Only a Liberal…

The next time a liberal tells you the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution means the government can do anything they want, quote James Madison:

With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. (Letter to James Robinson, 1831)

I realize liberals aren’t terribly interested in the facts behind the general welfare clause, since they simply want excuses for the federal govt to have more power, but this will at least cause them to stumble temporarily as they deal with their cognitive dissonance.

Part of what makes this country great is the institutional freedom of religion. It manifests itself in the phrase, “I’m entitled to my own opinion on god and spirituality and I don’t have to worry about the government.” Many other countries do not allow for this entitlement, whether by laws or societal pressures.

Unfortunately, this entitlement to one’s own religious beliefs has been inappropriately applied to any and all political issues, whether it should or not. Any issue involving public policy or politicians has become “politics” which I find ridiculous. An example of a political issue is how to correctly collect taxes in all forms. It is very hard to be 100% conclusive on the best method, and different logical opinions are acceptable, and I believe individuals are entitled to differing opinions. Another would be the question of when life begins. All rational, open-minded people can agree that an ovum is not a life subject to the laws and protection of the state, but a baby in a delivery room cut from the umbilical cord is a life subject to the laws and protection of the state. In between those two points lies political opinions, which individuals are entitled to.

Absence of evidence

Today, a political issue is anything that Republicans and Democrats argue about. Let me be clear; this is preposterous. Sometimes the Republicans are 100% correct and the Democrats are 100% wrong. Sometimes the Democrats are 100% correct and the Republicans are 100% wrong. The fact that two politicians are fighting over something does not make them entitled to their own “beliefs.” Politics in the strict sense and religion can only be based on beliefs in the absence of evidence.

If you have evidence that directly contradicts your political “belief,” your belief is WRONG. You are entitled to your fantasy, but don’t preach some moral equivalence about everyone being entitled to their beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but no one is entitled to their facts. If you claim to believe in a lie, you’re either ignorant or a liar. You have no right to announce it uncontested under the veil of “entitlement.”

Example of a belief: “I believe God has a beard.”
Example of an untrue fantasy: “I believe the government is better at reducing costs than the competition of the free market.”

The political arena has degraded so much that the second example is afforded as much credence as the first by tagging them both as “beliefs.” The first example is a belief that cannot be verified or disputed, so it is a legitimate “belief.” The second example is a statement that can be disputed by looking at historical accounts of multiple governments. There is no evidence to support the second statement, but endless data disputing it.

Illustration of competition

Imagine a country where one company sells candy bars. It has decided that a candy bar should cost $5. Let’s say it costs $2 to make it available to the public. Some people think this is too much, but there is nowhere else to get candy bars.

Insert a second company. It finds a way to make that same candy bar for only $1.75, and charges $4.75. Everyone starts buying their candy bar, and to avoid losing all its business, Company #1 starts charging $4.75, but makes less money.

Insert a third company. It also costs them $1.75 to make it, but they decide they don’t need as much profit, so they only charge $4.

Extend this scenario out to hundreds or thousands of companies in hundreds of different industries and you will see why a government monopoly is COMPLETELY incapable of reducing costs as efficiently as a free market. I am open to logical counter-arguments if you can find one.

Believing that a government can reduce costs better is simply wishful thinking that will get you nowhere. All they can do is set prices, not costs. Most likely, people choose to believe it because if it were true, than their ideological goal would be easier to reach. The ends justify the means. The fact that it is false does not concern the ideologue. [By the way, feel free to show me evidence that contradicts my assertion. I welcome facts and logic.]

False compassion of the minimum wage

Another “belief” that seems to be held by most of both political parties is that raising the minimum wage is “compassionate.” A wage is the price of labor, no different than the price of a candy bar or a car. It is worth what it is worth. If licking 100 stamps and placing them on envelopes saves someone $5, that is what it is worth. It is irrelevant if you think someone should be paid $10 for that task. If you force everyone to pay that person $10 when it is only worth $5, no one will be hired to lick stamps. Artificially raising the price of labor with a minimum wage does not change the actual benefit of that labor. It is no different than the disastrous price controls that the government has tried to utilize in the past, causing lines at gas stations. Raising the minimum wage is the opposite of compassionate.

