Friday, April 17, 2009

Universal Heathcare anyone?

THIS NOTE WAS POSTED BY MY GOOD FRIEND CANDACE SALIMA. I STARTED LEAVING A COMMENT AT THE END OF THE NOTE AND IT GOT TOO LONG FOR A COMMENT AND SO I AM POSTING MY RESPONSE HERE IN MY BLOG... PLEASE READ THE STORY/COMMENT BELOW AND THEN MY RESPONSE....

The note just before this one was written by mother and her experience with Universal Healthcare in the military. I also posted it on my personal blog (http://candacesalima.blogspot.com). A comment was posted there that is astounding and I wanted to share it with my friends:

Keeley has left a new comment on your post "America's Viewpoint: Universal Healthcare, Huh?":

Yep, that about sums it up.

My family live in England under their national health care and thus:

My Nana has cancer and is not being treated - because she's elderly and this is her second bout. She will die. The end. She is not worth the resources.

My Aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer...and had to wait about six weeks for the operation to remove the lump. So she waited. And stressed. And cried. And worried.

My father had rotator cuff surgery. He was sent home that day and was in out-of-his-mind couldn't-sleep- sheer agony for a week. He sat upright in a chair for a week because to do anything else was too painful.

My Mother had pneumonia several years ago. Not the walking pneumonia, but the hospitalized-she-might-die kind of pneumonia. Took her about five years to fully recover. While she was in the hospital there was a nurse who was absolutely brutal. She would throw the patients (elderly women) around. Threw one woman around so badly she was terribly bruised up the side of her leg from her ankle to her hip. Nothing was done to discipline this nurse, and no doubt her reign of terror continues.

My sister has epilepsy. Her doctor prescribed the wrong dosage, causing my sister to have fit after fit after fit until she could be hospitalized and her medication sorted out.

When I went into hospital, the ring I bought with my own money when I was six was stolen off my finger while I was unconscious. I know it's silly, but I loved that ring! I saved and saved and saved for it. And now it's gone. I had my initials engraved on it - how much worth could that tiny little thing be to someone else?

MY COMMENT:

Wow! A testimony that I hope will wake people up to what Universal healthcare REALLY is and not what it professes to be...you know one day I was watching Oprah (since I watched this show, I no longer watch) and she did a special on universal healthcare and tried to portray it as this benevolent and charitable system of healthcare...I remember one question she posed that was particularly disturbing. The question was asked, "Universal heathcare comes down to this question, do you believe a janitor's son has the same right to healthcare that a CEO's son does?"

I was sickened because these are the kinds of questions that get socialistic policies popular because it sounds like you are an evil, selfish person if you do not answer yes to the question! When really, the question should be asked this way, 'Do you believe it is morally right and acceptable to hold a gun to the CEO's head and steal his money that he rightfully earned and then give it to the janitor?'

You see the first question in evaluating any social system cannot be: What happens to those who are helpless and incapable of supporting themselves? Such people, by definition, are dependent for their survival on others—on those who are capable of working and who can produce wealth.

Thus, the first question must be: What happens to the thinkers and producers? What conditions make it possible for them to think and produce? The fundamental answer to that question is: FREEDOM—the freedom to direct their own actions and to keep the property they have produced.

Thus, to advocate for a system that puts taxes and regulations on the producers in the name of helping the disabled is a hopeless contradiction—it means helping the non-producers by throttling the producers on whom they depend.

So why is it that people advocating socialistic government make it look like we owe something to the janitor who clearly (in the socialist's mind) was born without the wealth and opportunities of the CEO?

Without a socialistic society the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer, right?

Quite the opposite.

Capitalism is the only system that leaves everyone free to rise by his/her own efforts. The history of capitalism provides countless instances of people who improved their lives through work and ability. There are the millions of immigrants who came to America and worked their way up to the middle class—or higher. One of the great historical examples was Andrew Carnegie, who rose from a penniless sweeper at a steel mill to revolutionize the steel industry and make one of the largest fortunes of his day. It is no coincidence that 19th century America—the most purely capitalist era in the nation's history—brought us the phrase "from rags to riches."

The reason why capitalism allows people to rise by their own efforts is that capitalism is driven by only one fundamental consideration: profit. But profit can only be earned through an increase in the production of wealth: profit comes from inventing a new product, producing a good more efficiently, promoting it to a wider market, etc. It comes from doing things better, faster, and smarter than before. This means that capitalism offers an open field to anyone who works hard to improve his skills—and it offers riches to anyone who thinks hard and comes up with new and better ideas. It is under capitalism, for example, that a company like Microsoft creates scores of millionaires out of individuals whose qualification is not inherited wealth or social connections, but only the ability to create and sell computer programs.

