Monthly Archives: September 2009

Big Business, “Organized Crime”, and Real Prosperity

officepic12by Tommy Davis

I had a fellow state to me that Republicans are for big business and don’t care about the black community. He went on to spew forth how they (the government) should tax the rich and provide tax breaks to the people at the bottom. He seemed to blame the deficient economy and the state of the black community on capitalism and the Republicans. Thus, he voted Democrat.

When street thugs rob at gunpoint to pilfer possessions from another person it is another example of misguided hoodlums who feel that they cannot —and will not— compete for a share in our economy. They believe that they must deprive others of their material goods in order to gain an economic advantage. Armed robbers must continue to commit crimes because their income will only resume through swindle. Lacking the intellectual capital and patience to participate in the free market, they cheat and steal from those who possess wealth.

Time after time the media reports this kind of action and it is justified by shifting the blame to a legacy of slavery, racism, fiscal predicament, or capitalism.

Political speeches about taxing the rich and redistributing their wealth are no different than a robbery that hasn’t yet turned bad. When liberal socialists go after companies who make an honest living and attempt to redistribute their wealth (communism) they are stealing. If big business fails, there are no employees to provide with a tax break because they will lack employment.

As a Republican I understand that businesses manufacture a product that consumers purchase. Therefore, a fair exchange takes place. When those consumers turn around and accuse business owners of making too much money, this is nothing short of envy and wanting to “buy” the cake, eat it, and then want your money back. Also, such folks elect government officials who will penalize companies for being successful by taxing them severely; this is nothing short of criminal —- professional stick-ups that results in loss of capital that translates into unemployment and higher prices.

Entrepreneurs did not become wealthy by swindling citizens out of money. Companies satisfied the consumer by providing a product or service. When Henry Ford mass produced the automobile, the Ford Model T, he provided a manufactured good that pleased the world. We bought it. The Fords got rich. In the process, the company created a middle class who put in the work. In 1913 Henry Ford paid his employees at a rate of $5.00 per day which was the highest wage in manufacturing at that time! Profits were good until competition, coupled with collective bargaining agreements, entered the picture. Vehicles were priced too high and were less efficient than the competition.

Pathetically, now the government (under Democratic control) wants to borrow money from me (the taxpayer) to “invest” into companies “too big to fail”. Rather than provide me with a dividend (at least a discount), they want to sell me the product I help build. That’s like borrowing my car to burglarize my home only to turn and sell me my stuff back.

It doesn’t matter if Obama is president. The community (especially the black community) will still suffer because the problems are self inflicted. Those black folks who voted for Obama just because he’s black are racists and no different from the Southern Democrats who initiated the poll tax to keep white candidates in office and poor blacks from voting despite the possible economic advantage.

He will not “change” the 50 percent school drop-out rate among African-Americans, or the 70 percent illegitimacy rate regarding two parent households in black communities; and he will not transform the high murder rate (over 50 percent) committed by black males in this country.

If blacks do not save, there will be check cashing centers in predominantly black neighborhoods with a five dollar fee rather than commercial banks. There will be corner stores and clothing outlets rather than grocery stores and malls. If the police are too busy, Wal-Mart will never open a store within the city limits.

The same candidates who say that they will create jobs are promoting the very policies that cause businesses to lay off employees and slow production. The same candidates who are soft on crime are the same ones who “prevent” businesses from opening in certain communities.

Governments do not create jobs. Citizens generate employment by starting businesses constructing products that benefit society. They hire the labor to bring this innovation to pass. The government’s job is to supervise fair enterprise—-not socialize. The proper role of supervision is to create an atmosphere for growth. This involves cutting taxes to free up reinvestment capital for business owners; improving public safely, and prohibiting business regulatory fees implemented to raise money.

Time will tell how many government robberies will bring about the fatal wound to our financial prudence. In other words: time will tell which straw will finally break the camel’s back.


Posted by on September 27, 2009 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,


NozzolioAll across New York State, homeowners are beginning to realize that they will NOT be receiving their STAR rebate check this year. Last year, around this same time of year, New York State property taxpayers received a much-needed STAR rebate check in the mail. The STAR rebate program gave homeowners the tax relief that many of them needed to be able to keep their taxes current and offset the high cost of the taxes we already pay. This year, thanks to the New York City-driven policies that prevailed when the New York State budget was adopted in April, there will be NO rebate and NO check in the mail.

