Is Political Correctness a Weapon in the War on Freedom?

By Grant Davies

You may have heard this story recently. It's been floating around the net, but of course it hasn't been covered by the mainstream media. At least I haven't seen it. To be fair, I don't watch very much of the mostly useless drivel they peddle as "news"on those networks, so feel free to correct me if you saw it on one of them.

Since the theme of this blog is freedom and individual rights, it only seems right to bring this to your attention. When someone's rights are violated they lose some of their freedom. It doesn't matter which thugs are doing the violating.

It could be common street thugs who steal the liberty of inner city teenagers by attempting to force them into joining a gang. Losing the right to walk the streets freely unless you comply is no small loss.

It could be union thugs who use their partnership with government thugs to force people into joining their gang. Losing the right to work for whom you choose at a mutually agreed upon wage is no small loss.

Or it could be the thugs in government (at all levels) who steal individual liberty in ways too numerous to count. All the small losses add up to a mostly un-free existence.

In the case below it is university administrators who use political correctness to squash individual liberty. Those in charge at Syracuse University tried their best to destroy the career path and aspirations of the young man below by labeling him as a racist (and other vile things). He dared to make a personal post on his Facebook page questioning the opinion of someone who held that he was somehow unqualified to teach non-white students because he wasn't from a traditionally black college.

His right to work as a teacher may be over because of it. He seems to have "won" round one (or two, depending upon what you count) by exposing the thugs. But it remains to be seen if he will be blacklisted for not being black.

If he is, it will be no small loss for any of us.



Comments are welcome.

Free Trade is Part of Freedom

By Grant Davies

I maintain that I have the right, as a human being, to make economic (or other) arrangements with any other human being on this planet without violent or coercive interference of third parties, whether individuals, or groups of individuals. Those groups would typically be governments, trade unions, or other trade associations.

The only legitimate restriction on that right is that I do not engage in behavior that infringes on the equal right of other human beings to do likewise. Any interference with that right is illegitimate, whether "legal" or otherwise.

"Free Trade" is a basic human right.


 

How To Catch Wild Pigs

By Grant Davies

Most of us get a ton of forwarded emails each week. I get my share. If you do as well you know they have something in common with the jokes that also get to your inbox. That is, you have seen most of them before. Similarly, I'm sure many of you have seen the one below in the past.

I received it yesterday from a reader, and even though I had not seen this one before, it reminded me of the well traveled recipe for "How to cook a frog." Anyone who somehow missed that recipe over the years can leave a comment below and I'll retell it for you.

Let's title this one, "How To Catch Wild Pigs." We can assume it is a parable rather than a literal retelling. We can also assume it has been added to, redacted, and otherwise edited by numerous readers along the way before they passed it along to their list. I was tempted to do the same but decided against it. Here is the story.

There was a chemistry professor in a large college, who had some exchange students in his class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question.

He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?" The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn.

When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.

They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side."

The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America .

The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc., while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

 So there is the parable. It should provoke thought about where we are and where we are going as a country. I would also observe that the last paragraph seems to make the assumption that there is a conspiracy (of sorts) that has, and continues, to "push us toward Communism/Socialism" purposely. I'm not personally ready to take that leap as it stands, but neither do I dismiss the possibility out of hand.

There certainly exist in the world people who would do just that if they could. I question only whether they have been able to be successful enough in the endeavor or whether Thomas Jefferson was correct in predicting that "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

In either case we know one thing for sure, penned pigs usually end up being slaughtered.

Carl Holzhouser, one of the highly paid researchers for this blog sent this piece along. Good work Carl! Expect your compensation to be 20% more on your next find than you received for this one.

Ron Paul's Farewell Address

I don't think that anyone who visits this site will watch this entire speech. But I thought I'd post it here anyway. If you only watch five minutes of it you will be five minutes better off than if you don't.

The day is approaching when a lot of people will wish they had paid more attention to what he said.

Post Mortem - Get a Helmet

By Grant Davies

Yesterday this blog had a lot more visitors than normal.

Why? I didn't write anything. Nothing new here. No emails went out to announce a new blog post. No last minute advice on the election. No predictions.