The rule under government regulation, by contrast, is very different. It is a common error today to talk about "crony capitalism." Cronyism is in fact a hallmark of state-run economies. When politicians and bureaucrats hold power over the economy, the only hope for success comes from currying their favor. Thus the competition for wealth becomes a competition, not over who can produce the most, but over who can make the most bribes or call in the most favors. It is under these systems that established wealth, family connections, and the "Old Boy's Network" become the determinants of success, rather than individual ability. But that is a problem created and perpetuated by statism, not capitalism.

But the advocates of socialism and universal healthcare cry out, how can you justify the huge disproportionate salary and rewards given to CEO's over what a lowly janitor makes?

A recent study claimed that corporate CEOs make, on average, 400 times as much as the company's lowest-paid employee. Let us assume that this figure is correct. Is that really "disproportionate"?

Let us concretize the question. What kind of work is performed by the lowest paid worker in a company? This worker might be, for example, a janitor. His work consists of performing routine, pre-established tasks, requiring little thought and only moderate physical effort. If he performs his work well, there is a moderate benefit: a clean workplace is more productive than a dirty one. But if he performs his work poorly, the consequences are minor—and the worker can easily be replaced by a better janitor; since the skills required are not complex, almost anyone can perform the job properly.

In the case of a CEO, by contrast, his work consists primarily in making decisions—decisions about what products the company should produce, how much it should invest in improvement of its equipment, whether it should raise money through stocks, bonds, venture capital, etc.

Bear in mind that wealth is not produced by blind, uncoordinated action. The best employees in the world working the longest hours are useless unless they are making a useful product backed by adequate funding and good marketing.

But ensuring that a company's resources and personnel are being used productively is the job of the CEO.

In justice—if justice means rewarding merit—an employee ought to be paid in proportion to the value he brings to the company. By that criterion, is there anything "disproportionate" about paying the CEO an enormous salary? If there is, the disparity is in the other direction. A good CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company is not worth so little as 400 employees, much less 400 janitors; he is worth as much as thousands of employees. Their work is profitable only as long as he makes the right decisions.

Of course, a bad CEO—one who makes poor decisions and wastes a company's resources—can wipe out the work of thousands of employees. But that is precisely why companies offer their CEOs such enormous financial rewards, rewards that are often dependent on the company's performance. For such a crucial position, nothing less will attract and motivate the best minds.

I am so sick and tired of the collectivist thinking that has and continues to poison our minds!

Who will speak up for the rights of the CEO?

Today, even the lowest specimen of humanity—especially the lowest specimen of humanity—can count on support from numerous sources. A homeless drug addict has a dozen different organizations, agencies, shelters, rehab programs, and the like devoted to his aid. A Nazi who burns a cross on his front lawn knows he can call the ACLU to protect his rights. But what if a peaceful, responsible, productive CEO or businessman—even a hero of American business—finds himself under attack?
Who can he call?

Monday, March 23, 2009

The Moral Basis of Capitalism

Capitalism is the only moral social system because it is the only system that respects the freedom of the producers to think and the right of the individual to set his own goals and pursue his own happiness.

I loved this article by Robert W. Tracinski and hope you will take the time to read it and then post your questions about its premise after reading.

"With the fall of communism and the alleged end of the "era of big government," many commentators and politicians grudgingly acknowledge the practical value of capitalism. The free market, they concede, is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity; the private economy, in Bill Clinton's words, is the "primary engine of growth."

But this has not led to the triumph of capitalism. Quite the opposite: Federal taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product are at their highest rate since the Second World War; antitrust assaults on the market's winners are growing; the regulations on the federal register continue to expand by 60,000 pages per year; even the Republicans' recent tax cut proposal would only mandate a minor decrease in the projected growth of government revenues. By practically every measure, government interference in the free market is growing.

If capitalism is recognized as the only practical economic system—then why is it losing out to state control? The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Thus, both sides agree, whatever the practical value of capitalism, morality requires that the free market be reigned in by government regulations. The only disagreement between the two sides is over the number of regulations and the rate of their growth.

What no one has grasped yet is that capitalism is not just practical but also moral. Capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the virtues necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual.

