who's your nanny?

St. Mary's Hospital, Steny Hoyer, and Me

Last night my wife and I attended the St. Mary's Hospital Gala, an annual dinner and dance fundraiser in St. Mary's County to benefit the hospital. Its primary donors comprise local businesses, which pay between $1,000 and $10,000 (and up) for a table, and it's generally a good opportunity to network with other companies. And this year I even bought a real tux for events like this instead of renting a burlap one, so I looked hot.

Now, private charity is a noble and wonderful thing. But the St. Mary's Hospital Gala is nothing if not a political event, always providing a good opportunity to witness corporatism at its finest, especially as the heads of local/national military contractors schmooze it up with Steny Hoyer looking for a heads-up on handouts of new contracts.

The night starts with a presentation of "the colors" -- the empire's assortment of flags -- and continues with the national war hymn. Initially, it's hard to tell whether you're at a charity event or a major national sporting event. Dr. Shah, who donated $25,000 to the hospital, kicked off dinner with a speech pimping MedStar Health, which to my knowledge doesn't directly operate St. Mary's Hospital but it must subsidize it pretty heavily because the good doc said something to the extent that we couldn't survive without it.

It was at this point that I turned to my wife and asked her if she too thought this sounded like a political speech, and my suspicions were validated a mere moment later as Shah praised Our Holy Lord Steny for taking time out of "his busy schedule" to grace us with his presence. I vomited in my mouth a little bit upon hearing that. Not least because that also meant taxpayers must subsidize this hospital pretty heavily too.

Funny thing about St. Mary's Hospital is that it sucks. Big time. I mean, it would be funny if generally horrible service and quality weren't so potentially devastating to people who need the direct opposite on one of the worst days of their lives. I'll spare you the story about how I had to diagnose my wife's appenticitis for the doctors in the ER about 10 years ago, but the running joke around town is that if you aren't dead when you arrive at SMH, you will be by the time you leave.

OK, maybe that's a little harsh. But seriously, dudes, I swear they must hold this fundraiser every year just to help settle malpractice suits. A sister-in-law told me last night that it primarily funds scholarships aimed at attracting good doctors to the area, so what do I know? All I really know is that every doctor wears a white lab coat with an "MD" after his or her name, but how many times have you gotten completely opposite opinions from two different doctors? Just sayin'.

I didn't start this post to criticize doctors. However, I will guarantee that if people like Steny Hoyer and his ilk get their way and nationalize health care even more, St. Mary's County and every other county in the country will see a decline in the quality of service before they see an increase.

But enough of that; I need to get to this story. The bartender working right across from our table last night wasn't exchanging patrons' mixed drink glasses with new ones when filling orders; she was just refilling used glasses and stirring them all with the same fancy glass stick she kept by her side the whole night. During flu season. At a hospital fundraiser. And no, she didn't sanitize the stirrer in between.

I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, but generally I don't believe in coincidence either.

Cause, Effect, and the State

As I was clicking through the channels Thursday night, I saw a local report about a 14-year-old boy in Virginia who mysteriously came down with Guillain-Barre syndrome hours after receiving a vaccination for H1N1.

I've had very little time to write lately, but Karen De Coster also noticed this story and commented on the absurdity of the CDC's insistence that the boy's ailment was mere coincidence.

Dr. Claudia J. Vellozzi, deputy director for immunization safety at the CDC, said “there’s no clear link between the new vaccine and the disease.” She states that these GBS cases are “events” that just “happen” after the vaccination. They are just coincidence. Doctors at the hospital refuse to talk about GBS in connection with the vaccines, and accordingly, they are giving the press very limited information.

I agree with Karen. Just like Tasers never cause death -- people's hearts just coincidentally "happen" to stop after they're electrocuted by police.

Should We Bring Back Slavery?

The new health care bill by House Democrats proposes to fine Americans who do not purchase health insurance. Liberals love to boast that this will dramatically lower the number of the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance. This is like arguing that we should bring back African slavery because it has the salubrious effect of dramatically lowering the unemployment rate for blacks.

Jigsaw's Solution to the Health Insurance Industry

I guess if we had a single-payer insurance system, Jigsaw would still find this solution appropriate.

I ♥ Tyranny

The gang of thugs that runs New York State has issued an ultimatum to health care workers: get vaccinated against the H1N1 virus or get fired.

Too cute. I wonder how the state would respond to a private company that issued a similar mandate. Something tells me that up in the land of All That Is Fair and Unionized, the government would jump at the opportunity to put an end to such "discrimination."

Refusing to be immunized against H1N1 because of the vaccine debacle in 1976 “is like saying a plane crashed 33 years ago so I’ll never fly again,” said Dr. Richard Daines, New York State health commissioner.

Daines obviously misses the point. It's not up to him and his fellow cronies to determine for other people what they should or should not put into their own bodies. But like a good bureaucrat, he won't let something as stupid as property rights get in the way of tyranny!

The Public Option and Education

As I continue to battle the economic ignorance infecting the health care debate, I offer this essay by Randall Holcombe at the Beacon:

In President Obama’s address on health care reform to Congress last night (September 9) he argued for a public option to private health insurance as an alternative, to compete with private insurers and give them an incentive to be responsive to their customers.

Some critics have argued that with the advantages of government backing and the taxes the president is advocating on private suppliers, the public option would crowd out private insurers and most people would end up on the government’s plan.  President Obama responded to this criticism by noting that despite the existence of public universities in every state private universities remain an option.  Interesting analogy!

Looking at higher education enrollment, 75% of students are in public colleges and universities and 25% are in private.  The census bureau reports that about half of 18-22 year olds are enrolled in higher education, so if we include those outside the system, the private sector covers only about 12.5% of that age group.