What were those visitors looking for? I don't know. But whatever they hoped to find, they didn't find it. This blog had long ago made the case for freedom and against dependency on government. There was nothing left to be said before the American people went to the polls to decide if they wanted to be Europeans or stick with the American dream of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Yesterday they chose the Nanny State. That's what the election was about. It doesn't matter what you thought it was about, or what your neighbor thought it was about. It doesn't matter if your team was blue or red.

And sorry to say, that decision is irreversible. Normally after one party loses they lick their wounds and start working on the next election. But not this time.

Oh, they will go through the motions. And many will buy into the notion that in the next election people will right the wrongs. Surely the people will come to their senses. Sorry folks, not this time.

There are now more people beholden to government for their sustenance than those who are not. And in four years there will be many, many more. More government employees. More people getting money from government programs. More people who have children and other family members who will lose their jobs or benefits if the government ever shrinks.

They will never vote for that to happen. Whatever or whomever people may vote for, they never vote against themselves. The American experiment has failed. It was just as had been predicted by so many over the last two hundred years who understood human nature.

The election was not about Romney. He had no plan or ability to save us from ourselves. The best he could have done would have been to buy some time. He was after all, a moderate Democrat. He thinks government has the answers. He is wrong.

And the election wasn't about how bad Obama is. He is merely a reflection of the attitudes of most of the people. He can get back to the golf course now. I don't blame him. That's what I'm going to do.

So now we will learn for the first time what it feels like to be in a country which is in decline. The Europeans have known that feeling for a long time. We'll get used to it too.

My only advice to anyone who still wants it is this; If you don't have a helmet you better go and get one. And if you have one, you better put it on. Because there is some heavy shrapnel heading our way. Not tomorrow, but sooner than anyone thinks.

And your team, no matter what color it was, won't help you now. 

Obama Just Lost Re-election. One and Done.

The opposition will be energized like never before. It won't help. 


The Constitution has been judged by the Supreme Court to have no effective restraints on government. 


The great experiment has failed. 


Sorry kids, I did my best.

Some Straight Answers About Cato

As many of you know, The Cato Institute is a public policy think tank that promotes free markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and civil society in general.  They have a very extensive web site which explains that, and a lot of other things, in detail. You can and should visit the site at Cato.org.

Ed Crane is the founder and President of the Cato Institute. I've met Ed at various Cato functions over the years (just to say hello and exchange pleasantries) and he seems to me to be a genuinely nice guy who just happens to have made the promotion of freedom and human dignity his life's work. In my opinion, the world is a somewhat better place because he made that choice.

So when I saw this very short video of Ed explaining some of his philosophy, I knew it was a good thing to share with our readers. His thoughtful answers to a few basic questions, without any over the top rhetoric or other distractions, may answer some of the questions you might have asked him if you were being introduced to Cato for the first time.

The concepts are simple, and I'm a simple guy, so perhaps that's why I've always been attracted to them.

What's the Difference? It's Obvious

We all remember the old jokes that always started with the line "What's the difference between a blank and a blank?" Or the reverse, "how is a blank like a blank?" Most of them weren't too funny. The current philosophical (dare I say?) battle isn't that humorous either.

After a semi-political exchange in the comment section of a Face Book post by a largely non-political acquaintance the other day, I got to thinking about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

The issue being commented upon isn't important because any other "us vs them" issue would have had a similar ring to it. And since I'm not a Republican and I have no idea if the other commentators are Democrats, it really was just one more discussion about nothing of true importance. Such discussions are getting more frequent than they used to be and they seem to be more about which "side" you are on than anything else.

It didn't take me long to remember that the differences between those two political parties weren't as important as the similarities of those groups, so it was a nonstarter. You probably couldn't find a single member of either of those parties that would agree with me on that premise. They have too much emotional energy invested in their "teams" and I'm sure I will come under equal scorn by both.

Then I tried for liberals and conservatives. The differences were starker and more numerous, but when it comes to the governance part of those ideologies, they started to run together as well. From my perspective they both are interested in using government power to advance their own particular agenda for the country. (Or for the whole world for that matter.) George W Bush's "compassionate conservatism" agenda is ample evidence for that. As is the Clintonian "moderate liberalism" model.