Michigan Democrats are trying to raise the minimum wage in the state from $7 to $10. Any labor worth $8 per hour will not occur, or companies will figure out how to automate it. If it is worth $8, and the employer pays someone $10, he will lose $2. Do that long enough, and he will go out of business, causing the employees  to be unemployed so that no one is making $10 or $8. Again, if you can point out an error or omission in my facts or logic, I welcome it.

Beliefs exist in a vacuum of knowledge or evidence. Once someone shows you evidence that your belief is incorrect, your belief should disappear. Anything less is a state of denial in pursuit of not having to deal with cognitive dissonance. And so this public acceptance of entitlement to beliefs has led to being told never to speak about religion AND politics in polite company. Most issues currently considered politics should not be such, and people should have the utmost comfort discussing them in pursuit of dispelling pernicious myths.

Two stories have inspired me to write a post concerning the difference between a right and a privilege. The first is a column by Bernie Sanders, the “independent” democratic socialist senator from Vermont, titled “Health Care is a right, not a privilege.” The second is a court ruling in France, where their Constitutional Council declared internet access a “basic right.” I will ruin the ending by telling you I strongly disagree with both.

A passage from Sanders’s column:

“First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege - which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?

I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.”

Before you can dispute his conclusion, you have to dispute his premise…

“the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection”

The fact that every other “major” country treats healthcare as a privilege is irrelevant to the debate. It is clear as day that the United States is unique, and should only follow the lead of other countries if those countries are more successful at that particular policy.

The notion that education is a “basic need” is also a fallacy. That’s a whole other debate. On top of that, comparing healthcare to education, police, and fire protection is also ridiculous. We have police and fire protection for general welfare. Police enforce the rule of law, an important reason for the success of America. If your house catches fire, that fire can spread extremely quickly to other houses. The only analagous healthcare situation would be an epidemic. We have the Center for Disease Control to handle that.  Other than epidemics, healthcare is infinitely more similar to a grocery store than a fire department. Each individual has extremely unique wants and needs in regard to healthcare. Healthcare is not one-size-fits-all situations.

Also, Bernie’s assertion that Obama’s election shows that the American people have decided healthcare is a right is also fallacious. There is no indication that Americans voted for Obama because of his quest for universal healthcare. If that was the case, Hillary would have likely won the primary.

“The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.”

Here, Bernie has jumped straight to the conclusion he supports without any supporting evidence. Even if you think healthcare is a right, the notion that it should be run by the government is ludicrous.

“Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world.”

And Bernie’s solution is to have the government run it? His argument is the government won’t be costly, wasteful, complicated, or bureaucratic. Anyone with a brain understands how ludicrous this assertion is. My slow, inefficient car doesn’t make me happy, so I’m going to buy a slower, more inefficient car to solve the problem. Its silly.

Is healthcare a right? If it is, is food a right? Is water a right? Should every American own a car? Does every American have the right to employment? Does every American have the right to an internet connection?

The American Constitution has defined rights very strictly for a reason: to protect the citizens from a tyrranical government. We have laws to protect one citizen from another. Rights as defined by the constitution are primarily concerned with protecting citizens from the government. Giving the government power over the recurring, unique needs of each American individual is removing freedom from every citizen to choose their own healthcare. That’s aside from the fact that government is more inefficient and more wasteful than any private organization has ever been.

The more important “right” that Americans have is the right to freedom of choice. They have the freedom to choose which healthcare provider they want, which type of coverage and payment plan they want, and ALSO the right to NOT get healthcare. The socialist argument that allowing people to not have healthcare costs everyone more money may be true, but putting it under the control of the government would AMPLIFY that problem. Car insurance is not provided by the government, yet everyone with a car is required to have it. I could be persuaded that all Americans should be forced to have health insurance to prevent high costs, but the notion that universal healthcare would solve all the problems with private healthcare is idiotic and willfully ignorant.