For Those Not Completely Brainwashed by the State

Trevor's recent post drew the attention of one disgruntled commenter who clearly does not understand economics at all. When Trevor and I write pithy rebuttals of Obama's and Bush's economic policies, we rely upon a foundation of economic thought which we do not always discuss explicitly. Nevertheless, there are still people who lack economic reasoning yet feel empowered to make comments concerning economic policy. As Murray Rothbard wrote:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science", but that it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

I seriously doubt that someone this ignorant of economic theory and boastful about it would be open to the economic logic of Mises or Rothbard or Hayek. But for those not completely brainwashed by the State, here are some articles which use rigorous economic logic to demonstrate why Obamacare (or HillaryCare or BushCare or ReaganCare, etc.) will only make our health care system worse (unless you're an insurance company like BlueCrossBlueShield which benefits from the reduction in competition).

Why Obamacare Can't Work: The Calculation Argument-Gabriel E. Vidal

A Four-Step Healthcare Solution-Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Socialized Healthcare Is Not Cheaper Than Free Market Healthcare-Mark R. Crovelli

Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics-Thomas DiLorenzo

Health Care Through Central Planning: A Helpful Analogy-Karen Kwiatkowski

National Socialist Fascist Communist Healthcare-Bill Huff

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right-Ron Paul

My Canadian Healthcare Horror Stories A Message for Americans-Cathy LeBoeuf-Schouten

Why Computers Work and Health Care Doesn't-Bill Walker

The Health Plan's Devilish Principles-Murray Rothbard

This is a good start. For those who want a solid introduction to economic thinking, I recommend Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. For those who wish to be challenged immediately and dive into the reasons why socialism cannot work, I recommend Socialism by Ludwig von Mises. And if our dear angry commenter finds this post discourteous, I would recommend that he read all of these articles, Hazlitt's book and Mises' book, and refute them.

Fascist F*cks

The federal gubmint wants to impose universal "health care" because it cares about you. It cares so much that it will rob you at the point of a gun -- i.e., it will violently relieve you of your property (your money, and perhaps even your life) -- if you politely refuse its "services."

Yes, folks, the state wants to force health insurance on everyone because it simply wants to help. Not because its cronies in the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies stand to make many more billions because of it. Or because politicians will then have a good excuse to micromanage every single thing you attempt to put into your body. Or because this new plan masquerading as universal "care" is really a plan for universal control over anyone not associated with the power elite.

If Americans insist on being imps instead of living independently, we might as well get used to one of the best movie quotes of all-time:

Now, you will go to sleep! Or I will PUT you to sleep. Check out the name tag. You're in MY world now, Grandma!

-- Hal L., Happy Gilmore

"We're almost reaching a revolution in this country."

You know what they say about "almost."

Let's get on with it already. But don't count on these Republicans to lead the way.

A View from the Abyss

As Trevor pointed out, we're going down, down, down, down but probably even faster than forecasted. Take Obama's health care plan, for instance. The plan is estimated to cost $1.5 trillion over ten years. As we all know, governments tend to underestimate the true costs of their expenditures. As Robert Higgs points out:

The federal government's health programs also turned out to be fiscal time bombs. Between 1970 and 1994, in constant (1987) dollars, Medicare outlays increased from $16.4 billion to $109.3 billion; the federal portion of Medicaid from $7.7 billion to $63.5 billion. Like the old-age pensions, these programs achieved rates of growth that could not be sustained indefinitely.

This means that Medicare grew by a factor of approximately seven and Medicaid grew by a factor of approximately eight over this 24 year period. Using these factors as lower and upper bounds and applying them to the estimated $1.5 trillion, we get a lower bound of an upper bound of $10.5 trillion and an upper bound of $12 trillion over 24 years.

Statisticians and mathematicians will find much to criticize in my quick and dirty estimates, but I do this just to make a point. Our government cannot forecast the costs of anything health-related (well, anything at all) accurately. The costs are always exponentially more than forecasted. So when the White House forecasts a $9 trillion deficit over the next ten years, about $1 billion of which is supposed to fund health care, it's probably a good idea to scope out other countries to immigrate. Or at least stock up on guns and gold.

Keep Putting Your Faith in the Whores on the Hill

I was sitting in one of those $20 oil change places this morning waiting for my truck and heard a CNN anchor say that the criminals on Capitol Hill are now pushing some so-called "nuclear option" for health care "reform." "Reform" of course meaning that we're due for even more state regulation of medical services.

I have nothing to report on exactly what the "nuclear option" is because I simply don't wish to clog valuable storage space in my brain with such nonsense. Not to mention, I literally had to get up from my seat and stand on the opposite side of the lobby because I can't even stand listening to the news. But it's just absurd that there are so few people who would even consider the option of reforming current programs by actually cutting government involvement.

We are doomed.

The Simple Pleasures of State-Run Health Care

Say, for instance, giving birth to your child on a sidewalk outside the hospital after your request for an ambulance is denied and you're forced to walk.

Big Business and ObamaCare

John Stossel on why drug companies and insurance providers are backing Obama's health care plan.

HT to Robert Wicks.

The Ideological War against Freedom Continues

As I predicted several months ago, the media is continuing its war against freedom by grouping tax protesters and "sovereign citizens" with right-wing militias. I personally have nothing against militias; they are our last defense against this tyrannical government. But given the sheep are frightened of their own shadow, government officials love right wing militia hobgoblin. They can also play the race card and link these militias to white supremacist groups, further frightening the people and cementing their power over us.

This article is like a synopsis of the MIAC report which was released in the winter:

It's reminiscent of what was seen in the 1990s—right-wing militias, people ideologically against paying taxes and so-called "sovereign citizens" are popping up in large numbers, according to the report to be released Wednesday. The SPLC is a nonprofit civil rights group that, among other activities, investigates hate groups.

Once again people who believe taxation is robbery and who believe that they should be free from the violence of the State are now part of the hate groups which threaten the American people. One would hope that the American people would see through this propaganda but their education precludes such assessments.

The article traces the rise of these groups to the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff:

The spark for that movement came in 1992 with an FBI standoff with white separatist Randall Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Weaver's wife and son were killed by an FBI sniper. And in 1993, a 52-day standoff between federal agents and the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, resulted in nearly 80 deaths. These events rallied more people who became convinced that the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda.