The New York State budget that was adopted last April has had devastating effects on families, senior citizens and businesses all across the State. By eliminating the STAR rebate program, New York State homeowners and families have lost over $1.45 billion in tax relief. At a time when New Yorkers are already facing rising costs on everything from energy to health care, the last thing New York State should be doing is placing additional financial burdens on our struggling property taxpayers.

As one of the individual Senators who worked to establish the STAR program, I strongly opposed this year’s New York State budget and fought hard to enact an amendment that would have restored the STAR Rebate program.

Unfortunately, my amendment was rejected by all 32 Democratic Senators and lost by only one vote! Last April’s New York State budget was developed in secret and failed to address the financial struggles that many middle class homeowners face as a result of increases in their property taxes. Eliminating critical property tax relief for homeowners at this time is just plain wrong.

There are many areas in New York State government where spending should be reduced, but the budget should not be balanced on the backs of property taxpayers who already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation.

 As a part of my efforts to restore the STAR Rebate program, I have initiated an online petition calling on Governor Paterson to reinstate the Rebate program. Please click here to visit my website and join the fight to restore the STAR rebate program.


New York State Senator, 54th District


Tags: ,

Is Emergency Care a Failed Market?

Mises Daily by | Posted on 9/24/2009

In response to my recent article on health-insurance mandates, I received many emails from readers who argued that mandates, as unappealing as they may be, are necessary to prevent market failure in emergency medical services.

Specifically, they argued that there is a “free-rider problem” in emergency care because individuals are currently able to visit the emergency room (ER) without insurance or the means to pay, receive care, and then skip out on the bill. Such free riders force the hospital to either accept the losses or spread the costs to other patients. Therefore, the readers reasoned, there is a market failure in that health insurance is under-demanded and ER care is over-demanded, increasing health care costs and dumping them onto those consumers who do purchase insurance and pay for their visits.

As accurate as this common depiction of the symptom is, however, it misdiagnoses the disease. The free-rider problem in ER care is not a market failure, but a government failure. The Hippocratic Oath notwithstanding, hospitals only accept all patients irrespective of their ability to pay because they are required to by government regulations. These laws, which are in place in countries around the planet, result in a simple welfare scheme whereby the costs of the uninsured are transferred to insured patients. With this reality in mind, it is easy to see that the free-rider problem in ER services is not a market failure, but rather a government failure.

A Libertarian Alternative

How, then, would truly free-market hospitals handle patients who are now free riders? There is every reason to expect that these uninsured, mostly low-income people would be treated more humanely and with greater dignity than they are in the current quasi-socialist system.

Without government regulations on their payment collection methods, hospitals would be free to offer more flexible prices and payment options, and to negotiate contracts with individual consumers. Those patients with little financial leverage would be able to form creative payment plans, and those without any savings or insurance could even contract to pay for their services with labor.

Furthermore, in a truly free market for medical care, even patients who intentionally try to skip payments and thus dump the costs on others cannot. This is because, in the absence of supposedly compassionate hospital legislation, to admit oneself or someone else to emergency care is to agree to the terms and conditions of service at that hospital — most importantly, to pay for treatment.

Thus, in the libertarian society, checking out without arranging payment would constitute a violation of contract, and therefore these malicious free riders would be held accountable. In the current situation, however, such predatory patients are subsidized by others in the name of social compassion.

Another advantage of contractual enforcement of payment for ER services on the free market is that it removes hospitals from financial responsibility for those patients who are admitted to the ER by another party while incapacitated. Which party will be held responsible for the hospital bill in each case would be decided by negotiation between the two parties and perhaps even by court arbitration. Which party eventually pays is not important for this matter, though; what matters is that the hospital will be paid either way, and that other patients will no longer be stuck with the bill.

Now that we’ve seen that the free rider problem does not exist in a free market for medical care, we can address other readers’ concern that the profit-driven market process is unsympathetic to the suffering of those patients who are truly unable to pay in any way and can’t afford market insurance, but who shouldn’t simply be left to suffer.

The Market for Free Riders?

To argue that the market discards those it regards as undesirable is to both ignore the prevalence of private charity and deny the existence of the entire public-relations industry. Indeed, setting socialist doctrines aside, we can see that affectionate treatment of the poor and downtrodden is actually a very profitable endeavor.

In every market, firms of all sizes expend resources to maintain a positive public image. There are few actions better received by a community than healing and treating their vulnerable and disabled at a discounted or zero price. As such, it is absolutely foolish to believe that hospitals would not take in such customers for treatment.