The only time a government should reduce the individual’s freedom is when that freedom infringes on the freedom of others. My healthcare through my wife’s employment does not prevent anyone else from getting their own healthcare. Because of that fact, it is none of the government’s business where or how I get my healthcare, same as its none of their business how often I go golfing.

The fire department prevents one individual’s fire from affecting other citizens. The police department enforces laws that prevent one citizen from infringing on the freedom of another. Disease epidemics are analogous to fires, but other than that, healthcare has more in common with a grocery store than a fire department.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose Obama-appointed Secretary is Janet Napolitano, released a report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” This report has pissed a lot of people off, and rightly so, due to the fact that it identifies people as right-wing, potentially dangerous extremists if they support state and local authority over federal or oppose abortion or immigration. That’s right… if you oppose abortion, you’re a right-wing extremist that the Department of Homeland Security needs to keep its eye on. Here is the exact wording…

“…those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.  It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

The basic gist is that because the economy is in the crapper, and because a half-black man has been elected President, perhaps, maybe right-wingers could possibly at some point become angry enough to become terrorists. Mind you, DHS has “no specific information” to think this, just a… hunch. We’ll call it “liberal intuition.”

“The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.”

So non-violent right-wing groups are recruiting more people, and Napolitano sees this as dangerous. This is a right afforded to all American citizens in the first Amendment (right to Assembly).This is the same Janet Napolitano, who refuses to use the word terrorism when addressing Congress. Napolitano’s explanation of that?

“In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” (americaswatchtower.com)

No Janet, it is not “nuance”… it is nonsense. She is putting terrorist attacks in the same category as tornados, floods, and oil spills.

So to clarify how insanse this is, Janet Napolitano says calling a terrorist a terrorist is just the “politics of fear” so we should avoid it at all costs, but identifying pro-lifers as potentially violent is necessary for national security. We don’t want to scare Americans by referring to 9/11 as a “terrorist” attack, but we must warn Americans of the potential threat of federalists.

A CNN story actually highlighted the report on right-wing extremism and put a picture of skinheads with Nazi flags in the article. The “contributor” for the vicious article is Jeanne Meserve, whom you can email here. This is illustrative of the celebrated ignorance of the left. They consider Nazis to be “right-wing.” I did a search for the argument that Hitler was a “right-winger.” Here’s one argument…

“Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.” (huppi.com)

1. Racism over racial tolerance - Author assumes with zero evidence that right-wing = racist. Simply wanting all right-wingers to be racist does not make it so. On this, Hitler was NEUTRAL.
2. Eugenics over freedom of reproduction - The left supports abortion, which is certainly closer to eugenics than being pro-life. In fact the founder of Planned Parenthood, which assists women in abortion and birth control, believed in Eugenics. (read here) LEFT
3. Merit over equality - Conservatives do believe merit should be rewarded, where many liberals believe everyone should receive an equal outcome. RIGHT
4. Competition over Cooperation - The two are not mutually exclusive. Right-wing capitalists who strongly believe in competition constantly cooperate with other. NEUTRAL
5. Power politics and militarism over pacifism - I suppose the left is more pacifist than the right. RIGHT
6. Dictatorship over democracy - This is ludicrous nonsense. Right-wingers don’t support dictatorship. In fact the only Americans I ever see supporting dictators are left-wing liberals. Who likes Castro? Left-wingers. Who likes Hugo Chavez? Left-wingers, namely Sean Penn. To be fair though, many left-wingers support democracy, so we’ll call this a draw. NEUTRAL
7. Capitalism over Marxism - Yup, right-wing. On this, I agree with Adolf. Stopped clock is right twice a day. RIGHT
8. Realism over idealism - Yup, right-wingers lean more towards what DOES happen than what COULD happen. RIGHT
9. Nationalism over internationalism - Yup. RIGHT
10. Exclusiveness over inclusiveness - This doesn’t even make sense. What do right-wingers exclude people from? The Congressional black caucus is dominantly left-wing, and it is the most exclusive group I can think of. LEFT
11. Common sense over theory and science - Yet again, these are not mutually exclusive, and this is based upon zero evidence. NEUTRAL
12. Pragmatism over principal - Excuse me? Is he implying that right-wingers ignore principals? Religious people choose pragmatism over principals? NEUTRAL
13. Atheist - The author wants us to believe that being atheist makes someone a right-winger. Being religious makes someone a right-winger. Can you say flawed logic? LEFT