Of course the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda. It would murder its own citizens to promote a conservative agenda as well. The State comprises robbers and murderers. The criminals who rule us would kill anyone they think threatens their power. And they will get away with it as long as the people think such violence is justified. The people need a reason to condone arrests and mass murder. Patriotism works well, but fear works even better. Without fear, no State could be established. There may well be wars between groups of peoples, but the systematic robbery for which the State came into existence could not endure. People who realize that self-protection is their right and duty will not be ruled by a minority.

Liberty Isn't Contingent Upon the Mere Right to Protest

As freedom-loving Americans continue to voice their displeasure at the Democrats' plans to completely socialize health care, it's pretty clear that the bums in cheap suits we politely refer to as politicians are just not used to being knocked down a rung or two.

Unfortunately, Arlen Specter is probably right when he says that the people who are protesting these town hall meetings are "not necessarily representative of America" -- there should be many more people furious over the prospect of being robbed of the basic right to procure medical care on one's own terms.

Then there's Claire McCaskill, who arrogantly refers to opponents of totalitarianism as "cynics."

"If they don't let us vent our frustrations out, they will have a revolution," Mary Ann Fieser of Hillsboro, Mo., told McCaskill at her Missouri health care forum. McCaskill admonished the rowdy crowd, saying "I don't understand this rudeness. I honestly don't get it."

[...]

McCaskill said she was "proud of the people that showed up and I don't take that personally."

"It's that they don't trust government right now," she said on NBC's "Today" show.

"It wasn't the majority of the audience, it was a huge chunk of them," she said. "But I get that distrust. There's a lot of cynicism out there and it's important that I get out there and listen to that." 

Would that these windbags would not only prevent us from venting our frustrations, but that more people would realize this current crop of criminals is ramming these new programs down our throats regardless of whether we complain about them or not. Obama and Co. understand that if they flit around the country for a few weeks on these taxpayer-funded smoke-and-mirrors campaigns that most Americans will eventually say, "Oh, they must actually care about us if they're willing to go out and do the legwork."

But it's all bullshit, people. What Mary Ann Fieser and other concerned Americans may not entirely understand is that revolution is no less necessary just because politicians allow you to complain about your subjugation before you're actually subjugated. Even stupid politicians are smart enough to hire staffers who will tell them how far they can push the citizenry before it revolts. The shame is ours for not realizing this.

One of the biggest canards in American life today is that politicians "work for us," but when was the last time you had to steal money from your employer in order to be compensated for your labor? Politicians do not work for us. Just the opposite, we work for them; we bust our asses to feed our families and then surrender half of our property to these thieves at gunpoint so they can in turn boss us around. What freedom!

Liberty isn't contingent upon our right to protest. It's contingent upon our ability to realize that the state is a criminal gang that has no concern for our well-being whatsoever.

Has the Tipping Point Been Reached?

The White House as turned to town-hall style meetings to convince Americans that more government control of health care will be good for them, but apparently many Americans are angry about it. Karen DeCoster links to a protest in Dearborn, Michigan over the proposed health care bill. In Tampa, FL a protest against health care turned violent. The video shows several protesters screaming "You work for us!" at the local politicians. One man who says he was simply trying to get information on the health care plan was assaulted by police.

This outrage has not gone unnoticed by the White House. MSNBC reports that

[t]op White House officials counseled Democratic senators Thursday on coping with disruptions at public events on health care this summer, officials said, and promised the party and allies would respond with twice the force if any individual lawmaker is criticized in television advertising....

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss details of the closed-door session that took place hours before lawmakers headed to their home states for a month long vacation. (emphasis added)

Democrats have accused the Republicans of sanctioning mob tactics to defeat the health care bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said

These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having...They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets.

The Republicans countered that these protests reflect genuine resentment of the President's policies:

"All the polls show there is serious concern, if not outright opposition, to the president's health care plan," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "Democrats are ginning up this cynical shell game."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is not worried about the protest:

"What you see, I think, is a display of the democratic process," Pelosi said. "We all respect that."

It is possible that this health care plan will be the tipping point for the American people. In spite of what Pelosi and Reid believe, there is genuine anger and outrage festering among the American populace. I think that much of it is simply conservative outrage at liberal policies and as such I believe that this opposition is not as principled as I would like it to be. Conservatives oppose centralization in certain areas of the economy, but not all. They love the police-state and have a fetish for the US military. They support some regulation of the market because they fear a true free market. They believe that a territorial monopolist of law and ultimate decision-making is necessary and they continue to believe in the myth of the rule of law. They worship the Constitution and still believe in democracy. As such what we are witnessing is a true civil war in which conservatives and liberals fight for control of the State.

Socialism Robs Everyone

Despite repeated campaign pledges by Our Holy Savior Barack the Beneficent (peace be upon him) that the so-called middle class wouldn't see their taxes increase "one single dime" under his reign, administration officials nevertheless refuse to rule out significant tax hikes to pay for all of the president's wefare programs, universal health care chief among them.

Though I'm the first to admit I never believe anything that comes out of the mouths of politicians, it looks like Obama was honest on this one. You just had to take him literally. Our taxes won't increase "one single dime"; they'll increase thousands of dimes.

Whether you find yourself in the upper or lower eschelon of income earners, everyone suffers under centralized government control of their lives. The costs of socio-fascist policies are not merely measured in dollars and cents, but in quality of living as well.

It's not going to mean much to poor single mothers that they won't have to write personal checks for their kids' doctor visits (they don't need to even today) when treatable bronchitis turns into deadly pneumonia because wait lists prevented on-demand service.

HA HA HA HA

And might I add HO HO HO HO. Don't look now but Republicans are calling King Barack's health care plan "socialism."

Of course it is, but so is every other statist program endorsed by the GOP, whether the current heavily-regulated government health insurance system, Bush's prescription drug re-election bribe, federal transportation regulations, liquor laws, prison programs, immigration and citizenship requirements, public schooling mandates, and not even close to least (and precursor to all socialist central planning): taxation at gunpoint.

Democrats and Republicans are equally evil, vile, and corrupt. You don't wait until your guy's out of power to speak up if you're not.

UPDATE: A timely article today from the only congressman willing to speak the truth regardless of which party's holding the hammer.

