SCOTUS Healthcare Decision Was Predictable

Those who were trying to predict how the Supreme Court would come down on the “Affordable Healthcare Act” should have taken a cue from the Citizens United decision.

It shouldn't have been a big surprise that the high court would uphold a scheme hatched by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation and supported by crony capitalists Newt Gingrich, Orrin Hatch, and Richard Lugar.

A quick history: The individual mandate was first proposed in a 1989 book by members of the Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans included it in their alternative to “Hillarycare.” Hillary was against the mandate at that time. But after becoming Senator, and after becoming the second largest recipient of health industry contributions in the Senate (behind Rick Santorum), she magically reversed her stance and argued FOR an individual mandate. Then Presidential candidate Barack Obama argued against it. A few months later, after becoming President, Obama included the mandate in his healthcare plan, but surely it had nothing to do with the fact that the healthcare industry had, by that time, become Obama's third largest source of campaign contributions, right behind lawyers and banksters.

Are you starting to see the pattern?

The “Affordable Health Care Act” is really just more corporate welfare behind a facade of providing universal healthcare. Written largely by corporate lobbyists, the law provides nearly a half a trillion dollars in subsidies for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, forces public citizens to purchase a product from those same industries, and is not universal.

According to Physicians for a National Health Plan, Obamacare will leave at least 23 million people without insurance, a figure that translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths per year.

Obama himself recognized that the individual mandate was a bad idea, that is until he had a “change of heart.” During his 2008 campaign he argued, “If a mandate was the solution, we could solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.”

Obama was right! (before he was wrong) – against it before he was for it (just like Hillary). And in wonderfully amusing twist, his opponent Mitt Romney was for it before he was against it. Together these two ass clowns have probably been on every side of every major issue in the last ten years, depending on which way the wind was blowing the money in from.

What the healthcare issue has highlighted is that very few of our politicians have a core, and frankly, most American voters don't either. Republicans are against everything Obama is for, even if it's the same freedom smashing Patriot Act they were FOR when Bush was President. Democrats support everything Obama supports, even if it's assassinating U.S. citizens, forgetting how loudly they cried when Bush was torturing suspected terrorists. Personal integrity hasn't survived the onslaught of political idiocy any more than governmental integrity has... but I digress.

There are three basic options in how healthcare can be delivered:

1. Free market
2. Single payer
3. Corporatist

Even from a libertarian perspective, it's not hard to see that the least efficient option, the one most likely to trample our freedoms, and the one most likely to perpetuate division among the citizens, is number three. Now I know I may get some heat from some of my libertarian friends, but I wouldn't fight a single payer system for a New York minute. There are far more evil things that our government does, and far more important issues to get worked up over like... oh, I don't know... the imminent collapse of our entire economic system.

While I would have serious concerns about cost, efficiency, and availability under a single payer system, I think we could figure it out, especially if we scrapped the chin deep shit pile of regulations and programs that we currently have, and started from scratch. Should we really be rewarding poor people for pumping out more kids? And what is the only part of our current medical system that doesn't totally suck? Medicare. And guess what folks, it's single payer.

Public healthcare advocate, Dr. Margaret Flowers, makes the point much more eloquently than I ever could (minus the colorful language), “If the U.S. Congress had considered an evidence-based approach to health reform instead of writing a bill that funnels more wealth to insurance companies that deny and restrict care, it would have been a no-brainer to adopt a single payer health system much like our own Medicare. We are already spending enough on health care in this country to provide high-quality, universal, comprehensive, lifelong health care.”

Regarding the goodies in Obamacare: requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is fine by me, and I'm happy as a clam in a pool of rum that my 17 year old daughter will be able to remain on my insurance plan for another decade, because god knows she might not be able to find a job before then. There is a shiny object or two in this plan for almost every crow, but sadly, like most things that come out of Washington, it's mostly window dressing. Until something changes drastically in government and society as a whole, the rich will continue to get richer and the powerful will become even more powerful.

Perhaps Chris Hedges, journalist and self-described socialist, said it best, “It is the very sad legacy of the liberal class that it proves in election cycle after election cycle that it espouses moral and political positions it will not pay a price to defend. And since we will not punish politicians like Obama who betray our core beliefs, the corporate juggernaut rolls forward with its inexorable pace to cement into place our global neofeudalism.”

Similar admonishments could be made of the conservative class. After all, Republicrats are all cut from the same cloth, the only difference is some is wearing red and some is wearing blue, and the Supreme Court may as well be wearing purple. Not in the compromise way, but in the monarchal way.

As with Citizens United, the SCOTUS healthcare decision was nothing more than another victory for crony corporatism. Didn't see that comin'.

How an Obama Victory Could Help the Liberty Movement

As Ron Paul's 2012 Presidential bid is drawing to a close, his supporters are struggling with the disappointment of defeat coupled with his son Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney. It's been difficult and confusing for those who have invested their time, sweat, and money; but there are many reasons to be optimistic.