I finally decided that the big differences are between the ideologies of big government "progressives" and freedom minded "classical liberals." (Today largely known as libertarians) It is in these two belief systems that the differences and the friction lies. I count myself among the latter group so I have a bias when describing the differences.

In a short essay such as this just a few of these differences can be counted, but who knows, maybe other essays will follow that describe the many others.

First there is the purpose of government itself.
One group views it as a necessary means to defend the rights of the people and very little else. Thomas Jefferson and I are among that group. (It's really fun to link myself to 'ole Tom even if you aren't falling for it.) The "progressives" of today think that the purpose of government is to solve societal problems and implement policies which reflect the vision of some angelic elite group who possess superior intellect.

So laws are to defend rights or to right wrongs. (It only sounds confusing.)

Next is taxes to run government.
One group thinks the purpose is just that, to run government. To raise revenue. The other group thinks taxes are the best method of promoting "fairness." Another way to describe it is to "spread the wealth" as Barak Obama explained it to Joe the plumber. The same is true of the argument over the spending of tax revenues, so it doesn't deserve it's own category.

These things are fundamental to many of us so you may be wondering why I have taken the time to point out the obvious. It's because when both sides of the philosophical aisle start to bicker about whose fault it is when some whack job kills a bunch of innocent people while trying to assassinate a US Representative all of the real differences get lost in the battle between people who largely agree on the big issues even if they don't realize it.

To me the differences are obvious even if this list is abbreviated. Can't we all just get along?
Umm,, no.

Do You Remember How It Felt?

Yesterday I walked four miles in order to vote in the most important election of my life. If I had to, I would have walked further, much further. No, I didn't have to walk, I have car with sufficient fuel, but I felt like walking and I'm glad I did. It wasn't until I arrived at our City Hall where I cast my "early voting ballot" that I felt the almost corny symbolism of the act, or until back home that I felt the satisfaction that accompanied it.

Since that "freedom march" didn't involve large crowds of the like minded or the carrying of a protest sign to proclaim "hooray for our side", it was totally different from any former impression I had imagined of what a protest march might be like. I've spent most of my life protesting, but not by marching.

As I walked through the park outside the City Hall complex after voting, I lingered by the granite monument upon which were chiseled the names of some of the people who died as heroes while serving their country and fighting for the relative freedoms I have enjoyed even as I mourn those we have lost along with those brave servicemen. Slowly over time, and recently with accelerated swiftness, our freedoms have been lost in spite of their sacrifice. Freedom and rights lost to the enemy within, not to outside invaders.

So now it's our turn to fight. And I make no comparison to those who gave so much in wars, it's not in the same league commitment wise, but it may be just as important in the end because if we win the first battle to save our country in this election it may mean they didn't die in vain.

So who are the people that deserve to be dismissed from public office in this initial battle? The answer is, those who disregarded us even though they swore to represent us. Those who did what they wanted, not what we wanted. Those who regarded themselves as wiser than us. Those who wanted to totally remake America into something it was never intended to be. Those who insulted us by calling us names like "astro turf" and proudly proclaimed us to be "despicable" (Jan Schakowsky)  for having the temerity to challenge their vision of our future. Those who think we are their subjects, not their employers. Those who, after being rebuked in town hall meetings on so called "heathcare reform" and bailouts for arrogant and incompetent bankers, mortgage lenders, car manufacturers, government regulators and insurance companies decided that WE needed to pay, not them. Those who called us racists for opposing their agenda. Those who have spent our state and federal governments into bankruptcy buying votes.

The question remains, how did you feel to be disregarded? How did you feel to be insulted and told that money would have to be created out of thin air and your taxes would have to be raised to bail out people who lived a dream existence of huge homes, the best vacations, cars and every imaginable new electronic toy on borrowed money they could never hope to repay while you saved, invested, lived within your means and watched your retirement savings and home value swirl the bowl?

So this is it folks. It's November. The election is upon us. For the time being, forget the signs and gatherings and marches. It has been said by some that this is our last chance to save our country, and it may be. But I would point out that we cannot save our way of life in this election, but we certainly can  lose it. The best we can actually hope for is to stop the madness long enough to get the ship turned around so we can purge the crew and elect some people in the next primary season to replace the people who said they were for smaller government and more freedom to live our lives as we see fit but who actually only care about one thing, getting re-elected and retaining the benefits of office. They merely have a need to be in charge. That "need" repulses me.