Considering other countries have already implemented universal health care, examples abound as to its dire costs -- for starters, rationing of medical services, compromised physician attention given to patients, and long wait lines. So in order to favor this massive government encroachment upon freedom, you must either be a complete imbecile or a political opportunist. And we've got just about enough of both.

The Irony of Government Health Care

Is that programs ostensibly intended to improve the health of the people actually create human suffering.

Lew Rockwell applies the straightforward law of demand to explain why forcing businesses to provide health insurance will result in more unemployment. This not only means there will be more people who aren't employed to collect employer-subsidized health benefits, but if you don't have a job you can't exactly purchase insurance privately either.

Pay up, Slave

In the name of a health-care overhaul, Commufascisocialityrantking Barack Obama is moving another step closer to guaranteeing he'll be a one-term president by promising to confiscate nearly 60 percent of the wealth generated by society's most productive citizens.

Under the bill, three new tax brackets would be created for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income-tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.

The legislation is especially onerous for business owners, in part because it penalizes employers with a payroll bigger than $400,000 some 8 percent of wages if they don't offer health care.

But the cost of the buy-in to the program may be so prohibitive that it will dissuade owners from growing their businesses -- a scary prospect in the midst of a recession.

We need an overhaul all right. Maybe with regard to a political philosophy that sees a return to all that "freedom" I always hear so much about. Just a thought.

Weekend Roundup

I apologize for being out of blogging commission for the better part of the weekend. I was preoccupied in just about equal parts by a pre-4th of July party and a trip to the emergency room, but it seemed that no matter where I was, I couldn't escape the fact that our society is driven by sheer ignorance and stupidity.

On Saturday I went to my friends' party along the Patuxent River, in the middle of which my buddy Randy set up a barge with about $10,000 worth of real fireworks that he ignited around 9:00 p.m. Interestingly, I waited an entire year to witness this show because Randy's collection was confiscated by Maryland police during last year's party because he didn't have a government permit to discharge fireworks.

Well, not one to suffer fools, Randy decided to beat these guys at their own game and obtain a license several months ago to become a certified pyro in the People's Republik of Maryland. I know that I for one felt a whole lot safer knowing Randy was forced to jump through any number of bureaucratic hoops just to put on a show for his friends and family. In fact, I hear that when you whip out your almighty fireworks permit the wind stops blowing and fire stops burning!

Interestingly, one of the fire marshals told Randy that although this year's display was in full compliance with the government's rules and regulations, his display last July was actually configured in a safer manner. But I just don't believe it given that he was operating outside the purview of our masters last year. Everyone knows you're not safe until the state says you are.

Then there was Sunday. My son had had a low-grade fever for a couple days, but yesterday his temperature spiked to almost 103 early in the afternoon. Sadly, my wife and I know of two young families who've lost children two or younger in the past year due to sudden illness, so considering my son appeared to be lethargic we figured we'd leave nothing to chance and just take him to the emergency room.

But of course, as soon as you get to the ER you realize you're still rolling the dice. We waited for more than two and a half hours before we were even seen, and I'm sure most people have had a similar experience. All I kept thinking was that when Barack the Beneficent's health care "reforms" are pushed through, wait times will only increase. To make matters worse, I had to listen to a Fareed Zakaria interview on CNN with Paul Krugman and John Taylor on the community tv that seemed to go on for infinity.

Because I was trying to avoid gouging my eyes out with my thumbs I really don't remember any specifics, save for Krugman assuring us that he's the smartest man in the universe and a later segment in which some brain-dead chick argued that further regulating health care would actually account for increased competition and lower costs. It's virtually impossible to find data suggesting this has ever happened, yet the vast majority of Americans will swallow this garbage hook, line, and sinker.

To top everything off, I had to listen to a bunch of reporters on the BET Awards red carpet droning on about the death of Michael Jackson. One guy literally repeated himself about three times following commercial breaks when he said he never thought he'd see the day Jackson died. Riveting journalism there. And some 20-something actress from Benjamin Button actually said the world's most notorious plastic man made the greatest strides for blacks in history. Hey, I'm not saying Jackson wasn't influential, but I guess this girl's too young to remember Jackie Robinson or MLK.

Of course, this was nothing compared to one lady from Idaho (I think) who said Jackson really "touched me." Let's just say I wasn't the only one in the waiting room who laughed at that one.

Maybe It's Good Some Dems Want Universal Mental Health Insurance

'Cause I'm sure as hell gonna need it after this bill passes.

Apparently the Wealthy Are Unemployed

I love the first paragraph of this Bloomberg story discussing hypersocialist Barack Obama's plan to tax the "wealthy" to overhaul health care in the U.S.

President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

It truly is remarkable how effortlessly the communists are able to shape their class warfare debates. It's always "the wealthy" against "the workers," as if people who don't wish to rely on the state for their own well-being don't work for a living. And if "the wealthy" aren't workers, how in the world did they become wealthy in the first place?

This is not a profound idea. You'd figure some reporter would think to ask someone like the president to explain exactly what more affluent Americans have done to deserve to be robbed so politicians can continue to perpetrate this myth.

And as far as this whole health care business is concerned, it's only a matter of time before Obama and the Democratic Congress completely socialize health insurance. Less than 20 percent of Americans are uninsured. So since Obama always talks about providing health care for those who don't already have it, be sure to ask yourself why those who already do will nevertheless be forced to partake in federally-managed programs too.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the state seeks to control every waking minute of our lives.

Judge Orders Parents to Provide Chemo for Son

Keeping in tradition of Nanny knows best, a Minnesota judge has ruled that parents of a 13-year-old cancer patient must undergo testing to determine if their son would benefit from restarting chemotherapy treatments.

In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.

Because chemotheraphy apparently is a guaranteed cure for cancer. Because it's apparently painless. Because there apparently are no ill side effects. Because it apparently doesn't destroy every last healthy cell in the human body on the off-chance it will eradicate cancer cells.

Inputs or Individuals

I stopped reading Neocon Review regulary a while back, but every so often a really good article appears on economics. Here's an excellent piece by Kevin Williamson on socialized medicine and the calculation problem. If the Holy One has his way, my advice to you is never get sick.