I would point out that Hitler was a huge environmentalist, but I digress. So the author points out 13 characteristics that “obviously” prove that Hitler was a right-winger. I found through a fairly simple analysis that 5 of the items were arguably right-wing, 3 of the items were arguably left-wing, and the other 5 were neutral. I guess that means he leans to the right, but lets analyze the 5 things he was right-wing on.

Merit over equality
Militarism over pacifism
Capitalism over Marxism
Realism over idealism
Nationalism over internationalism

The most successful countries in the world, not only by wealth, but also low level of poverty, are capitalist. So the fact that Hitler believed in Capitalism is about as relevant as the fact that he believed in breathing oxygen. Many left wingers also believe in capitalism, so I believe this becomes more neutral. This also cover the “Merit over equality” part, so I have established Hitler as neither right- or left-wing. I won’t analyze the others at the time.
Now if you’re liberal friend at work points out that the DHS also released a report on left-wing extremists, they are being disingenous. As Fox News reports, that report is titled “Left-wing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyberattacks Over the Coming Decade. It concentrates largely on the technical savvy of left-wing extremists and not bloodshed.”

Janet Napolitano has issued a government report identifying individuals who have certain beliefs as potential threats to the United States. It is the epitome of un-American totalitarianism, and is probably illegal. If that ain’t profiling, I don’t know what is. She should be fired immediately, if not prosecuted for civil rights violations.

Picture a reservoir inside of a dam. There are multiple rivers flowing into the reservoir, but a leak has sprung in the dam, and the amount of water coming out the leak greatly exceeds the amount coming in from the rivers. Over the years the surface level of the reservoir gets lower and lower til there’s almost nothing left.

To fix the problem, local officials decide they’re going to take a huge amount of water from another reservoir and refill this one. The level of the reservoir is raised and the local environmentalists cheer.

You cannot fix American car companies by giving them money because it doesn’t FIX THE LEAK. Handing them some money to survive for a few months is no different than taking $17 billion and throwing it in a fireplace. That money will go right out the leak and you’ll be right where you started, problem unsolved.

You idiots who think we HAVE to save American car companies so that the Japanese don’t win… my Nissan Altima was made in Tennessee and my father-in-law’s Dodge Ram was made in Mexico. So who is more supportive of American auto workers?

For the record, bankruptcy does not mean the end of American car companies. It means the end of astronomically high compensation for American car company workers. A bunch of people will be fired and they need to be. If you want the company to survive, they must drastically restructure everything, especially their union contracts. Giving the car companies a lump sum of money does nothing but delay the bankruptcy I and others are calling for now. They will go bankrupt when the $17 billion runs out anyway, so get it over with.
Hotair.com article on the auto bailout

Liberals, or progressives, will acknowledge that socialism and fascism have failed compared to capitalism, but capitalism is evil too (so they believe), so there has to be another way. One of the goals of the Communist Party USA is the “creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society.” Nothing wrong with wanting that, but what does it mean to be rationally planned?

‘Just need the right people’

The backbone of the socialist argument is that if you have the right people in charge, they can design society to be ideal. I totally agree, but who decides who the right people are? How do we ensure the people that are in charge enact policy based on what is, rather than what should be? Once we choose those people, how do we police them if they do get out of line? The assumption is they would decide all that, basically making them infallible BY DEFINITION.

The fact is that any society that relies on a handful of people to ensure the success of a nation can never work, because it is impossible to ensure that the candidates in question will behave properly. This is common sense; why not have a dictatorship? If you ask people what is a dictatorship good at, the knee-jerk reaction for most people would be “nothing, its oppressive.” Well the fact is, dictators get things done infinitely faster than a democracy. That is a fact. The problem is what if that dictator gets bad things done faster? Like, oh… I don’t know, engage in genocide?