So I urge you to walk to the polls on election day, and if it's raining or cold, so much the better. Walk because it will make you feel better about having the resolve to tell these people how you felt about being disregarded and derided. Anything less than total repudiation of those responsible for how you felt will be a failure and we will truly deserve whatever fate awaits us in a moribund republic.

This time around, the children voters won't be there to reaffirm them so they have only those who embrace the nanny state and the usual cast of useful idiots to give them their .....Hope for No Change.

Who, But Us?

It's been a tad longer than usual since my last post. I have been working on an essay about the furor over the new Arizona illegal immigration law. It's a difficult essay because it's a difficult problem. The debate is long on emotion and short on logic. It is for subjects like this that I posted the quote at the bottom of this blog, "Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

To some, it may have been only a song title from the era of my youth, but to me, it is an earnest prayer. I have spent my life trying to express myself clearly, mostly to no avail. I tend to ramble on until I have lost my train of thought, or my perspective, or my regard for the opinions and feelings of others. It is the main reason for this blog. It's the reason I write, so I can be thoughtful and reflective instead of reactive and argumentative when I express myself. That goal has been only partially achieved.

And so I am still editing the piece. I'm OK with that, the topic deserves the time and thought. In the meantime, I stumbled across a quote, mainly by accident, (or maybe it was serendipity).
And it caused me to write this piece instead.

Today we had a most welcome and unexpected guest at our home. A very dear friend of ours came to town and we were excited to hear she could visit us. Of course, she brought us gifts. Unnecessary gifts are the very best kind. The gifts were a pizza and a book. Both were fabulous. The pizza is gone. The book will last for a lifetime.

As some of you know, I'm a history buff. I'm not really good at it, but I enjoy it more than almost anything else I do. The book is titled "The Civil War" by author Geoffrey C. Ward. It's an illustrated history of that conflict. I already own it, so I plan on re-gifting it. The one I already have was a gift from someone who loved me, on some occasion, many years ago. But since my memory is poor nowadays, I cannot remember the last time I looked at it or who gave it to me. (I'd bet plenty it was my wife, she knows me the best and loves me the most.)

As I welcomed the book like an old friend I was trying to catch up with, the first page I turned had a quote on it. It might have been written yesterday. It concerns a concept which I have always held true, but one that is met with incredulous stares when expressed publicly.

Many people think you are crazy when you express it as an opinion. Left wing writers go bonkers when they hear it. (As far as I am concerned, they were bonkers before, but let's just say the reaction is not the same as when they get that "tingle going up their leg" like they do when Obama speaks.)

The concept is simply, no other country, or group of countries on this earth can ever take our freedom by force. Only we can do that.

We can cede our rights and freedoms to ourselves in an act of personal and national suicide, but no Hitler or Tojo or Osama can take it from us by force. True Americans will never allow it.

As one of my most important childhood mentors, Ralph Rose, told me on several occasions when I was a high school kid, "Better dead than red." And as someone who fought in "the forgotten war", Korea, he meant it. Literally.

The quote is as follows;

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth...could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years...If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Abraham Lincoln, 1838.

Lincoln knew, and he wasn't afraid to say, that the dangers to our freedoms and rights was/is from within. And although he wrote those words 172 years ago, the steady erosion of our rights has always been perpetrated by our own governments. From slavery to "Jim Crow", from internment camps of our own citizens during WWII to property takings in a perversion of eminent domain, we have always lost our rights primarily to ourselves via government. And the pace of such losses has recently increased more than uncomfortably. Our government should be our servant to defend our rights. Instead, it has become an enemy to our fundamental freedoms.

So who now to be our savior? The only people saving anything around here lately are Jesus of Nazareth and Antti Niemi of the Chicago Black Hawks.

That leaves us. To defend ourselves at the ballot box in November or finish the job of self annihilation by staying on what Friedrich von Hayek called "the road to serfdom."

Somehow, I don't think Barak Obama had this Lincolnian concept in mind when he claimed Ole Abe as his political idol back in 2008.

Interestingly Cursed

It's almost May. Six months remain before the elections. Even though it's been said so often by so many groups that it's almost a cliche, these may be the most important elections in the span of our lives.

