Healthcare: To Nationalize or Not to Nationalize

The next step big government plans to take is into the controversial but lucrative realm of heathcare. There are many groups who oppose this, saying that in our present financial crisis and with government unfunded entitlement liabilities topping $53,000,000,000,000 (trillion) , such a step would be more than imprudent. Proponents say that socialization of healthcare is justified because all people ought to be entitled to lead a life without ailment or deprivation of some providable aid/prevention.

Recent developments have marked government agency intervention though -- the most recent example is the 'Cash for Clunkers' program, which was authorized with the well intentioned aim of removing gas guzzlers from the road. Consumers and dealers though are now seeing the inter-workings turning out much different than what they thought though. Part of the legislation includes provisions which require the motor to be 'disabled' by the dealer in order for the rebate to be processed. Consumers are left with a motor that has liquid glass in the cylinders and a long waiting period for their check.

The past is replete with other prime examples of the utter failure of agency efficiency when federal control is involved, such as the FEMA catastrophe during Katrina which devastated New Orleans. Constant delays and bungles have shown that intervention slows the natural recovery process; Many employees say because cronies in the FEMA bureacracy have dragged out seemingly simple tasks in the interest of pensions and personal job security.

One of my favorite exmples, though is the automotive industry intervention. Appointed to run the nationaliuzation of American auto industry, the Automotive Task Force was the division of government charged with managing the requirements and direction of GM. Among these decisions made were first the review and tactical reallocation of resources to follow those business models which were most successful. This determination was based on Toyota, which sold more than any other company but had less dealerships. So, under federal command countless dealership closed, jobs were cut and advertising budgets were severely trimmed. Unsurprisingly the result of this was a further detriment and the eventual bankruptcy of GM and the American economy.

Further dissention stems from the critisizim that legislative boondoggles too often tack-on wasteful and inefficient provisions and requirements to passing bills. The most recent example of this is the Cap-And-Trade Bill which will cost each American about $3,000 per year in new taxation (this exludes the expected price inflation of food and other household costs resulting from the hikes).

Moreover, if we take the time to exaimine the result of nationalized healthcare systems in other countries which have implemented it we are able to see the true nature of it. In a recent Wall Street Journal article entitled "France Fights Universal Cares High Cost" the failure of the system is detailed. The basic truth of the matter though is that when government seizes control over any industry or sector, it creates a monopoly through regulation, legal plunder and top-down restricive command-organization.

Concluding from this it is clear that Milton Friedman was right when he said, "if you eliminate the government from the market and left that money in the hands of the people themselves, the situation would be far better than it is" [paraphrased]. Watch the video below to capture the entirety of this brilliantly simple philosophy that the less federal involvement that exists, the more prosperous and free the people will be.




The remaining criticism held by socialized healthcare proponents is that that the system of today and all preceding systems have placed insuficient priority to the goal of increasing patient access for the unfortunate or non-payer patients. That is, despite the preceding points, the system does not take care of a bleeding patient until the papers are all filled out and this is a noble criticism. To this I see it necessary only to point out the nature of man - that we are willing to help others once we feel secure for ourselves. That the true answer to making any service or product more available is to increase it's supply. In today's system of artificial boom-and-bust cycles, thanks to fed intervention, the practice of manipulating the economy, the furtherance and creation of bubbles, inflation and meddling with the market's natural course it's mostly impossible for the people to feel secure in their prosperity. So then how could we ask them to give up, or even think to have the right to govern them by force, to give services as if they were the public property. They are personal property and the right of nobody except the owner. If anything government should create its own network of healthcare facilities and fund all necessary education and placement of government contracted physicians. However, to oppress the entire industry of medicine by placing arbitrary mandates over it would me a violation of providers rights as well as a violation of the constitutional by any impositions required to fund the program.

a little off the head.....

Today, through twisted logic we've been sold dreams of security and prosperity that we would be made more efficient and free to do as we wish if we'd just give up a couple unneeded liberties a few tax dollars - and who wouldn't. With the attractive packages of socialized loss, and such so-called charitable causes for these programs, only someone without a heart would defy. Though now we clearly see the systems our parents and grandparents authorized are being abused so much to the point that even our founding documents are seemingly invalid and the act of disregarding them is inconsequential. All in the name of the greater good - majority rules. In America today, businesses must compete in an increasingly ambitious environment of production efficiency, targeted marketing and corporate consolidations. This natural course is drawn from the demand of consumers and the interests of the business entities themselves. Meanwhile, the American values and traditions have been dying. Essentially, society has, therefore, been trading the Natural Law, which freed this nation from the oppressive British Monarchy, for Corporate Law, which has brought us to a point where we can see the full circle now in view.