Equality destroys nations

How do you ensure equality? Let’s say we wanted everyone to be equally proficient at rocket science. How would we do that? We could educate everyone at a PhD level to ensure everyone is good at it. Would this work? Of course not. Many people don’t like rocket science; some do not have the intelligence to grasp all of its concepts. So an equal PhD level is unattainable. How about if no one gets to know it? That would make everyone equal.

The path of logic I just followed is undeniable, but if applied to wealth, home ownership, etc., people go on tilt. They don’t comprehend that equality is so bad, it will actually destroy a nation. A society can only demand equality of opportunity. Being poor should not prevent you from getting a decent education, but it does not entitle you to an extravagant education. Same goes for health care.

Equality = spread misery equally

If I have less money than someone else, and I want more, that might drive me to work harder, make certain choices in order to better myself. The way to make most people equal at golf is not to teach everyone how to play at Tiger’s level, it is to make them all equally mediocre by preventing practice, or expensive equipment. If no one makes more than I do or performs better than I do, what will drive me? The greater good? What if the guy next to me doesn’t give a crap about the greater good?

Inequality is wonderful

Inequality is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to ensure the continuing advancement of a society. When people compete, some will lose. But that doesn’t mean everyone should lose to ensure equality.

UK

Smokers banned from un-smoking related operations until they stopped; obese required to lose weight.
Britons 4 TIMES as likely to die in major surgery than Americans.
70,000 Health tourists leaving Britain to obtain health services (fears of hospital infections and frustration of often waiting months for operations).
5,000 elderly die each year because it’s too expensive to keep them in intensive care after surgery.

CANADA

Pet scan not covered in Ontario.
Ontario physician turns away patient for being over 55.
Doctor shortages.
30 week wait for MRI.

CUBA

Hospitals Michael Moore didn’t show. Another video.
Plenty more stories at angelfire.com

Most of the criticism of Michael Moore you find on the internet doesn’t bother to analyze his claims; instead they attack his character without explaining the specifics of his character deficiencies. His new movies Sicko puts for the hypothesis that the American health care system is screwed up, and that socializing it, or having the government run it, is the solution. He backs up his assertions with evidence of the success of such healthcare programs in other countries.

Testimonials can only DISPROVE, not prove an assertion

Pretend I show you a video of Padres pitcher Jake Peavy hitting a homerun. I then claim that the logical conclusion is that all national league pitchers hit a homerun every time they come up to bat. Your likely response would be, “That’s ridiculous. You can’t base a conclusion like that on one at bat.”

On the other hand if I make that claim, you could show me one at-bat by one national league pitcher where he does not hit a home-run, thereby disproving my assertion with only one piece of evidence.

Moore attacks the subject of privatized health care with the intellectually dishonest tactic of omitting information in his evidence. He only puts forth the evidence that supports his conclusion. This is not a documentary. Documentaries document reality. He presents his “reality” by only showing the worst testimonials. I don’t even have to analyze the specifics of the testimonials. The testimonials can be broken up into two groups:

• Those without insurance
• Those with insurance that are denied claims or have trouble paying the bills

Those without insurance generally claim they could not afford it. Moore does not analyze their reasons at all. One sob-story shows a couple that goes broke because of copays and decutibles. Interestingly enough this is the only story with that plotline. More evidence is needed to consider this proof. Also, we would need to analyze the full financials of this couple to determine if the copays and deductibles were the sole, or main, cause of their financial problems. The couple owns two cars and wasn’t living in the poorest of neighborhoods. Did they have any credit card debt? Leaving all these details out and only showing one testimonial is certainly not proof. This testimonial, without supporting evidence, could easily be a ridiculous anomoly, or a flat-out lie.

But the testimonial is so convincing!

A friend of mine dismissed my criticism of such testimonials: “He’s not making this up. You can tell it’s real.” Folks, his movie is unsubstantiated hearsay. You can never tell if a testimonial is really true without research. Statements like this are why I write this; you MUST inoculate yourself from propaganda. Here’s an example reported by NewsMax: Joseph Testa was president of the Dallas Vietnam Veterans of America chapter. He had been drafted in ‘67 and served 18 months in Saigon. He often wore fatigues with sergeant stripes, sometimes wearing a Silver Star, and was one of the better volunteers.

