Vallery.net

I wrote part of this blog article a few months ago when the healthcare bill was just starting to pick up steam. Now that it has passed I felt compelled to update it and post it in response to many of my very liberal friends rants.

Let’s define morality. Merriam-Webster has several definitions however I think the most appropriate one is “conformity to ideals of right human conduct”. The open questions out of that statement are of course who defines what is “right” and who gets to enforce it?

If my four year old son has a toy and another child does not, he knows that the right thing to do is share his toy. I don’t have to tell him. I don’t have to force him. Every action that I do sets an example for him in which he uses to build his own definition of “right”. If he refused to share, and I insisted that he did, my ownly recourse would be to force him on threat of punishment.

I honestly believe that the vast majority of people are good, caring, and compassionate. I believe that they have their own moral compass that guides them as to what is right and wrong. I believe that morality can never be forced as it is a part of who we are. While we can’t force someone to be moral by the definition of the majority, we can punish them for not agreeing. That is what is happening with healthcare and a great many other things in our country today.

I believe that most people would openly assist those in need in whatever way they can. Healthcare organizations have programs to assist those in need. Pharmaceutical companies have programs to get drugs to those that need them but can’t afford them. The statement I often hear is that “Nobody should go without the basic right of healthcare”. While that statement is partially true in that “Nobody should go without healthcare” it is not a right. A right is something granted to us as Americans by the bill of rights and our constitution. A right is something to be protected by the government, not given.

Like so many government programs they are yet again using their guns (by threat of jail) to force morality on the people. I find this particularly interesting in that my liberal friends are also very outspoken about the government staying out of their personal morality. Why is it okay for the government to force people to share their wealth with the less fortunate (an act which should be governed by an individual’s morality) but not okay for them to tell them how to live their lives? How can you possibly be for nationalized healthcare while also against the ban on gay marriage? How can you be for repeal of drug prohibition while supporting new social legislation?

The role of the government is to protect my rights as granted to me by the constitution and the bill of rights; it is not to tell me how I should live my life. If I want to share my wealth with those less fortunate that should be my decision. If I want to get married to another man that should be my decision. If I want to smoke marijuana that should be my decision. Unless my actions infringe on the rights of those around me in a truly free country the government has no authority to have a say about my actions. This new healthcare bill is just another way for the government to force us to the majority’s idea of what is “right”.

There are many folks out there who have not been courteous and respectful during the debate on healthcare. To anyone who used disrespectful, selfish, or hateful tactics to try and stop the passing of this legislation, I fully deplore your actions. However the partisan nature of the comments I see flying in rebuttal to those people are completely disrespectful and not helpful either. Just like you would never go around stereotyping all persons of a specific race or ethnicity, you should not stereotype all republicans and democrats.

While I am certainly not a republican, I am very offended by a couple specific tweets I’ve read from my more liberal friends.

A few examples:

“Let’s just say it: the most profound difference between Dems & Repubs = the former cares about those less fortunate; the latter does not”

“I truly wish that the small percentage of tea-baggers who can read at a 10th grade level would read this: http://bit.ly/bcTDj7”

“Hope americans are watching these old white gnarled hands of GOP hate try to keep health impoverished americans crushed and hopeless”

“Those on the other side of the aisle for whom it applies: Hope you have nightmares tonite about “socialized” medicine & the end of the world”

“”Party of no” spewing lies hate and fear. Any of these guys look like they are suffering from health care poverty?”

“Unbelievable listening to middle age white gop hate mongering men attack America in the people’s house.”

I don’t believe for one second that the members of congress who opposed this bill are also opposed to helping those in need. I believe that they understand that trying to legislate a solution to a problem as far reaching as healthcare would ultimately prove disastrous.

Assuming you can get past the argument of morality and think that the government should be implementing such a policy, we are ultimately left with the effectiveness of their solution. When has the government done anything better than a private organization? Why would they be able to manage healthcare better? The problem with our healthcare system is too much government intervention not too little.

Instead of adding more laws we should think about repealing some already on the books. If the healthcare system was deregulated and liability limited, doctors would be able to practice medicine without fear of getting sued. Insurance companies who offer malpractice insurance would be able to lower their premiums to the doctors. The ability to actually make a good living as a medical professional without the fear of going bankrupt at the slightest mistake would entice more of our brightest minds into the profession.