As a person who has been involved his entire adult life in trying to promote civil society via individual liberty and personal responsibility, this particular election holds the answer for me to the question of what the people of this country want for their way of life.

As Dr. Walter Williams asks the question: "What is the proper role of government in a free society?" The answer to that question, whether or not we want to be free to succeed or fail, or whether we want to be cared for by a group of people who run the government has finally come up for a vote.

It's that basic, folks. And if the majority of the people want to be free, they will defeat incumbents in large numbers. If the politics of personality and group against group warfare win out, the die will be cast in an ominous way, in my opinion.

Some pundits look for a huge repudiation of those currently in power. Such a person can be viewed in the video found below. It was brought to my attention by my good friend Joe (as astute an observer of events and trends as one will find anywhere) who was kind enough to bring it to my attention, and now yours. An accompanying article can be found here and is also worth your time.

As an old Chinese curse has it, "May you live in interesting times." I for one, along with Joe and a great many others, former Democrats and Republicans alike, certainly are cursed, because we are just as certainly interested in the decisions our fellow citizens will make.

Watering the LiberTree

Ever since my fast forwarded, semi-retirement began in 2008, I have found a good deal of pleasure in planting and maintaining the landscaping around the house which we own, but still pay the local government a huge amount for the privilege of living in. And even though planting low maintenance flora is my goal, even that standard requires quite a bit of moisture if you want it to thrive.

And so it is with the propagation and nurture of concepts and ideas as well. To that end, I constantly comb the internet for interesting information, ideas and people about which to write. Recently in an article written for this page, I referenced an interesting person and his blog. His name is Wesley Messamore and his blog-site is called The Humble libertarian. I recently included a link to it among the others I recommend in the right hand column of this page.
My idea of a good blog-site is one where you can learn something you didn't know before and where there is some original, quality content to agree or disagree with. It's what I try to deliver here, and what Wes & Co. succeed in doing over at The Humble libertarian.

Without really knowing much about Wes, I was intrigued by the grasp he seems to have on issues concerning liberty and the talented writing he and his contributing editors publish on the site. The reason for my intrigue was his apparent age. Even with only a good ball park estimate of his age (he has since informed me of his two decade plus presence among us) I had concluded that I have been bloviating about freedom issues for longer than he has graced this earth. In fact, as my old Berghoff lunch-mate “JO” used to say after encountering a whiz-kid trader on the floor, "Hey, I have kids older than him, Hell, I may even have tennis shoes older than him!"

I'm not sure of the path this young man took to his arrive at his beliefs, or how he got there with such eloquence so quickly, but as the saying goes, the fruit always falls close to the tree, so I would guess it has some connection to his parents or family in general.
As I remarked to Wes in an email, "While most people your age have Levis, you seem to be wearing freedom genes".

On a personal level, our own offspring have a fondness for liberty that can probably be traced back to the long love affair my wife and I have had with freedom, (one second only to the one with each other) so the concept of passing your beliefs along to your children isn't peculiar only to Chicago Democrats or others beholden to the machine for their daily bread. (Even Republicans are Democrats in Chicago if they want to eat.)

The left long ago recognized the obvious; that the young people are the ones who matter when planning for the future. So they seeded many of the government schools and universities while the frog was cooking and today we are seeing the fruits of that farming. From my perspective, the fruit is bitter, millions upon millions of “twenty somethings” embracing the politics of personality and swooning at the prospect of big government “solutions” to societal problems. Short on analysis but long on adoration of the anointed, they are at least partially responsible for the latest crop failure of American governance.

But there are always some weeds in the lawn, and the emergence of a growing number of freedom minded folks of that same age demographic gives me some un-Obamesque hope for actual climate change, of the political variety. And if it can change at anything like the rate the dandelions multiply in my lawn, my children and grandchildren still have an outside chance.

Tonight, Wed. Dec. 2, Wesley will be interviewing the former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson on his web-blog radio program. By the time this is posted, it will be concluded but you can replay it anytime afterward from a link at his site. I snitched a few U-Tube clips from his blog and have added them below so you can see what this former Governor accomplished in his eight years using small government principles in the real world instead of merely making speeches and organizing communities to demand more government programs. Maybe we can all learn something about a guy few of us have ever heard of before.