We the Sheeple

Even as Mexico was scaling back its own estimates of deaths related to the swine flu -- at this writing, only 19 of 100 suspected deaths from the H1N1 virus in that country have been confirmed -- my parents were stuck floating around the Pacific last week on a cruise ship instead of docking in the Mexican Riviera after the CDC issued its warning discouraging travel to the area.

Given Americans' general tendency to place their faith in the state, I suppose it's understandable that Carnival chose to defer to what seems to be an almost reflexive sense of paranoia these days instead of rationality and common sense. After all, I can only imagine the lawsuits the company would face if even one person on the ship came down with the swine flu in the event that it disregarded a Perfectly Normal Suggestion by the federal government -- in this economic environment, such negative publicity and the resulting settlements could quite realistically spell financial ruin for any company that depends on customers' disposable income, of which we seem to have less and less with each passing day.

However, it appears that the swine flu isn't exactly living up to the hype the state was hoping it would. Lest you're tempted to think I'm the one being paranoid by saying the government actually wants to provoke crises and instill fear in the rest of us, allow me to direct your attention to one Margaret Chan, bureaucrat-in-charge at the World Health Organization, who is already warning us that the swine flu may return "with a vengeance" in coming months.

"We hope the virus fizzles out, because if it doesn't we are heading for a big outbreak." But she said: "I’m not predicting the pandemic will blow up, but if I miss it and we don't prepare, I fail. I'd rather over-prepare than not prepare."

Is there a word that describes hubris and intellectual vapidity? Oh yeah, actually there are two: "politician" and "bureaucrat." According to Chan, if the virus doesn't "fizzle out," we're ipso facto heading for a "big outbreak." But then she tells us if she misses said outbreak, then she fails. So she'd rather over-prepare than under-prepare, even though "succeeding" in her capacity of Big Cheese at the WHO would really only mean identifying a "big outbreak" that was apparently destined to occur anyway as a result of the virus's inability to "fizzle out."

Boy, thank goodness we've got Maggie Chan on the case! Clearly none of us is capable of merely identifying a pandemic as our friends and family members begin to drop dead. (At this point we'll just let Chan slide in referring to the swine flu as a pandemic even though it's not -- she's got enough on her plate already with the logic failures contained within those three short sentences.)

Despite all the attention the swine flu has been getting of late, one has to wonder how this virus compares to the regular old flu. Much has been made of the Mexico City toddler who died last week in Houston, marking the first U.S. death from swine flu. However, while the death of children is particularly devastating, we need to keep things in perspective. The "regular" flu kills 36,000 Americans annually -- on average, that's 3,000 people a month -- yet we haven't heard much about the roughly 1,500 folks who've likely succumbed to this illness in the past few weeks alone.

Vigilance in the face of disease is always sensible and particularly so when concentrated outbreaks are identified, but so too is caution when we clearly identify actions by statist politicians and bureaucrats who insist on maintaining a climate of fear.

Ironically, Barack Obama has urged us to remain calm during this alleged health crisis while many of his underlings, including his VP, seem to be doing the exact opposite. Astute individuals will identify this good cop/bad cop routine for what it is: a calculated ruse intended to convince the hoi polloi to remain confident in the very same state that causes conflict and then presents itself as the solution to problems it created in the first place.

Will the Feds Respect States' Rights on Medical Marijuana?

Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that federal narcotics officers will only enforce unconstitutional and immoral federal marijuana laws in states that have not legalized medical marijuana.

That would be a departure from the Bush administration, which targeted medical marijuana dispensaries in California even if they complied with that state's law.

"The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law," Holder said in a question-and-answer session with reporters at the Justice Department.

Well, whaddya know? If this shift in policy actually comes to fruition, I guess we'll no longer be able to say that Barack Obama has followed completely in the footsteps of his predecessor.

While this technically would signal a very small win for civil liberties at the federal level -- on this particular issue, the feds would at least acknowledge limitations on power that the founders intended to apply broadly -- it's hardly an indication that the Obama administration is interested in reforming oppressive drug laws. 

Indeed, though the feds have no business regulating drug use at all, Holder has made it clear that his office still intends to target, harass, terrorize, incarcerate, and even kill regular ol' peaceful marijuana users across the country, to say nothing of people who choose to use other, more dangerous drugs. And according to this report, it's entirely unclear what will become of people like Charles Lynch, who was convicted on federal charges last year for running a legal dispensary in California.

While a little marijuana freedom is clearly better than none at all, I'm a little skeptical of this push to legalize marijuana for medical purposes alone. I happen to be a proponent of outright drug legalization, especially at the federal level, but I can't help but wonder whether this narrow focus on marijuana's medicinal value won't simultaneously perpetuate its stigma as a dangerous drug that should remain illegal for everyone without a bogus permission slip from the state.

Certainly the argument can me made that it's almost impossible to recover lost liberties all at once. After all, Americans are living proof that if the state simply chips away at our freedoms one step at a time -- think progressively tyrannical smoking bans -- we'll apparently consent to anything; so it makes sense that such maneuvering would work when it came to regaining our rights, as well.

Therefore, we should by all means fight for any victory against the state, no matter how minimal, just as long as we keep the big picture in mind: the state is our enemy, and we all have a natural right to behave in any manner we choose so long as it does no tangible harm to anyone else.

What we need to bear in mind with regard to Holder's announcement is that the Obama administration is not contemplating this shift in policy simply because it retains a healthy respect for states' rights. Modern presidents don't just issue policy directives that limit their own power. If this change actually occurs, you can rest assured it will be because it works to the president's benefit in at least some capacity (and one that will likely remain unknown to anyone outside his inner circle).

So take a moment to cherish this supposed win for individual liberties -- but only a moment. You will know true liberty only when the state is disarmed and no longer retains a license to kill merely to preserve its hegemony over our lives.

More Change We Can Believe In

Just kidding, of course. Here the Obama regime's prospective surgeon general speaks out against marijuana legalization.

How very "liberal" and "progressive" of the newbies. And different from current policy, I might add.

What a joke. 