In fact, if we examine the nature of prices and income differentials closely, we arrive at another instance of destructive government intervention. Price discrimination of almost every form is illegal in almost every market, and health care is certainly no exception.

Price discrimination may feel unfair, but if allowed by law it can lead to much more efficient market outcomes and higher market quantities of all goods and services. Using price discrimination, hospitals would be free to provide additional and cheaper services to low-income consumers without decreasing the price for high-income consumers.

Price discrimination would benefit the hospitals as well, because they would not only increase the quantity of services they perform and add potentially loyal new customers, but would also be able to increase the price of services to their high-income patients without losing their business.

Viewing the converse of this market outcome, then, we can observe that laws against price-fixing necessarily decrease quantities of goods and services, and squeeze marginal consumers out of the market. In the health care market, this means that those who are most in need of low-cost care are forced out of the market in the name of social justice.

In contemplating competition between medical service providers, we can deduce that the market will indeed treat people who are now free riders with dignity, but that those consumers will no longer actually be free riding on others. Instead, they will provide a valuable good to society — namely, the satisfaction that comes with supporting others in their time of need. While it may seem strange to think of this as an economic good, it certainly is, as evidenced by consumers’ willingness to forgo other forms of consumption in favor of charity.

While caring for these patients would still redistribute costs to other consumers, it would do so only to the extent that these paying consumers would tolerate it by continuing to purchase care and services. That is to say that consumers’ choices between competing hospitals’ services would, just as in any market, force those hospitals to provide equilibrium quantities of charitable care.

This efficient market quantity would therefore be determined by the charitable inclinations of insured and higher-income patients. And in a truly libertarian market, which would lack taxes, we can say that these individuals would inarguably be more giving of their own income.

Perhaps the best feature of the free-market process in a libertarian health market is that it would allocate charitable funds to their best use. In our emergency services case, this axiom of market behavior implies that hospitals will spend their charity budgets on the most destitute and impoverished patients.

Whereas government funds are allocated according to political cronyism and electoral opportunism, free-market hospitals will always attempt to maximize the benefit to their public image — nothing more than profit maximization — by providing for those patients who are most in need.


With rigorous examination, we can see that emergency medical services function like any other market, and that the free-rider problem is the result of a government failure. Furthermore, we can safely expect that the free market would treat the most deserving of these free riders more humanely than does the supposedly compassionate central health administration.



Eric Staib is an economics major at the University of Oklahoma. Send him mail. See Eric M. Staib’s article archives. Comment on the blog.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 24, 2009 in Uncategorized



Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Second in a Series

Ann Coulter

With the Democrats getting slaughtered — or should I say, “receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling” — in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world’s leading Muslim terrorists.

Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can’t be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.

But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

(6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look — I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, “The Death Panel”) deny medical treatment wasn’t a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs … without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let’s go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine — and it uses no energy, so it’s totally green!

For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.

Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)

Similarly, one person might say, “I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever.” (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, “I don’t go to restaurants, I don’t go to the theater, and I don’t buy expensive designer clothes because I’ve decided to pour all my money into my health.”

Under national health care, you’ll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn’t entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that’s how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

(7) National health care will reduce costs.

This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada — presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau — imposed price controls on oil.

As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.

You may recall this era as “the Carter years.”

Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market — aka the “profit motive” — produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation’s history.

You may recall this era as “the Reagan years.”

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.

(8) National health care won’t cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: (a) death, (b) taxes, and (C) no health care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don’t think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren’t able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don’t include the words “abortion,” “death panels” or “three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery.”

That proves nothing — the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it’s within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we’ll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, “Well, I’m pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!”

No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can’t be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can’t be trusted with domestic policy.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 20, 2009 in Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

Jimmy Carter’s Record on Race

Guess who Carter called "the essence of the Democratic Party"? Guess whom Carter called “the essence of the Democratic Party”? 

Originally Published on NewsReal Blog  by Ben Johnson

As Jimmy Carter portrays conservatives as violent racists, it’s worth remembering Carter’s own history of racial demagoguery. Carter campaigned for governor of Georgia as a self-proclaimed “redneck,” in an era when that word had pronounced racial connotations. His campaign distributed a photo of his gubernatorial opponent Carl Sanders being embraced by black basketball players to a Ku Klux Klan rally. Carter pledged to invite Alabama’s infamous segregationist governor George Wallace to Georgia if elected. He once said he was “proud” to have the equally segregationist Lester Maddox as his lieutenant governor following the 1970 election, calling Governor Axe-handle “the essence of the Democratic Party” (which he was).