Although probably not delighted to be described as weeds, young freedom spokesmen need to be "watered" to grow, so even though I think Wesley has already been baptized in a much more important ceremony, I'm going to pour some cyber water on his cyber head right here in an effort to irrigate the tree of liberty with something other than the blood of patriots.

A Question for my Generation

Did our parents defeat these foreign threats to our freedom, 

So we could surrender it to these domestic threats?

Government Ownership/Control of Healthcare

Government Ownership/Control of Auto Manufacturers

Government Ownership/Control of Banks

Government Ownership/Control of Insurance Companies (AIG)

Government Devaluation of our Currency

Government Control over Compensation

Government Backed home loans which cannot be repaid

Government Paying people to buy homes

Government Buying cars only to crush them

Trillions upon Trillions in Debt which cannot be repaid except with worthless dollars

Two Political Parties which are really just different branchs of the same one

Osama bin Laden could only dream of doing to us what we are doing to ourselves.

What will our grandchildren say about us if we let this happen?

Cruising in perilous seas aboard the USS Healthcare

What should be the debate of our lifetimes has been on the horizon for a long while but has now come to within cannon range of the ship of state.
I say it should be the debate of our lifetimes, but now I’m not so sure it’s going to happen at all, much less be a vigorous exchange of well informed and rational ideas. The result may be a disaster of Titanic proportions.

Before I begin to explain my solution to the problem with healthcare in America, let’s try to identify exactly what the problem is and why it became a problem. Only then can we gain insights into what the system has become and what is being proposed to “fix” the system.

Despite political wailing to the contrary, it’s clear to anyone who does thoughtful analysis of (and comparisons to) healthcare in the rest of the world, that in this country we enjoy a very high level of care, a very high level of access, and a very high level of innovation. Indeed, people flock to these shores to receive the treatments they cannot get in their own countries in time to make a difference. It is especially true of countries who have already begun their own experiments in government provided “care”. Canada’s debacle is evident and would already be over if it’s citizens were forbidden to seek care in this country. We have provided the “steam control” valve for that boiler.

Which leaves the one problem that almost everyone agrees we need to solve. The dilemma is, we desire more care than we wish to pay for ourselves. The cost is “too” high. We would rather spend our money on other things. So this is the one true problem to which we all seek remedy.

The reason the price is high is the same as it is with every other commodity or service that has ever existed. Namely, the demand exceeds the supply at the price we wish to pay. If it sounds like I have chosen to relay something that is so obvious it is almost insulting to anyone reading it, please consider that most of the people who have selected the current crop of “fixers” are deeply in denial about that fundamental truth. They have been told the price is dear because of inefficiencies, greedy providers and the like, and sadly, they choose to believe those things, rather than the simple truth.

The excess demand for health care has been created by government policies. Some old policies, and some not so old. And if you think there is excess demand now, and therefore high prices because of those old and not so old policies, just wait until you get a bead on the new policies being readied for you and the even higher prices that come with them.

When government interfered with healthcare prices by allowing employers to compensate their employees with tax free health insurance, it caused a huge surge in demand for the services. The cost rose in response. That was one of the old policies I referred to.
Then, when government decided to take money from some people and give it to others to whom it did not belong in the form of Medicare and prescription drug benefits, understandably, demand went up some more and the cost rose some more.
When state governments decided that in order to get votes (power) they would vilify insurance companies for not writing policies that included coverage for almost everything that anyone wanted, (and could possibly be related to health in one way or another) demand went up and the cost went up some more.

These states were actually able to get the insurance companies themselves to agree with them in exchange for protection from competition and the huge profits to be made by charging for these spurious add-ons which enjoyed no great demand on their own. In other words, they cut a deal which we weren't in on.
The result of all these policies was the rapid and predictable rise in the cost of health insurance.

So, those are the main reasons for the cost being “too high”. The other factors most often mentioned (by advocates for government provided insurance) are quite small by comparison.
I can assure you that more government interference, which is the cause of the problem, will not be the cure for the problem. That would be the textbook definition of insanity.