Never went to Vietnam

The truth is Joseph Testa enlisted in ‘67, went AWOL twice, and received court martial sentences of 9 months hard labor. He never went to Vietnam, nor did he receive any valorous decorations. To top it off, he hs 4 credit card abuse and theft by check convictions. He waltzed around as a veteran, representing all Dallas veterans as their leader, but he was a total, utter fraud.

But Moore has lots of testimonials, they can’t ALL be liars

Short answer… yes they can. Allow me to illustrate with the story of Agent Orange. Agent Orange was a defoliant designed to clear area for landing, etc. during the Vietnam War. Some veterans claimed that an “orange powder” or mist sprayed out of a plane descended upon them, and later caused them to develop an astonishing number of different sicknesses, with an endless list of symptoms. To this day, veterans can apply for aid for Agent Orange symptoms. Terrible tragedy, right?

Agent Orange is not orange, it is clear

So all those people are lying? Yes, they are. Agent Orange was given that name, because the label on the barrel it was stored in was orange. They also had Agent Blue, Agent Red, etc. They heard what it was called, and made up a story that seemed feasible. Their ignorance illustrates their fraud. It’s true that not all claims of Agent Orange side-effects cited an orange powder as the source of their exposure. On top of the fact that no scientific study has ever been able to link contact with Agent Orange to any sickness, the Air Force unit that handled it on a daily basis had no increased incidence of any disease. Operation Ranch Hand had 1200 members over the course of the entire war, and as initiation, the unit would drink a glass of Agent Orange.

Fake or unrelated symptoms

So how did all these people contract all these symptoms? Some of them probably have some sort of sickness, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the trace dioxins in Agent Orange. Perhaps a combination of Munchausen and pure greed. Read the details in Stolen Valor by B.G. Burkett. If you search for Agent Orange in google images, you will find ENDLESS pictures like the one to the left. Sad pictures, but NOT ONE OF THEM has anything to do with Agent Orange. The federal government, despite the presentation of evidence that there is no connection between Agent Orange and sickness, still pays for care of the non-existent diseases. This should make everyone angry; it is criminal.

9/11 volunteers denied care

A large portion of the movie is devoted to a handful of people claiming to be people who volunteered at ground zero of the 9/11 site. They all have breathing problems, and no healthcare. A fund was setup after 9/11 to handle claims by such people, and yet these people claim to have been denied care. Moore is unconcerned with why they were denied care, simply that it was wrong to deny them. Ask yourself… should every claim be filled, no questions asked? The fund was not a bottomless pit, so measures to prevent fraud were put in place. How else would you prevent people that didn’t volunteer from claiming they did?

The people in the movie appear to have very real symptoms, one telling the story of how he must sleep sitting up because he can’t breath when he’s laying down. Mr. Moore, please provide all the documentation you have on this man so that we may truly see the injustice that is being done to him. I submit that Moore will make excuses for why he can’t do that, and will never let anyone scrutinize his claims.

So, those of you who believe the movie, based on the history laid out above, is it possible that someone went to Ground Zero to volunteer and to this day is still faking a cough they developed from the air they were breathing that day? If people are willing to lie and fake symptoms of the time they didn’t spend in Vietnam, why is it such a stretch to suspect these 9/11 volunteers? Couldn’t they just be looking for a handout?

The undeniable economics of healthcare

He praises that the health care in Canada, UK, and France are better than here. Everything is free. In the UK, the cashier GIVES you money, not takes it from you, so that you can take a cab to and from the hospital.