In 1972, Carter promised – then broke his promise – to the newly crippled Wallace to nominate or second him at the Democratic National Convention in Miami, jumping at the opportunity to give the nomination speech for Henry “Scoop” Jackson (and the national exposure that would bring; see Obama, Barack).


According to his son, Jack Carter, the man from Plains had his surrogates lobby aggressively to become ultra-leftist George McGovern’s vice president. By 1976, “Jimmy Who” had traded his “redneck” status for a pose as the “Born Again” exemplar of the New South.  (His religiosity poll-tested well. He actually won more Southern Baptist votes than Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

Since the country’s near-unanimous repudiation of his presidency, Carter has lashed out at evangelical Christians, conservatives, the late Pope John Paul II, “Neoconservatives,” and anyone else who — well, everyone who isn’t a Southern “progressive” Baptist who admires Liberation Theology. In his 2005 book, Our Endangered Values, he described “fundamentalists” as people who believe “they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil.” They tend “to demagogue emotional issues.” Moreover, “They are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda.”

That sounds very much like the Obama administration’s race-baiting surrogates, including Jimmy Carter, who was willing to stoke those fires when it worked to his advantage.

(For more, read my retrospective of his presidency, probably the second-worst in our history; and my review of Our Endangered Values.)


Tags: , , ,

Are Tea Party Protestors Racists?

Wayne Perryman September 15 at 6:06pm

By Rev. Wayne Perryman
September 14, 2009

Approximately three weeks before the 2008 election a white pastor friend of mine asked to meet with me. He wanted my advice and counsel on how to deal with the discussions within his congregation regarding the election and what I thought would happen as a result of the election. Some of his members supported Obama and others supported McCain.

After a healthy discussion on the Bible and Politics, I predicted that Obama would win in part because Americans were tired of the war in Iraq and because Obama was well educated, good looking, very articulate, America’s first black candidate and because many whites wanted to prove that they were not prejudice – but his presidency (from a racial standpoint) will divide us, not unite us. Why? Because there will be those in the media and in his camp who will not hesitate to play the race card when whites disagreed with his policies. Well, we all know my first prediction came true, he is the President, but sadly, we see the second one coming true as well. Those who disagree with his policies are being called racist.

Since the April Tea Parties whites by the thousands have protested against government spending and more recently they have strongly voiced their opposition to Obama’s costly health care policies. Although conservative blacks disagree with these same policies and have participated and spoke at these rallies as well, the media has only focused on the majority white participants and labeled the participants as “white right-wing racist.”

Keeping the racist label on America is not only profitable for the media (by selling a lot of newspapers), it is also profitable for those who earn healthy incomes by constantly playing the race card. In an effort to prove that America was not and is not a racist nation, I published the book: The Drama of Obama – Regarding Race, a book that the CEO of the NAACP said was very insightful and thought-provoking. I wrote the book to provide an accurate depiction of our nation’s history in regards to the issue of race and because I was convinced that the Obama presidency would do more to divide our nation than to unite it.

The book was written shortly after Obama’s March 18, 2008 speech where he defended Rev. Wright and accused America of being racist. My goal was to reduce potential racial tension by presenting the truth about those whites who joined with blacks to rid our nation of slavery and to highlight the efforts of other whites who gave their lives and financial resources to eliminate both slavery and Jim Crow – a story that is not well known in this country.

When conservative whites like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh voiced their opposition to Bush’s spending policies, no one called them racist. One might say that during the Bush Administration there were no major protests like the current Tea Parties demonstrations that’s taking place during the Obama Administration. This is true. It is also true that Bush’s spending policies during past eight years pale in comparison to Obama’ spending practices during the past eight months.

When the Congressional Black Caucus protested because the Obama Administration decided to cut federal funding for Historical Black Colleges by $73 million, no one called the Congressional Black Caucus racist. When the Black broadcasters protested because the Obama Administration refused to give them stimulus money to bail out struggling black radio stations, no one called the black broadcasters racist. When black farmers protested because Eric Holder and the Obama Administration refused to give the black farmers the entire court award of $3.2 billion in the case that they won against the Department of Agriculture (during the Clinton Administration), no one called them racist. When members of the Congressional Black Caucus joined with their white Democrat counterparts and booed Bush during his speech to Congress on Social Security Reform in 2005, no one called them racist, but many are calling Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during Obama’s recent speech, racist. According to Star Parker’s recent editorial, Obama is currently losing support among blacks, but no one is calling these black defectors racist.