With the additional legislation just passed it is only going to be costlier for them to do business. Organizations which provide their employees premium coverage are now going to be taxed for doing so. With the increase in cost employers will compensate by reducing benefits to those “legally required”. The decrease in benefits means that there will be fewer people able to have access to cutting edge treatments and procedures. Fewer people with access will mean that the cost will stay prohibitively high or that the research dollars will not be spent to create them in the first place.

In the pharmaceutical realm deregulation would mean companies wouldn’t be afraid to spend larger amounts of money on R&D if they didn’t have to worry about getting sued all the time. They wouldn’t have to worry about their patent expiring and a generic hitting the market that completely undermined their research efforts and took away any chance they had at making a profit. They wouldn’t have to worry about paying out billions and billions of dollars in a class action lawsuit when a drug that hits the market doesn’t perform as expected or has undesired side effects. They would know that because there are folks who have “premium” coverage out there they can charge the amount required to recover their investment and know that there is a market for it.

We are free to choose what we put in our body based on the recommendations of a doctor we trust. Why do we need the FDA to tell us what is okay? Do you know there are drugs out there that could save the lives of millions of people but are blocked by FDA trials? Individuals need to take responsibility for their own action, and where the individual doesn’t have the knowledge to make the right decision, they need to turn to someone they can trust. Can you honestly tell me you trust the government more than your family doctor?

If all of the above happened and doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies were allowed to do what they do best, save people’s lives, healthcare prices would drop dramatically. It would become affordable to the vast majority of Americans. For the few that still were unable to afford it there are still private solutions and charities. It is not the government’s responsibility to provide for its people.

I have friends who are on Medicare/Medicaid (In full disclosure my Mom was before she passed away as well) and it drives me nuts how abused the system is. They have better coverage than I have and I consider the policy that my employer offers me to be very generous. When I see them take a sick child to the ER because of a fever it drives me insane. They didn’t pay a single cent but the taxpayer just paid through the nose when all they needed to do was ensure rest, liquids, and maybe a little Tylenol. Again, healthcare is not a right it’s a privilege.

When something is available without individual cost and consequence it will encourage abuse. A system which holds nobody accountable is one that will inevitably fail.

Penn and Teller did it again, this was a great episode. I’m glad to see them taking on the immigration issue. Most American’s are opposed to immigration, and support stricter border controls. I think changing that opinion will be a hard pill for most American’s to swallow.

Penn and Teller are critical of the government’s plans to install 700 miles of fencing on the border at the cost of $60 billion dollars. They setup a mock version of the wall and show how easy it is to circumvent. Their illegals are able to get past it in around 3 minutes using a variety of different techniques. In addition, they pointed out that majority of illegals actual enter the country on legal visas and overstay their welcome. I think the most fascinating fact that they pointed out is that the contractor, golden sate fence company, who was hired to build the wall was actually fined for using illegal workers!

The one thing that they didn’t get into that disappointed me a little bit is the philosophical side of immigration. Immigrants are the core work force of this country. America was built on a tradition of immigration. By limiting immigration, you’re increasing manual labor costs, which in turn increases prices and lowers the value of the dollar. Immigration laws are another great example of “unintended consequences”. On the face it sounds like a good idea, limit the number of people entering the country, thereby ensuring jobs for the people already here, lowering the demand on social services, and controlling population growth. The problem however is that if you try and control the immigration you are forcing the “illegals” deeper into a black market. Mexicans will always find a way to get here, there is no physical way to stop them. Once here, the harder you make it for them to work, the harder you make it on everyone. You not only put the “illegals” into harms way, but you put Americans into danger as well. If their existence here is criminal, they will avoid authority at all costs. They might be witness to a crime, but they won’t report it. They might be in medical danger, but they won’t go to a hospital. They might resort to identify theft in order to remain here. You’re forcing honest, hard working, principled individuals to become criminals, just so they can provide for their families and better themselves.

A bit closer to home, I have a guy that takes care of my lawn every summer, let’s call him Bob. He is one of the hardest working guys I’ve met. He does a fantastic job, is punctual, and cheap. Of course, he is also probably illegal. Last fall he came to me and said “I’ve got to go back to Mexico, so I can’t take care of your yard next year”. Of course I don’t know the details, but I can only imagine. Why would we do this to someone who wants to work hard and make money. He has capitalistic intentions, he knows that he has to earn what he makes. He embodies the spirit and work ethic that this country was founded on. I’m proud to pay him to do the work, I feel a sense of satisfaction in our transactions. It’s hard to explain, but he lives for the ideas and principals that I believe in with all my heart. Yet someone has the balls to tell him that he can’t work here? That what he is doing is illegal.

