the government offered to crack down on medical cannabis!
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