NY Gov to Lard State Coffers with 'Fat Tax'

New York Gov. David Paterson proposes an 18 percent tax on sugary drinks putatively to help save taxpayers money in socialized health care costs, according to state health commissioner Richard Daines.

Yes, this makes much more sense than getting rid of welfare programs like Medicaid in the first place.

In defending this nanny-state regulation of people's dietary preferences, Daines says, "The message here is moderation, not abstinence ... I've seen lives ruined and controlled by things like obesity and tobacco and other addictions."

No word yet on what New Yorkers plan to do about their fearless leaders' addiction to power.

Anthony Kiedis Could Afford a Couple Kidneys

Reports surfaced this week suggesting that Red Hot Chili Peppers singer Anthony Kiedis is suffering from kidney disease. From to the NY Daily News:

According to several sources, the former cocaine and heroin addict was a frequent patient at L.A.’s Cedars-Sinai hospital last summer as he battled kidney disease.

“Anthony’s health was pretty bleak,” a close friend tells us of the rocker, whose partying ways of the past contributed to his condition.

“Organ failure was a possibility. There was talk of how to get him on a transplant list, to cover all the bases, but that opened up a whole new can of worms because people with histories of drug and alcohol abuse are less likely to receive the organs they need.”

No doubt decades of drug and alcohol abuse can cost you a couple kidneys. But why should that be any reason for the state to deny people replacement organs?

It's illegal to sell human organs for profit in the U.S., which means that all patients, regardless of means, are relegated to organ donor lists while they wait in line for others to die -- usually young people killed in untimely accidents -- so they can have a chance to live. In fact, if you attempted to sell or purchase an organ for transplant, you'd be accused of "trafficking" in human organs and likely receive a visit from a SWAT team.

According to Virginia Postrel, as of January 2007 there were almost 100,000 people on transplant lists, over two-thirds of whom were in need of kidneys. Postrel notes, "[N]obody has to die to supply a kidney. They can come from living donors, who can live perfectly normal lives with a single kidney and who now account for nearly 40 percent of all kidney transplants."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the lead singer of one of the most popular rock backs of all time could probably afford a couple kidneys if he was willing to pay for them. But the point is moot so far as the state is concerned.

If reports are true and Anthony Kiedis is in need of a kidney transplant, he will not only be forced to take his place naturally in line behind the last guy who signed up, but he'll also be discriminated against due to drug and alcohol use. Indeed, it's likely the government would even allow others behind him to take his place as long as they've lived "cleaner" lifestyles.

This is absurd. In a free country, purchasing human organs would be no more illegal than buying replacement blue jeans, bourbon, or automobiles.

Faced with no options other than organ donation, most people probably wouldn't find it very cost effective to give up a kidney to a perfect stranger. But what if they could be paid $100,000 for their trouble? Or a million? 

It's practically impossible at this point to say how a private organ market would operate, but this much is certain: Life and death shouldn't have to come down to dumb luck, and our fate most certainly should not be ultimately dictated by the state.

An Application of the 'Myth of Failed Policy' Thesis

Yesterday I posted a link to a Robert Higgs speech at the FFF conference and also to his essay, The Myth of "Failed" Policies. In that essay, Dr. Higgs argues that when we ask the question "Cui bono (To whom the good)" we will realize that there is no failed policy. We've simply been misled if we believe that our rulers design policy to benefit the masses. An application of this thesis, albeit not an explicit application, can be found in this LRC podcast. Lew Rockwell interviews Dr. Thomas Dorman who argues that the apparent failure of our medical system is not at all an accident. This is not a case of good intentions gone bad but rather a calculated effort by socialists and communists to assert social control over the masses.

Against Socialized Medicine

Bill Anderson has an excellent articleon socialism and medicine over at LewRockwell.com today. This is a really, really good piece. Mr. Anderson gives a brief history explaining how our medical system deteriorated into the chaotic mess we have today. What I found more rewarding was Mr. Anderson's application of the socialist calculation problem advance by Ludwig von Mises to Canada's health care system. Since the future portends much more political action to fully socialize the health care industry, we must be ready with our arguments for why this will fail and make us all worse off (all of us except our rulers who always find ways to find the quality goods and services they forbid us to have).

Win for Liberty in Washington State

According to the Seattle Times, voters in Washington made a significant statement with regard to personal liberty by approving the state's assisted suicide initiative, which would allow terminally ill patients to self-administer prescribed lethal medication.

Opponents, including the Catholic church, said assisted suicide is a dangerous step that devalues human life. Critics also said the assisted suicide measure could exploit depressed or vulnerable people who worry they've become a burden on their families.

No church -- no individual, no one -- has any right whatsoever to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own bodies as long as it harms no one else. The right to own one's body is the most precious right any of us has, and that means we have the right to put any chemical we like into it regardless of whatever immoral busybodies think about it.

I can't think of anything that devalues human life more than laws that force people to suffer needlessly in excrutiating pain during the final days of their lives.

The Evil FDA

Lew Rockwell interviews Bill Sardi on the FDA. Sardi reveals how the FDA's actions or inactions lead to more death. He also shows how the drug companies work with the FDA to gain power and money. Unfortunately, he thinks that the only way people will wake up to their fleecing is if drug prices become unaffordable and they are forced to look for alternatives. He and Lew also discuss the American perception of the State as a deity whom they trust in all things, something I write about all the time.

Why You Should Avoid Doing Business with the State

Hans Hermann Hoppe points out regularly that the State is the ultimate judge of conflict including conflicts involving itself. Thus, it should be no surprise that the State regularly rules in its own favor. Here's a real-life example involving CareFirst and the DC Government. The DC Council says that CareFirst is not living up to its obligation as a "charitable and benevolent institution." The Council has drawn up legislation to force CareFirst to establish “a percentage of gross premiums from all sources that must be devoted to community health reinvestment[.]” Extortion at its finest. According to the legislation, "CareFirst has a mission to reinvest in the community’s health 'to the maximum feasible extent' and 'should not be permitted free rein to accumulate surplus. …'" Note the dubiety of the statements and, moreover, note who the final judge of the meaning of the statements is.