Every product that sustains and improves human life is made possible by the thinking of the world's creators and producers. We enjoy an abundance of food because scientists have discovered more efficient methods of agriculture, such as fertilization and crop rotation. We enjoy a lifespan double that of the pre-industrial era thanks to advances in medical technology, from antibiotics to X-rays to biotechnology, discovered by doctors and medical researchers. We enjoy the comfort of air conditioning, the speed of airline transportation, the easy access to information made possible by the World Wide Web—because scientists and inventors have made the crucial mental connections necessary to create these products.

Most people recognize the right of scientists and engineers to be free to ask questions, to pursue new ideas, and to create new innovations. But at the same time, most people ignore the third man who is essential to human progress: the businessman. The businessman is the one who takes the achievements of the scientists and engineers out of the realm of theory and turns them into reality; he takes their ideas off the chalkboards and out of the laboratories and puts them onto the store shelves.

Behind the activities of the businessman there is a process of rational inquiry every bit as important as that of the scientist or inventor. The businessman has to figure out how to find and train workers who will produce a quality product; he has to discover how to cut costs to make the product affordable; he has to determine how best to market and distribute his product so that it reaches its potential buyers; and he has to figure out how to finance his venture in a way that will best feed future growth. All of these issues—and many others—depend on the mind of the businessman. If he is not left free to think, the venture loses money and its product goes out of existence.

The businessman has to have an unwavering dedication to thinking, not only in solving these problems, but also in dealing with others. He has to use reason to persuade investors, employees, and suppliers that his venture is a profitable one. If he cannot, the investors take their money elsewhere, the best employees leave for better opportunities, and the suppliers will give preference to more credit-worthy customers.

The businessman's dedication to thought, persuasion, and reason is a virtue—a virtue that our lives and prosperity depend on. The only way to respect this virtue is to leave the businessman free to act on his own judgment. That is precisely what capitalism does. The essence of capitalism is that it bans the use of physical force and fraud in men's economic relationships. All decisions are to be left to the "free market"—that is, to the un-coerced decisions of buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, employers and employees. The first rule of capitalism is that everyone has a right to dispose of his own life and property according to his own judgment.

Government regulation, by contrast, operates by thwarting the businessman's thinking, subordinating his judgment to the decrees of government officials. These officials do not have to consider the long-term results—only what is politically expedient. They do not have to back their decisions with their own money or effort—they dispose of the lives and property of others. And most important, they do not have to persuade their victims—they impose their will, not by reason, but by physical force.

The government regulator does not merely show contempt for the minds of his victims; he also shows contempt for their personal goals and values.

In a free-market economy, everyone is driven by his own ambitions for wealth and success. That's what "free trade" means: that no one may demand the work, effort, or money of another without offering to trade something of value in return. If both partners to the trade don't expect to gain, they are free to go elsewhere. In Adam Smith's famous formulation, the rule of capitalism is that every trade occurs "by mutual consent and to mutual advantage."

It is common to condemn this approach as selfish—yet to say that people are acting selfishly is to say that they take their own lives seriously, that they are exercising their right to pursue their own happiness. By contrast, project what it would mean to exterminate self-interest and force everyone to work for goals mandated by the state. It would mean, for example, that a young student's goal to have a career as a neurosurgeon must be sacrificed because some bureaucrat decrees that there are "too many" specialists in that field. Such a system is based on the premise that no one owns his own life, that the individual is merely a tool to be exploited for the ends of "society." And since "society" consists of nothing more than a group of individuals, this means that some men are to be sacrificed for the sake of others—those who claim to be "society's" representatives. For examples, see the history of the Soviet Union.

A system that sacrifices the self to "society" is a system of slavery—and a system that sacrifices thinking to coercion is a system of brutality. This is the essence of any anti-capitalist system, whether communist or fascist. And "mixed" systems, such as today's regulatory and welfare state, merely unleash the same evils on a smaller scale.

Only capitalism renounces these evils entirely. Only capitalism is fully true to the moral ideal stated in the Declaration of Independence: the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Only capitalism protects the individual's freedom of thought and his right to his own life.

Only when these ideals are once again taken seriously will we be able to recognize capitalism, not as a "necessary evil," but as a moral ideal."

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Good Idea by Beck!

Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?

Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?

Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.

We surround them.

So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common. I urge you to read the instructions at the end for how to help make your voice heard.



The Nine Principles


1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

12 Values

* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

You Are Not Alone

For more information and to join the online community please join me on http://www.the912project.com/