Folks, a quick lesson on economics. Government gives away free stuff… so how do they do that? Where does the government get the money? From taxes… and where do taxes come from? YOU. Nothing is free, even from the government. I give Moore credit for not cutting out the scene where an American goes into Canada and lies about her address to get health care. The clinic gets suspicious so she leaves. The reason she left is because she’s not allowed to get health insurance unless she’s paying taxes. And remember taxes are what pays for the free health care… so she is DENIED MEDICAL ATTENTION BECAUSE SHE DIDN’T PAY. Even Canada understands economics. If you can explain why the government rejecting people is different than an HMO, I’m all ears.

In the movie, a Canadian went golfing in Florida, tore his bicep, and the hospital wanted $24,000 to fix it. This is framed as ridiculous by Moore… how cheap does he think hospital equipment is? If an American goes overseas, it is very easy to get the coverage extended internationally. This Canadian did not seem to bother, or he did and left out that the charge would be reimbursed. Why would you reward those who didn’t bother to plan ahead and tell people who had the foresight to plan ahead that they were idiots for doing so?

Free care = emergency rooms closed

So what happens when you don’t make sure everyone is paying into whatever system your country has? Emergency rooms go bankrupt. Between 1993 and 2000, 20 emergency rooms were closed in Ontario, Canada. In 2004, Los Angeles county lost 6 emergency rooms, or the ability to treat 75,000 patients. A public health study showed that in a ONE MONTH period in Los Angeles County, the cost of uninsured patients “unable to pay” was $39.6 million. Who pays for that?

Michael Moore points out all the advantages of Universal Health Care but NONE of the disadvantages. He ignores the economics of it, showing a positive anecdote here and there, with no proof to back up his anecdotes. He correctly points out that Americans are behind almost 10 other countries in life expectancy, which he attributes to not have national health care. Hawaii has a life expectancy that is more than those other countries (except Japan), yet Hawaii is only ranked 19th in the United States for income. So what causes people in one area to outlive those in another? There are COUNTLESS reasons, and health coverage may be one of them, but to pretend it is the ONLY factor, as Moore does in his movie, is preposterous, and obviously agenda-driven. Having more vacation time in Europe probably contributes to lower stress levels, and therefore longer life. Perhaps that is the answer. So, we have lower life expectancy than other countries… he’s right about that.

Capitalism applied in socialized medicine?

He pointed out a doctor in the UK that described merit-based salaries for doctors based on the healthy habit changes of their pages. I am not against that if data backs up that it is a good thing. Unfortunately, the legal system as currently set up, doctors would be sued for that sort of thing, how dare they benefit from doing their job, GASP! The other point he made that got me thinking, “Why don’t we have that anymore?” was house-visits by doctors. They used to do it all the time, but not anymore. My suspicion is that it was not cost-effective, meaning it just takes too many years and too much money to find someone LICENSED as a doctor to be willing to travel from place to place like a plumber. The hospitals have probably found it more cost-effective to make patients come to them, or pick them up in ambulances.

All of this leads to a totally different conclusion than Mr. Moore comes to. His claim is that evil HMOs dont care about patients and THAT is the problem with private health care. The fact is private health care is just fine, but legal issues make it impossible for them to run at optimal efficiency, thereby making it easy to find fault with them. LEAVE THE HMOs ALONE, and competition will create the greatest health care possible.

Everyone understands this in other areas. If you want cheap life insurance, you go find the cheapest life insurance. Car insurance is REQUIRED in order to register a car in most states, let alone drive one, yet we don’t feel compelled to get our car insurance from our employer or the government. Why is that? We all need it if we drive a car, so why don’t we all get it for free from the government? For any of you who respond with, that’s ridiculous, I agree and it is NO DIFFERENT with health insurance.
This movie is a commercial, not a documentary. If he believes Universal Health Care is hands-down the way to go, fine, I’d love to hear his evidence. “Sicko” does not stand up to the test. Moore is an extremely good salesman, but you shouldn’t believe everything he tells you because he tugs on your heart strings. He says big business is corrupt, so they can’t be trusted with healthcare, but he wants to hand it over to the government?! Because they’re NOT CORRUPT?! I’ll take corrupt and cheap over corrupt and expensive ANY DAY.

