If people have to choose between freedom and sandwiches, they will take sandwiches.

One of the big issues that's been getting a lot of discussion is universal healthcare- or, as I like to call it, socialist health care. Most of the Democrats are for it, the polls show that the people who are being polled want it, and most people I talk to seem to think it's the bee's knees. I, however, do not. I think the last thing we should be doing is putting the government in charge of our healthcare. That's not because I think the healthcare system we have now is great. I don't, it needs to be reformed.

But I don't believe that more government is the solution. I know politicians tell us it is, but really: when has more government ever made things better? I'm not going to list all the things government has made worse and more expensive, because it would take too long. But do some research, read some books, and if you still think more government is the answer we'll talk then. For now I'll just mention Social Security and Medicare. Two programs that started small, were supposed to be efficient, weren't supposed to be too expensive, and so on. Now? They are both enormously expensive programs that have continued to balloon out of control. They are both going bankrupt. And so on. You can look up both the original claims that were made about the programs and the current numbers, if you don't believe me. History repeats itself. And if we don't do something, it will again: compare what was said about the New Deal programs when they were passed and what's being said about universal heathcare now.

It is especially important to understand this because there are other, non-governmental options that would work much better. Unfortunately, the media doesn't discuss these options and most people are unwilling to do the research themselves. I'm just going to give one example here, but there are many others. Look into them! This one is not my brainchild, other people have proposed it and I just happen to agree.

In 2006, ~$220 of every $1,000 of your tax dollars went to pay for healthcare. Under this plan you'd be allowed to keep that money, put it in the bank where it would earn interest. But when you went to the doctor, you'd pay for it out of your own pocket- no health insurance, no middle man. Most people don't go to the doctor very much (or they go for unnecessary things, like stomach aches), so odds are you'd just save most of that money. At the same time, because insurance would be out of the picture you'd be able to go to any doctor you wanted to. Because doctors would be competing for business 1) the best doctors would rise to the top and be available to everyone, and 2) prices would go down (competition lowers prices, look it up, and dealing with insurance is expensive). Finally, you could buy some sort of emergency insurance, for if you got cancer or something else too expensive to pay for out of pocket. This sort of plan would work, and work better than any government insurance ever would.

Start thinking outside the box, do your own research, and maybe we can get our freedom back. We can make our own sandwiches.

The title of today's post is a quote by Lord Boyd-Orr. Sadly, it still applies today.

In its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from facism.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about leaving this country. I'd already decided that I was going to leave New York for somewhere less stifling on individual freedoms within the next three years, but now I think that may not be drastic enough. Don't get me wrong, I love America and everything she's supposed to stand for. What I don't love is the politicians that are perverting it. Yesterday I read an article about Hillary Clinton in the New York Times. For those of you that haven't yet had the displeasure of reading it, I'll post the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?_r=1&ex=1358571600&en=ff696d598a7af887&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

First let me say: if you don't know what's wrong with the picture she's drawing, you really need to be reading an economics book right now. But let me help you get part of the way. An executive's compensation is agreed upon by him and the company. CEOs get paid so much because they're worth it, in the eyes of the market. HC wants to step in and impose her opinion of what's too much on parties who would otherwise come to a mutual understanding: freedom of choice being taken away. Instead of lowering taxes, which would increase the economy by letting people spend more of their money, she wants to raise taxes on the "wealthy." The top 1% of wage earners is already paying 40% of all taxes, and the bottom fifth is paying nothing... but that's not good enough. According to her, raising taxes on the wealthy will help the economy. How? She's not asked, and she doesn't explain. Freedom to keep what you earn continues to dwindle away. Socialism, anyone?

She also wants the government to create more jobs by raising spending on "job creating projects." Forget all the free market options that would help create jobs, the government to the rescue. Final thoughts: jobs did once pay enough to allow one parent to support the family, but they don't anymore. A couple of reasons you won't hear HC mention: taxes are too high, and the government refuses to control inflation so prices are rising while wages can't keep up. HC wants to halt foreclosures and freeze subprime interest rates. This would make it nearly impossible for anyone without perfect credit to qualify for a mortgage at an affordable interest rate. Sounds like socialism to me.

I've been asking myself, when did we get to the point where people actually agree with ideas like this? Do she and Edwards get away with their socialist views because people don't understand why it won't work? or do they just not care? I am very, very frustrated, and you should be too. I for one am not going to work if taxes keep getting raised. I'm already angry that in September when I start work I'll be paying at least 30% of my income in taxes. I'm angry, but I'm trying to do something about it, so I'll work anyway. But if I'm expected to pay 40% or 50% of my income in taxes, I'm just going to leave the country. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way, either. Except for American companies relocating to other countries and wealthy Americans moving their money offshore I don't have any data to back me up, but you can only push people so far before they just say "no." (I think more people should have said no a long time ago, but that's a whole other post.) This country is quickly coming to a point where one of two things will happen: we'll either have an Atlas Shrugged scenario, or there'll be a revolution. Things can't keep going the way they're going.

Do you hear that? It's the death throes of individual responsiblity- and freedom. If freedom lovers are going to prevail we have to unite and start making a concerted effort now- we have to take a stand. If we don't... well, I can almost hear the socialists cheering.

The title of today's post is a quote from The Socialist Tragedy, by Ivor Thomas.