More liberty is better, right? Not so fast. I am the first to try to identify with this, however, recognize that it is not only the individual but also corporations and government entities which grasp for liberty. The liberation of laissez fare policies for corporate interests, even governments are attempting claim that they have 'rights' instead of privileges. The aim of Trans National Corporate agendas is simple. More profit. What they sell to you is that along with the deregulation and loosening of corporate law, you'll be provided a more competitive product. This begun only recently, in the mid to late 1800s when chartering regulations were relaxed, providing more 'Corporation friendly' laws. However, the truth is, if you think about it; what will the realistic outcome be? Already, we've seen the beginning of this played out in practice. When was the last time you we're upset about the 'personalized service' you received from a corporate establishment? Do they not treat you like a number? Can you get personal service? Do the Reps really care about you? Now, if we are relaxing the laws which govern their conduct (i.e. where they can outsource jobs to, where funds and accounts must be held, or if they have to contribute to our area at all); then, are we not cheating our selves? In essence, what is happening is the aristocracy of the crown has been replace by an aristocracy which has no particular state of residence. The dominators of the world are able to travel and hide out anywhere, and we have given them the essence of value. We've sold ourselves out, for no good reason, and haven't even taken the time to realize why we've done it. If you're upset about costs rising, your liberty being lost, and being kicked around like a chump then maybe it's time to start to examining the problems.

First off, the new motto of fairness seems to be 'unity and fairness', and it sounds great. So why is our nation being bankrupted? Well, it goes into deep seeded economic policies and as always if we want to get the truth we need to look at history. However, it's really just simple as this - if we're treating India, China and the Polynesian Islands, all as fairly as we treat our children, then it stands to reason that the wealth our grandfathers father had will not be passed down. our founders departed from the British School and formed what was known as the American School of Economics, which included three cardinal policy points:

1. Support industry: The advocacy of protectionism, and
opposition to free trade - particularly for the protection of "infant
industries" and those facing import competition from abroad. Examples:
Tariff of 1816 and Morrill Tariff
2. Create physical infrastructure: Government finance of Internal
improvements to speed commerce and develop industry. This involved the
regulation of privately held infrastructure, to ensure that it meets the
nation's needs. Examples: Cumberland Road and Union Pacific Railroad
3. Create financial infrastructure: A government sponsored National Bank
to issue currency and encourage commerce. This involved the use of
sovereign powers for the regulation of credit to encourage the
development of the economy, and to deter speculation. Examples: First
Bank of the United States, Second Bank of the United States, and
National Banking Act[12]

Wow! Can you believe that? Our founding policies were OPPOSED to free trade. Think about why - they wanted to keep the employment rates up and discourage people from exporting too much of their wealth. By imposing tariffs on foreign goods people would then be persuaded to buy American made, thus promoting domestic industry. Pretty smart, huh.


REFERENCES:



Batra, Ravi, Dr., The Myth of Free Trade: The pooring of America (1993)

Boritt, Gabor S. Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream (1994)

Buchanan, Patrick J., The Great Betrayal (1998)

Curry, Leonard P. Blueprint for Modern America: Nonmilitary Legislation of the First Civil War Congress (1968)

Croly, Herbert, The Promise of American Life (2005 reprint)

Dobbs, Lou Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Overseas (2004)

Joseph Dorfman. The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 1606–1865 (1947) vol 2

Joseph Dorfman. The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 1865–1918 (1949) vol 3

Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (1970)

Faux, Jeff. The Global Class War (2006)

Gardner, Stephen H. Comparative Economic Systems (1988)

Gill, William J. Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy (1990)

Carter Goodrich, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890 (Greenwood Press, 1960)

Goodrich, Carter. "American Development Policy: the Case of Internal Improvements,"
Journal of Economic History, 16 (1956), 449–60. in JSTOR

Goodrich, Carter. "National Planning of Internal Improvements," ;;Political Science Quarterly, 63 (1948), 16–44. in JSTOR