Anti-capitalism, not pro-socialized healthcare

Conclusion: Stop applying jury room logic to the mostly privatized healthcare system of America. Of course it’s not perfect, but its as good or better than anywhere else in the world. If it weren’t people would leave in droves. Instead, people are coming here in droves. And the problems with it are CAUSED by government and our over-litigious legal system, not FIXED by them.
On a side note… here’s a response from the webmaster of MooreWatch.com whom Moore claimed he wrote a $12,000 check that saved the webmaster’s wife’s life. He points out each instance of Moore taking emails and comments out of context, and out of chronological order to misrepresent the events involving them. Moore did this is a previous film with some video of Charlton Heston.
Question everything.

Ron Paul’s policies on upholding the constitution, for the most part, are perfect. He recognizes that the federal government has overstepped its powers drastically and wants to draw it back. I would 100% endorse Ron Paul except for the one, absolutely vital issue that he is dead wrong on: national defense.

His reasoning behind his position is rational, but not in-depth enough. His stance is its not the governments business to be defending nations across the pond; he says we should not intervene. We should not be at war unless we are attacked. Here’s an example… if you looked out your window, and saw your neighbor piling rocket launchers and rockets in a pile in the garage next to a poster that said “Death to [you],” Ron Paul would tell you its not your place to intervene unless he attacks you. This is SUICIDAL.

I REALLY like his other politics (see these videos); he makes bold statements that ignore typical knee-jerk reactions and stand up to scrutiny. He argues to get rid of the Department of Education. What a silly thing, get rid of education? No, no. Not education… the DEPARTMENT of education. He says they’ve proven themselves inefficient, citing that D.C. is the one city they’re totally in charge of, and it costs $13,000 a year per student for schools filled with guns and violence and a terrible education.

Ron Paul would defend us once we were attacked, but I fear he would allow an attack that George W. Bush, so far, has prevented, and I believe the rest of the republicans and even Hillary Clinton would most likely prevent. Close, Mr. Paul, but no cigar.

While visiting Southern California on Thursday, President Bush promised to give federal aid to the region for uninsured losses. While compassion and pity are admirable qualities, this action would basically inform anyone who had the prescience and self-reliance to purchase their own insurance that they are suckers. Telling people that were responsible enough to plan for such a disaster, and spent money year after year after year to insure their home and personal property that they wasted their money is much worse than the loss suffered by those who were not prepared. It is a terrible and unacceptable message to send to the people of California and the rest of the nation. It is another possible attack on the American principle of self-reliance and removes incentive to act properly.

Natural disasters are tragedies and very often unpredictable, but many areas throughout the country and the world are obviously succeptable to specific disasters, and the people of those regions are responsible for preparing for them. If someone builds their house on a steep hill, and a landslide destroys their home, its not MY responsibility. I made my home in a safer place, and I should be rewarded for that. People in Florida should obtain insurance for hurricanes, many Kansans should insure against Tornados, and San Franciscans need protection against earthquakes. The federal government should not insure EVERYTHING for many reasons. Iowans should not have to retrofit their structures for earthquakes; it would be a colossal waste of money because they don’t have earthquakes frequently enough to warrant it. They should also not have to pay for earthquake damage in other states. It’s not their responsibility

Building a city with several areas below sea level near an ocean is just plain stupid. I do not believe people should be prevented from settling in these areas, but if they choose to live there, they should be responsible for the consequences. Not me. If someone leaves food out in their house with the windows open in an area known to be inhabitated by many bears, its their fault and responsibility to either fix the damage or to insure it. Not mine. We have figured this logic out in so many areas. No rational person would ever claim that the widow of a man without life insurance should receive the equivalent of her late husband’s salary for the rest of her life unless they had an insurance policy. Reimbursement policies like that would OBVIOUSLY bankrupt the country over time. No one would ever apply for life insurance, and claims would flood the federal government.

Of course many of the Californians may have been unaware of the risk of fire in their area, due to the high concentration of houses as well as some residents’ ignorant objection to controlled fires to reduce risk and the high velocity Santa Anna winds at this time of year, but their ignorance cannot be rewarded while those that weren’t ignorant are essentially punished for years of good behavior and judgment.