CareFirst disputes this claim, arguing that it paid $88 million in taxes to the federal government and District premium taxes last year. It also claims that it has given more than $100 million to worthy community causes over the past three years. Of course, in the minds of the greedy council members, this sum is not a sufficient ransom; more is owed. The Examiner notes that this conflict arose because CareFirst was disobedient to its rulers. The Council wanted CareFirst to give $5 million to Healthy DC, a council initiative aimed at reducing the number of people without insurance. CareFirst said "no" and is now incurring the wrath of the council. Hell hath no fury like a government bureaucrat scorned.

If a genuine third party were available to judge this "contract," CareFirst may have a chance to win. But it has to present its argument in a DC court of law. One tentacle of the State gets to interpret what the exact mission of CareFirst is using deliberately equivocal language in legislation that another tentacle wrote. Thus, the State is judging a conflict between a business and itself. Just whom do you think will prevail? Should the State win this conflict, and in all likelihood it will, CareFirst will have to surrender a percentage of its premiums to satisfy the cupidity of the council. But if in the future the council deems that percentage not enough, guess who gets to judge whether this "contract" can be voided and a new, higher percentage be enacted?

Is There Hope for Health Care in the Future?

There might be according to this report on MSNBC. According to the survey, 80 percent of Americans believe that the health care system needs a complete overhaul. The chief complaints were "[a]ccess to care, better coordination between different health providers and better flow of health information..." The nonprofit fund that released the report offered some suggestions to fix the system. While there are no details in this MSNBC report, the fund "recommends rewarding health providers for high quality care, and offering patients incentives for seeking out health providers that offer the best and most efficient care." Funny, I always thought that free markets did just that, but what do I know? Perhaps a group of overeducated elites relying on their pretense of knowledge can make better decisions for the millions of Americans seeking health care and the thousands of health care providers. Would any of our loyal readers would like to bet that the fund said the government should completely withdraw from the health care market?

Surveys such as these tend to give me a 1/4 teaspoon of hope that liberty can prevail. When so many people so clearly see the failure of an industry, it's possible that some will be open to the radical proposition that the market will work fine as soon as that parasite, the State, is removed from the veins. Clearly the State is the problem in health care and if people can be convinced of this they may also be convinced that the State is the root problem of all of our suffering.

But as I have written regularly, ideology is everything. As long as most people in this country have faith in this idol, the State, they will always look to the State to solve all problems. Even when the evidence is clear that the State is the problem, those who believe in the State will continue to make excuses for it, give it carte blanche to do whatever it orders, and obey whatever it dictates. What is needed for real change is a second American Revolution in the hearts and minds of the citizens.

The War on Obesity

According to this AP report, restaurant kid's meals have too many calories. In other surprising news, scientists have found that when they drop objects off buildings, they fall down rather than float. I'm not an expert in the food business, but it seems to me that the reason why fast food exists is because that's what people want. From the article:

"Parents want to feed their children healthy meals, but America’s chain restaurants are setting parents up to fail,” CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan said in a statement. “McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, and other chains are conditioning kids to expect burgers, fried chicken, pizza, French fries, macaroni and cheese, and soda in various combination at almost every lunch and dinner.”

Is there a rule at fast food restaurants that children must eat only selections from the Kid's Menu? Will parents be kicked out of the restaurant if they dare purchase a salad for their children? Will the real parents who actually take full responsibility for the upbringing of their children please stand up?

Just about every fast food restaurant has healthy selections. For instance, at Wendy's you could buy a Chicken Grill Sandwich, a side salad with no-fat dressing, a plain baked potato, and water for about 625 calories. Ditch the sandwich bun, and lose another 120 calories. I could go to just about any fast food place in the country and put together a healthy meal. The reason: I have actually taken the time to learn about nutrition and more importantly, I apply discipline in my choices. I realize this may sound a little boastful, but the point I'm trying to make is that it takes time to learn about healthy eating and perseverance to endure the temptations of very tasty, but very fattening food. I plan my meals for the week and anticipate any evenings where I may have to eat out. This takes a lot of work; even more if you have a family. But such virtues cannot be coerced through the violence of the State.

If health advocates really wanted to help people become accountable for their own bodies, they should advocate an end to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These programs have socialized the costs of being unhealthy. If people had to pay out-of-pocket for doctor's services, they would have to weigh, no pun intended, the costs of being unhealthy with the benefits of being healthy. Right now there are no real costs to being unhealthy.

Cure for HIV?

Doctors in Houston think they may have found a way to eradicate the disease.

I guess now we may have to hope condom companies don't start lobbying Congress to prevent this potential cure from hitting the market.

Pot Can Cure Cancer

But who cares as long as politicians can pretend it's more important to criminalize a friggin' plant, right?

Your Body Belongs to the State

New York wants all Bronx residents tested for HIV.

The campaign will push to make the voluntary testing routine in emergency rooms and storefront clinics, where complicated consent procedures required by state law have deterred doctors from offering the tests in the past, city officials say.

“Routine would mean if you came into the emergency room for asthma or a broken leg, we test everyone for HIV, if they’re willing,” Frieden says.

Until they're not willing and then, well, you already guessed it.

Turning a Blind Eye to the State

Literally.

In an inspirational story out of Washington State, Georgenne Harvey, blinded as a teenager as a result of a congenital eye problem, ignored suggestions from doctors to institutionalize her handicapped grandson, Nicholas, in order to raise him from a baby with the help of friends and neighbors.

"Nicky," severely disabled after suffering abuse as an infant at the hands of his biological mother's boyfriend, has graduated from Federal Way High School with the Class of 2008 with Grandma and other loved ones by his side.

Free the Wonder Drug

It alleviates pain associated with radiation and chemotherapy. It relieves nausea. It combats anorexia, the most common symptom in cancer patients. It relieves headaches and stress. It helps HIV/AIDS patients maintain their appetites. It's even shown promise as a cancer cure. It's been shown to reduce agitation in Alzheimer's sufferers. It effectively treats the inflammatory effects of rheumatoid arthritis. It's effective in treating muscle spasticity and other movement disorders. It's non-addictive. And, yes, it just plain makes people feel good.