As for the USS Healthcare, the course (government insurance) and speed (full steam ahead, just like the TARP bailouts and “stimulus” law) have been set by Captain Obama. But the icebergs are still there and the result will be dead people, just like the Titanic of old.
These dead people won’t be as easy to see as the bodies floating in the Atlantic in April of 1912. These people will be the unseen dead, the multitudes who die because they cannot get the tests or treatments they need, in time, or at all, in many cases. Many more will die from not taking the medications that will never be invented because of government run healthcare. Most people will never make the connection between the flotilla of corpses and the ship of fools.

I propose a different speed and direction for the liner, a carefully plotted course along a well traveled, proven route. The destination is an island, an imaginary Isle of Freedom. A place without busy-body armed thugs forcing people into a system where they have to pay for everything they don’t want, but do not receive the services they desperately need.
It would be a place where two or more private citizens could make arrangements among themselves to insure for the services they want, not those that have been mandated by politicians. America used to be such a Isle.

If a person living there wants to buy a high deductible, major medical policy to cover only “in hospital” care for catastrophic health issues such as accident or disease with no coverage for anything else and a company offers it at a price the person agrees to, he/she could purchase it without interference from government or anyone else. If you didn’t desire coverage for marriage counseling, obesity, insanity, substance abuse, skydiving accidents, maternity benefits, anger management or anything else, you wouldn’t be forced to pay for it.
If you desired coverage for all or any of those things, you would be free to arrange to have it provided at a price acceptable to both parties.

Ship's Captain Obama wants to form a newly created government company to provide “competition” for private companies. It’s nonsense of course. The result will be the end of private insurance. No one can compete with a company that has unlimited funds and no profit motive. And the people who profess to be “pro choice” on some medical questions are decidedly anti-choice when it comes to health insurance.

The cost of this insane legislation is estimated to be one TRILLION over the next decade. Keep in mind, the government has never overestimated the cost of any program it has implemented. A better bet is that it would be double that. We will never know except in retrospect.

Additionally, such a function of the federal government is not found as a listed power in the US Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional. (refer to the tenth amendment) Not that anyone on the healthcare ship gives a hoot about the Constitution. But that's a different topic.

It is not enough to oppose these dangerous and costly programs, one must be willing to propose alternate solutions, so now I’ll propose some things that the federal government can do about this “crisis”, something that is constitutional, and which I believe will immediately make things better. Things which, unlike vast new government programs and mandatory bureaucratic rules, can easily be undone if they prove ineffective. Things which expand choice and freedom and require no force to be used in their implementation. In other words, the American way as we have always understood it until recent times.

One of the few enumerated powers of the federal government is to regulate commerce between the states to be sure that goods and services flow freely. I believe that the congress should pass a law to override the anti-freedom laws of many states concerning health insurance. Those which mandate certain coverage and forbid competition by out of state companies. This is certainly an inter-state commerce question as envisioned by the founders.

I also believe that the tax policy of allowing deductions for providing health insurance to employees should be extended to the people themselves. Anyone who provides health insurance to anyone, including themselves, should be allowed to deduct that cost from their taxes. Further, all health expenditures should be deductible to whomever provides them. And lastly, any healthcare benefits received by anyone should be tax free to the recipient. The cost of this “government program” to this country? Zero.

And no, less tax revenue to the federal government is not a cost, despite what is taught at some goofy left wing schools.

These are the freedom/free-market solutions to our high costs. And they will work wonders if ever given a chance. More people with the health insurance they truly want, at a price set by the market, not some group of elitist health Czars. More people insured at lower prices. That is the goal, right?
And better treatments and medications being developed using the money that is saved by not being diverted to the “cause of the day” coverage.

However, I am not the Captain or even a crew member, so my suggestions will never be addressed on the bridge of this ship. As a passenger, I will probably go down with the ship though, with the Captain and crew floating away in the lifeboats afforded to the elite rulers in congress and the White House. They always make provisions to exempt themselves from the “cures” they impose on the rest of us. They have their own health plans and retirement plans quite apart from social security and other boondoggles.
Meanwhile, my children and grandchildren will be adrift along with yours.

Unfortunately, the supporters of this course will not drown at a different rate than those of us who spotted the icebergs. In death we all will finally be equal, because the destination this crew has set sail for, is the Isle of Equal Misery.