From the incident involving officer Crowley (the white police officer) and Professor Gates (the black professor), to individual citizens protesting about government spending, Hate Speech legislationm, Abortion and Illegal Aliens, Americans are fed up with being called racist simply because they disagree with certain government policies, even though they had these same concerns during the Bush Administration. According to some experts this anger has resulted in record gun sales – with expectations of future violence between the races. This is not good, but something that I predicted.

If such violence does break out (and I pray that it doesn’t), every one will have an opinion regarding the cause. But right now no one is anticipating such violence and no one sees it coming with the exception of those who are being called racist and those who are members of black and white militant groups.

Please pray for our pastors and churches, because if such violence does break out, few will have any credibility to speak on the subject. Their silence today – will demand their tomorrow. I am speaking out today, so I will have a credible voice tomorrow.

Rev. Wayne Perryman
P.O. Box 256
Mercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 708-6676


Posted by on September 16, 2009 in Education, Politics, Religion


Tags: ,

Moving Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation – by Star Parker

star parkerSix years ago I wrote a book called Moving Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation.

I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas — a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s by Democrats, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996 which was passed by a Republican controlled Congress.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are now going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-Ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

“This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending — it’s a strategy for America ‘s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education.”

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with unprecedented transparency and accountability.”

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 — The War on Poverty — which President Johnson said “…does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”


Tags: , ,

Why I Will not Vote the Democratic Ticket


“We regard the Reconstruction Acts (so called) of Congress as usurpations, and unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.” – Democratic Party Platform 1868


     “I am opposed to the Democratic Party, and I will tell you why.  Every State that seceded from the United States was Democratic State.  Every ordinance of secession that was drawn was drawn by a Democrat.  Every man that endeavored to tear the old flag from heaven that it enriches was a Democrat.  Every enemy this great Republic has had for twenty years has been a Democrat.  Every man that shot Union soldiers was a Democrat.  Every man that starved Union soldiers and refused them in the extremity of death of crust was a Democrat.  Every man that tried to destroy this nation was a Democrat.  Every man that loved slavery more than liberty was a Democrat.  The man that assassinated Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat.  Every man that sympathized with the assassin —every man glad that the noblest President ever elected was assassinated – was a Democrat.  Every man that impaired the credit of the United States; every man that swore we would never pay the bonds; every man that swore we would never redeem the greenbacks was a Democrat.  Every man that resisted the draft was a Democrat.  Every man that wept over the corpse of slavery was a Democrat.  Every man that cursed Lincoln because he issued the Proclamation of Emancipation — the grandest paper since the Declaration of Independence— every one of them was a Democrat.  Every man that wanted an uprising in the North, that wanted to release the rebel prisoners, that they might burn down the homes of Union soldiers above the heads of their wives and children, while the brave husbands , the heroic fathers, were in the front fighting for the honor of the old flag, every one of them was a Democrat.  Every man that believed this glorious nation of ours is only a confederacy, every man that believed the old banner carried by our fathers through the Revolution, through the War of 1812, carried by our brothers over the plains of Mexico, carried by our brothers over the fields of the Rebellion, simply stood for a contract, simply stood for an agreement, was a Democrat.  Every man who believed that any State should go out of the Union at its pleasure; every man that believed the grand fabric of the American Government could be made to crumble instantly into dust at the touch of treason was a Democrat.  Soldiers! Every scar you have got on your heroic bodies was given to you by a Democrat.  Every scar, every arm that is lacking, every limb that is gone, every scar is a souvenir of a Democrat.”

Dr. Davis’ commentary:

“Even though this handbill was published in the year 1880, how many similarities can you find today?  What politician or policies come to mind as you read through a document written fifteen years after the Civil War.?”

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 11, 2009 in Uncategorized



Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: First In a Series

Ann Coulter

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.
You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.
As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, “the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” That’s why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines — unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.
U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)
Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”
It’s the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it’s screwed up because there’s not enough government oversight (it’s the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of “reform.”
You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden — another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly “conservative” Democrats.
(2) National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.
Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It’s like a new cable plan with a “yes” box, but no “no” box.
Obama himself compared national health care to the post office — immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force — which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.
But what most people don’t know — including the president, apparently — with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.
Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won’t stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?
(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are “villains.”
Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday’s New York Times, saying: “A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.”
Well, yeah. That and the cancer.
Assuming this is true — which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care — in a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor’s shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.
If only customers had a choice! But we don’t because of government regulation of health insurance.
Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone’s insurance company weren’t required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn’t be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.
(4) National health care will give Americans “basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable” — as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.
You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, “I’m taking my business elsewhere.”
(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The only reason most “pre-existing” conditions aren’t already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.
The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have “reinsurance” policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.
If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for “pre-existing” conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn — unconceived — children and health insurance even when you don’t have a job. The vast majority of “pre-existing” conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be “covered” conditions under a free market in health insurance.
I’ve hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.