Richard Hofstadter, "The Tariff Issue on the Eve of the Civil War," American Historical Review, 64 (October 1938): 50–55, shows Northern business had little interest in tariff in 1860, except for Pennsylvania which demanded high tariff on iron products

Jenks, Leland Hamilton. "Railroads as a Force in American Development," Journal of
Economic History, 4 (1944), 1–20. in JSTOR

John Lauritz Larson. Internal Improvement: National Public Works and the Promise of
Popular Government in the Early United States (2001)

Lively, Robert A. "The American System, a Review Article," Business History Review, XXIX (March, 1955), 81–96. Recommended starting point.

Lauchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932–40 (1963)

Lind, Michael Hamilton's Republic: Readings in the American Democratic Nationalist Tradition (1997)

Lind, Michael What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America's Greatest President (2004)

Paludan, Philip S. The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (1994)

Richardson, Heather Cox. The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War (1997)

Remini, Robert V. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union. New York: W. W. Norton Co., 1991
Roosevelt, Theodore. The New Nationalism (1961 reprint)

Richardson, Heather Cox. The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War (1997)

Edward Stanwood, American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century (1903; reprint 1974), 2 vols., favors protectionism

W. Cunningham, The Rise and Decline of the Free Trade Movement (London, 1904)

G. B. Curtiss, Protection and Prosperity; and W. H. Dawson, Protection in Germany (London, 1904)

Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures, communicated to the House of Representatives, 5 December 1791

F. Bowen, American Political Economy (New York, 1875)

J. B. Byles, Sophisms of Free Trade (London, 1903); G. Byng, Protection (London, 1901)

H. C. Carey, Principles of Social Science (3 vols., Philadelphia, 1858–59), Harmony of Interests Agricultural, Manufacturing and Commercial (Philadelphia, 1873)

H. M. Hoyt, Protection v. Free Trade, the scientific validity and economic operation of defensive duties in the United States (New York, 1886)

Friedrich List, Outlines of American Political Economy (1980 reprint)

Friedrich List, National System of Political Economy (1994 reprint)

A. M. Low, Protection in the United States (London, 1904); H. 0. Meredith, Protection in France (London, 1904)

S. N. Patten, Economic Basis of Protection (Philadelphia, 1890)

Ugo Rabbeno, American Commercial Policy (London, 1895)

Ellis H. Roberts, Government Revenue, especially the American System, an argument for industrial freedom against the fallacies of free trade (Boston, 1884)

R. E. Thompson, Protection to Home Industries (New York, 1886)

E. E. Williams, The Case for Protection (London, 1899)

J. P. Young, Protection and Progress: a Study of the Economic Bases of the American Protective System (Chicago, 1900)

Clay, Henry. The Papers of Henry Clay, 1797–1852. Edited by James Hopkins

Nature's Law and Man's Law

Through the enlightenment, the philosophers and thinkers of the time came to acknowledge something that would overstand even the power of the king himself. Nature's God, in essence, which was responsible for creating of the king, the land and everything else, the creator of the universe. While detaching from the dogmas and sects, this came to be known as Natural Law, or the Law of Nature. Thomas Jefferson, enigmatic to many, was keen to this notion and developed his own text to reflect those parts of the bible which best reflect the teachings and morals - in truth, it's what he saw as the unadulterated essence of the bible still shining through the revisions of the church and agendas of men. While man's law may proclaim power over you, it did not give you life, and for it to assume rule over something not belonging to it is not just. (Full Text)
Thomas Jefferson Bible, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth

Classic Versions

English (EN)	21st Century King James Version	Text
	American Standard Version	Text
	Amplified Bible	Text
	Contemporary English Version	Text Audio (NT)
	Darby Translation	Text
	Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.	Text (with Apocrypha)
	English Standard Version	Text Audio
	Holman Christian Standard Bible	Text
	King James Version	Text Audio
	New American Standard Bible	Text Audio
	New Century Version	Text
	New International Reader's Version	Text
	New International Version	Text Audio
	New International Version - UK	Text
	New King James Version	Text
	New Living Translation	Text
	The Message	Text
	Today's New International Version	Text Audio
	Worldwide English (New Testament)	Text (NT)
	Wycliffe New Testament	Text (NT)
	Young's Literal Translation	Text