Before we turn away men like Bob we need look in our own backyard. Some American’s are nothing more than looters, living off the system, living off our tax money, our social services, and our charity. Perhaps we should worry more about our existing problems in society before we cast stones on the immigrants. Instead of our money being taken at the point of a gun by our government to feed these American looters, maybe we should embrace the work ethic of our neighbors to the south and force the unproductive members of our society to take these men as examples. I say open borders for all, any man that has a work ethic like Bob and can help make this country a better place is welcome here in my book.

Here is the Libertarian party’s official stance on immigration.

The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

I have to admit, I’m a huge fan of Penn and Teller. When I heard that they were going to be covering Wal-Mart on an upcoming episode of Bullshit I was extremely excited. Like many small and medium size towns across the country, Wal-Mart hysteria has come to my home town of Longmont, Colorado and I was in the front lines of the debate.

Back in 2003 I had decided to run for City Council here in Longmont, and at that time Longmont was looking to annex a plot of land right outside of town by request of the Wal-Mart corporation. The plan was to build a new Super Wal-Mart store on the lot, and the city wanted to get the tax revenue. Typical to these decisions, the public outcry was immense. The anti Wal-Mart groups arranged speakers from all across the country to come and petition our City Council against the annexation. Of course, in the end cooler heads prevailed and the City Council voted to annex the land, and now we have a brand new Super Wal-Mart (to complement the smaller Wal-Mart across town).

Penn and Teller did an okay job in this episode, I’m just a bit disappointed that it didn’t go into more detail around the pure capitalistic nature of Wal-Mart, and really get down into the philosophy behind it. As anyone who knows me can attest, I’m a hardcore Libertarian. I live, eat, and breath free market capitalism. Nothing gets me more excited than seeing it in action, and nothing pisses me off more than special interest groups with agendas trying to stop it.

You see, Wal-Mart isn’t evil, capitalism isn’t evil, outsourcing and sweat shops arent’ even evil. They are all the natural product of a free market doing what it does best. Wal-Mart is one of the most amazing American success stories ever. A company that was able to find efficiencies in everything they do. Reinvest their profit into smart growth, cut costs where they can, negotiate bulk buying deals with manufacturers. There is a reason why Wal-Mart is the number one retailer in the United States, it is because they are the best at doing what they do, selling us household items at cheap prices. Wal-Mart isn’t here to put small business out of business. If that is a by-product of giving the consumer choice, then that is the essence of the free market.

What is evil is groups that preach the “social good”. Perhaps this is because I just finished reading it, but I’m reminded of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. The world is so concerned with the social welfare of the disadvantaged, the poor, the needy, that they “loot” from those who are productive members of society to give to the unfortunate. The same thing is happening with these anti Wal-Mart groups. They are going around spouting about the evils of Wal-Mart, using the plight of the common man as their evidence. Their motive may be well placed, but the outcome of such actions will eventually mean that Wal-Mart won’t be able to open new stores. They won’t want to deal with the headache and the legal loopholes that are put in place against them. Like the example Penn and Teller gave in Chicago requiring Wal-Mart to have a higher minimum wage than other retailers (Which gets me on an entire different minimum wage tangent, which I will save for a future post). The hurdles they will encounter will be so high that it will impact the profitability of a given store, and then they won’t have the justification to build it. What happens then? Who really suffers? Is it Wal-Mart, or is it the common man that now has to pay more for his television set at the local electronics store? Or is it the unemployed mother who still can’t find a job because nobody will hire her? Maybe it is the city who now has less sales tax because their residents are driving to the next town over to shop at Wal-Mart?

One of the great things about this country is that not only do we get to vote on election day. We get to vote every time we go to the store. Consumers vote with their dollars. They are saying that they want a higher quality of living for less money. They are saying that Wal-Mart offers them what they want at the best price. If the established businesses are adversely affected by the opening of a new Wal-Mart then that is the product of the kind of change the market is dictating. To survive, the established businesses must learn to adapt to the changing economy. People want convenience and they are casting their ballot loudly and clearly with every dollar they spend at these “big box” stores.