They’re Insurance Companies, Not Healthcare Companies, by Drexel Kleber

Posted 9/5/2009 11:45 AM EDT on

I wonder what insurance companies are thinking about healthcare reform. It seems to me there is a fundamental shift occurring for them and I have to imagine they don’t like it.

What is the purpose of an insurance company? Insurance companies are for-profit businesses whose modus operandi is to get us to give them our money so that they can invest it in a variety of vehicles which provide profits for the company. They entice consumers to give them their money based on the agreement that if a policy holder gets sick or injured the company will pay for their medical needs. As such, if I have minimal medical needs the insurance company will pay out less money to me and, thus, have more money at their disposal from which they can earn investment profits. If, however, I am prone to illness or injury, the insurance company must pay out more money for my care, even to the point where they pay out more than they earn from me in premiums and interest. For the company, these are losses. (It’s interesting to note that few individuals invoke the same language when we are healthy. If I don’t get sick or injured or go to the doctor, then I have essentially paid more money IN than I have received back: rightfully, I should view these as losses. Of course, my ability to recoup my investment requires injury or sickness– situations which most folks would rather avoid.)

From the insurance point of view, this entire arrangement is a wager. The bottom line is they are making an informed investment decision: they evaluate my medical history and current health and venture a guess regarding the capital outlay required to attend to my health care needs. They then charge a premium sufficient to cover those expenses and still return a profit to their shareholders.

Insurance companies and individuals enter into a binding agreement. Specific items will be paid for, specific items will be excluded. Caps are provided in order to protect the insurance company from catastrophic losses, and which underscore the basis of their decision and support the assumptions they made in establishing a premium. When I read my insurance policy, I know what is covered and what is not and I sign the document agreeing to its terms.

Insurance companies are NOT healthcare companies. They take no Hippocratic Oath. They are closer to lawyers—enforcing contracts—than medical professionals—healing the wounded and infirm. I have no illusion that they will show benevolence or compassion. They exist to make money for their shareholders. I can’t imagine that I will ever hear in a hushed whisper from an insurance company representative, “Mr. Kleber, as you know you haven’t been paying for coverage that includes FREE prescriptions, but your story of job loss and misfortune has touched my heart so, just between you and me (and, please, don’t tell my supervisor) I’m going to approve those benefits.”

The other side of this coin is equally relevant, however. I expect the company to provide nothing less than to what it’s contractually obligated. I understand that their goal is to minimize capital expenditures and doing so requires a certain amount of belligerence to ensure that abuses aren’t taking place. But we’ve got a deal—we both signed. If there’s a covered benefit, well, they lost the bet. Tough.

Yet the healthcare debate in Washington these days seems to be taking place with the notion that insurance companies are “healthcare” companies, whose primary purpose is to provide access to healthcare. How can an insurance company make money for its share holders if it can’t cap certain expenses? If there is no way to control costs, they would, theoretically, have to charge exorbitant premiums to allow for such possibilities. Personally, I’m not prepared to pay the premiums required to make that math work. I take a certain measure of responsibility on my end of the arrangement–I pay a limited premium for limited coverage. I eat right and exercise to limit the chances of uncovered health needs.

I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more outrage from the insurance companies; even to the point of threatening to go out of business. I don’t understand how they will be able to run their business given the proposals that are being bandied about in the name of healthcare reform. escaladeIt would be as if Congress suddenly told GMAC that even though their customers are only making payments on Chevy Cobalt, GMAC had to provide them with a Cadillac Escalade to drive.

We ought to proceed cautiously where healthcare reform reaches beyond healthcare companies. Insurance is but one means of PAYING for healthcare, but it is a limited contract arrangement. Expecting more from insurance companies would fundamentally change their mission. Smart people may decide that there is still money to be made in a new system, but it’s wrong of us to assume that companies will continue to operate in a new system with outdated methods.

There are many unknowns in the healthcare debate. One thing we do know is that companies will find a way to make a profit or they will go out of business. Assumptions about the future and who might facilitate implementation must include a realistic assessment of the players involved and their motives.


Tags: ,


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.