Ron Paul will send hundreds of delegates to Tampa for the Republican National Convention. They will have considerable power to shape the Republican Party platform, and they will make plenty of noise. Liberty minded citizens have taken over many state and local Republican Party committees and leadership positions, establishment politicians like Richard Lugar are being picked off, and the Liberty message has become a regular part of political discourse in America.

Granted, this Revolution may not be exactly what they've been hoping for, but it is a Revolution nonetheless. Ron Paul and his supporters have changed the political landscape dramatically, and for many years to come. However, this is no time for them to rest on their laurels. In order to be fully successful, the Liberty movement must recognize current reality, regroup, and redouble its efforts; and as hard as it may be to stomach, an Obama victory in November may provide the best opportunity to realize that success.

This theory is based on the very likely scenario that our economy will either not improve, continue on its downward path, or take a dive that will make the last crash look like a pimple on a penguin. Given the unsustainable debt, the European financial crisis, and the fact that neither production nor savings are showing any significant signs of improvement, this is not just speculation.

According to Peter Schiff, “It's a 100 percent chance.” That's a pretty bold prediction, but Schiff has made some pretty bold predictions in the past, and has been spot on! He correctly predicted every major economic event in recent history, including the dot-com bubble, the housing bubble and crash, and the 2008 financial crash.¹

Schiff is not alone in thinking that 2013 or 2014 will see the next big economic turndown. Investor Jim Rogers, who also warned us of the last crash, agrees. “If you are not worried about 2013, please get worried.” ²

Now here's the rub. Whoever is the next President will take the blame for the crash in the eyes of the media and the general public. More importantly, the perceived economic philosophy of that President will be blamed. Regardless of reality, either capitalism will be seen as the culprit; or socialism will be seen as the culprit.

There will be no perceived nuances about the cause of the crash. Crisis produces extremes. Self preservation in the face of crisis causes people to circle the wagons, joining with people and ideas with which they agree. This effect will only be amplified by people's natural tendency, even under normal circumstances, to seek information that they agree with.³ To make matters worse, the very structure of the Internet, especially social networking sites, keeps contrary ideas in the background.

The Internet is building a bubble of "yes men" around you. For instance, everyone's favorite social networking site, Facebook, is filtering your friends according to how much you agree with them. It's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it's a computer algorithm.⁴

So let me repeat (in bold). The perceived economic philosophy of the President who presides over the crash will be blamed for the crash.

If Romney presides over the next crash, capitalism will be the villain. The drumbeat will be loud and clear for MORE government, more regulation, more stimulus, more money printing, and more debt. It will be a major blow to the Liberty movement and to Freedom itself, and increased statism will be the inevitable result.

On the other hand, if Obama presides over the next crash, socialism will be blamed, and the reaction will be against statism. The message of reduced governmental spending, regulation, and debt will be legitimized and amplified; and those who have been beating the Liberty drum will be in a position to put their ideas into action with increased public support.

The already increased influence and infiltration of Ron Paul supporters into Federal, state, and local governments, as well as the GOP party apparatus, will provide a springboard for their vision of a peaceful, free, and prosperous society.

Other factors could play into the Paulista's hands as well. A war with Iran, revelations from a Fed audit, increased drone surveillance, attacks on Internet freedom, and the European financial crisis are just a few examples of wild cards that could showcase the benefits of a Paulean philosophy.

So should Ron Paul supporters vote for Obama? The answer to that question resides in the image to the left. Should Ron Paul supporters vote for Romney? The answer is a resounding “No!” The Liberty movement has nothing to gain, and everything to lose with a Romney Presidency.

I realize that the thought of a second Obama term will be a hard thing for Paul supporters to stomach, but I suggest that they write in Ron Paul or vote for Gary Johnson, hope for an Obama victory in November, keep a bucket nearby, and continue working to further the cause of Liberty.


--------------------------------------------------------------

¹ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

² http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSrZ3r3VAGI

³ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701082720.htm

⁴ http://www.cracked.com/article_19860_5-scientific-ways-internet-dividing-us.html

Emotional Reactionism to Rand Paul's Endorsement of Romney

Like many Ron Paul supporters, I had an emotional reaction to Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney, anger. I also had a physical reaction, nausea (I think I can still taste the vomit in my mouth).

My intellectual reaction, however, came from my memory of Ron Paul running for Congress as a Republican in 1996. I thought it was a mistake, a sellout. Most of the Liberty movement did as well. We were WRONG. Ron Paul has done more to further our movement in the last 5 years than anyone else has in any of our lifetimes.

We need to take the long view. We all know that an immediate and emotional reaction is more likely to be wrong than one that is tempered by reason, time, and honest analysis. The Patriot Act is a perfect example of a knee-jerk reaction that was wrong.

I have had the benefit of being involved in the Liberty movement for a long time (I'm old). Only in our dreams did we see a surge in our movement like we've seen since 2007.

We have Ron Paul and his decision to fight the system from within to thank for that. I'm not saying that it's the only way, but it has to be part of it. Let's learn a lesson from the Trojan War. We can bang on the walls of the Federal Reserve until our fists bleed, but it will be a hell of a lot easier if someone opens the door for us from the inside.