I'm talking, of course, about marijuana. Weed. Pot. Cannabis. Chronic. Herb. Happy grass.

Whatever you like to call it, marijuana has already been found to effectively treat numerous maladies, and NORML's Paul Armentano wonders how many more people will have to suffer and die before the federal government puts an end to its mindless suppression of research touting the anti-cancer effects of cannabis.

Obama Is a Lunatic

From a rally two days ago in Oregon:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

No, only King Barack will enjoy the fruits of wealth from the White House while forcing the rest of us to ration our gas, meals, and utilities.

This guy's a whackjob who would probably make us nostalgic for a W presidency.

How Cool Is Capitalism?

So cool that I bet most of us take it for granted and really don't realize how poor, standard of living-wise, we'd be without it.

Take, for example, my wife's purchase of a rectal thermometer tonight. My infant son's poor hind end aside, these remarkable little tools come in digital form nowadays and can be purchased for about only eight bucks-- and that's even considering the crappy value of the dollar today.

But think about it: for less than the cost of the five-piece chicken finger meal at Popeye's, you can buy an instrument that will tell you -- within a tenth of a degree -- what your child's temperature is. Put another way, the thermometer -- which I guarantee most of us take for granted -- will let you know whether your child is fighting infection, how severe said infection may be, and whether or not immediate medical assistance is necessary.

How many lives the thermometer -- this wonder of the free market -- must already have saved simply because it can provide us with an immediately reliable gauge of our health.

If I Ever Find Myself in a Nursing Home...

...I sure hope it's in Denmark.

Sen. Barb Mikulski: Human Crutch

You wonder how people can believe gun control laws eliminate violence, and then you read something like this. We should just pass a law for world peace while we're at it.

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) announced Wednesday that her legislation to prevent falls among senior citizens into law has passed both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and is headed to President Bush for his signature.

The Safety of Seniors Act of 2007 (S. 845) authorizes new programs to help prevent falls among older adults through public education, research and demonstration projects.

[...]

"Falls don't discriminate. This is a serious public health problem that directly affects our seniors and their family members," said Senator Mikulski. "This legislation provides a framework to reduce and prevent elder falls through public education campaigns and important research."

Well, falls may not discriminate, but Barbara Mikulski apparently does. No mention in this bill of any measures to prevent me from busting my ass after drinking in Atlantic City during my buddy's bachelor party this weekend.

(Thanks to Keith.)

Better Ban Cell Phones in Bars and Restaurants Next

One study says cell phones could kill more people than smoking will.

"Universal Health Care" Will Be the Nail in the Coffin of America

If Americans don't wake up soon and begin to question the half-baked plans our beloved politicians have to control every waking minute of our lives, life as we think we know it in this "land of the free" will be all but over.

Nothing poses as greater threat to our livelihood than "universal health care" -- a pernicious, socialist mandate that masquerades as a utopian program retaining the ability to provide health care for every American. But to paraphrase Norman Singleton, a government powerful enough to guarantee health care is powerful enough to deny it.

When prices are set artificially low -- or worse yet, when a good or service is "free" -- demand skyrockets. Naturally, because it is impossible for supply to meet this sudden uptick in demand, shortages ensue. Singleton notes that almost half of the maternity wards in the U.K. are turning away women in labor because they have no room to accommodate them.

And that's merely one problem. What happens when the state deems your condition "too expensive" to fund? You're essentially sentenced to death, as is the case with hundreds of British patients who have a rare lung disease.

Kind of puts the lie to the whole notion of "universal" health care, doesn't it?

The worst part about such a program isn't even the universally horrendous care it would provide; it's that it would set the table for epic levels of nanny-state, paternalistic government control in the first place.

Have you ever wondered what the actual reasons are for government bans on smoking or trans fats? If you think politicians simply care about your health, you're probably dumb enough to...well...be a politician. These draconian bans are nothing more than the government's attempt to cut projected health care costs for those of us it's already subsidizing today. And if they have to trample our liberties to do it...ehh.

Giving the state the power to control our health care costs amounts to nothing more than giving them the power to literally control every breath we take. Because the government will be determining what and how much of our health care to cover, it will likewise micromanage every move we make in the attempt to limit those expenditures. This is not rocket science.

You might already be thinking that we're screwed no matter who's inaugurated next January. You might just be right. After all, "universal health care" will be a guarantee under either Hillary or Obama and a Democratic Congress. And even though McCain insists he opposes such a policy, come on...he's a politician. Don't you think Mr. Go-Along-to-Get-Along would compromise with legislators in a pacemaker-assisted heartbeat in order to gain funding for his wars crimes?

I realize most Americans are too fat and happy to even bother to notice their liberties are being extinguished by the day -- hell, most don't even give a crap about about all the money and lives wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the primaries have taught us -- but unless we get off our asses and get pissed off about the state's plans to commandeer our remaining freedoms under the guise of "health care for all," the term "standard of living" will eventually be an oxymoron.

You know things are bad when I actually hope a Washington lobby has the clout to prevent this impending disaster.

Surprise! Politicians Inhibit Medical Research

Here's some irony for you: The safest drug in the world is the hardest to conduct medical research on -- all because medical professionals can't get permission from petty tyrants at the state and federal level to do their testing.

Of course, I'm talking about marijuana. The one drug it's virtually impossible to overdose on.

Life in the Soviet Union

Sorry if sometimes I confuse our totalitarians with some of history's most repressive monsters.

You can read the report for yourself, but I particularly like John McCain's sentiment toward "illegal drugs":

...Americans are to blame for "creating the demand" for illegal drugs that come into the country and give too much power to drug cartels that terrorize border areas.

"We are creating the demand. We are creating the demand for these drugs coming across our border, which maybe means that we should go back more trying to make some progress and in telling Americans, particularly young Americans, that the use of drugs is a terrible thing for them to do," he said.

Wrong again, American Hero John McCain. Americans can create a demand for legal drugs, but only the government can create a demand for illegal ones -- by criminalizing entrepreneurship.

Only a politician could fail to understand how cartels are created.