All that said, I am no fan of Rand Paul. He is not as vocally against military interventionism as his father and he is too socially conservative for my taste, but he has an agenda we can support. He is working with Connie Mack on the Penny Plan which would balance our budget and reduce our debt, he wants to audit the Fed, get rid of the TSA, repeal the Patriot Act, repeal the detention clause of the NDAA, and many other things that further the cause of Liberty.

His endorsement of Romney gives him the political capital to put those issues front and center in the United States Senate. Did you foresee that opportunity three years ago?

We've been spoiled by Ron Paul. He is a giant of integrity and unwavering commitment to his ideals, but let's not forget that along the way, he made a decision to fight the system from within. Rand Paul is a Senator. Did we really expect him not to do the same?

I realize there may still be a little vomit in your mouth too, but I suggest washing it down with a cold beer, thanking Dr. Paul for getting us this far, and preparing for the battles to come.... together.

Boogeyman du Jour: GMOs

Lately I've been inundated by a flood of false claims that boggle the reasonable mind. Understandable mistrust of government and big corporations has mutated into a raging hyperbolic stream of self-imposed ignorance. It's as if millions of otherwise curious and educated people have completely forgotten everything they learned in their high school biology and chemistry classes. Science is no longer considered a process of discovery governed by reason, observation, and logic; but a vast conspiracy designed to oppress all freedom loving people.

The boogeyman du jour is genetically engineered (or genetically modified) crops. Opponents of this agricultural technique usually have no idea how genetic engineering actually works, and resort to argumentative methods that appeal to emotion and castrate reason. Critical thinking is non-existent. Instead of looking at the facts first, and then forming a conclusion; the conclusion comes first, and the search for evidence to support the conclusion ensues.

The latest push with regard to GM crops is the call for government regulations to require labeling. On the surface, this seems reasonable enough. After all, we have the right to know what we're eating, right? Never mind that most proponents of labeling don't trust the government any more than they trust corporations. Never mind that most of these folks are against more government regulation and favor the free market.

A logical free market approach would be for producers of non-GM crops to voluntarily label them as such - no government regulations required. If the demand for non-GM crops were as great as claimed, producers would label them without hesitation or the coercion of government regulations.

Another claimed goal of the labeling proponents is education. Maybe we should demand that our schools educate students about GM crops. It is in this spirit of education that I offer the following facts regarding genetically engineered crops.

Every living organism on this planet has been genetically modified. It is the engine of evolution. Mistakes sometimes occur naturally when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division. DNA can also mutate in response to a natural environmental agent; ultraviolet light from sunshine or an unfamiliar chemical. Most of these mutations don't last because the genetic modification is not beneficial to the organism's survival. Beneficial modifications do survive, and result in a new or altered trait in an organism. This is natural selection.

Every crop that we eat has been modified by man with techniques such as selective breeding, tree grafting, vine splicing, and cross-breeding. Using these techniques, large amounts of genetic material are passed between plants. Because the number of genes introduced is large and uncontrolled, it is difficult to develop specific characteristics without incorporating other unwanted ones. It's trial and error. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

With modern genetic modification, the process is more precise. Instead of combining entire genomes (thousands of genes) and hoping for the best, modern techniques allow us to identify a specific gene and the specific trait it is responsible for. That single gene can then be introduced to produce the same trait in another plant. The chances of unintended consequences are reduced, and the results are more predictable.

Think of it this way. Say you were making soup and you wanted it to be more garlicky. You randomly add many different spices and, after throwing away several batches, you hit upon a combination that works. This is how traditional breeding works. On the other hand, say you taste the spices first, and then add the one that tastes like garlic. Not only will you achieve your intended results on the first try, but you won't have any flavor that you don't want. This is modern genetic modification, also called precision breeding.

Let's look at an example that's been in the news lately. Mon810, a variety of corn, has an introduced gene that produces a specific protein that is toxic to certain pests. This gene comes from bacillus thuringiensis, commonly called BT. BT products are sold in most garden centers, and have been used safely since the 1920s by organic farmers and others to reduce insecticide use and control caterpillars and leaf beetles. Local governments have used BT products to control mosquitoes and gypsy moths without the use of chemicals.

Because of the genetic modification, Mon810 does not require pesticides. This same gene has been used with cotton, soybeans, and other crops. From 1996-2005, the first years of BT cotton and corn production, insecticide use decreased by 70 million pounds.

There are many other crops that have benefited from modern genetic modification: virus-resistant tobacco and tomatoes, herbicide resistant crops that reduce the need for tilling and reduce soil erosion, Golden Rice which provides vitamin A for populations with a vitamin A deficiency, flood tolerant rice used in flood prone southeast Asia, sunflowers resistant to white mold, salt tolerant tomatoes that can be grown in salty soil, and ringspot virus resistant papaya, just to name a few.

The bottom line, to me, we should let our decisions be guided by reason, logic, and science; not by fear, frenzy, and ignorance.