H1N1 and the Uninsured

With so few people dying because of H1N1 and the fact that it appears that most normal strains of flu are equally as lethal, and spread much quicker, why is this rather unimpressive virus still in the news?

Could it be an attempt to push socialized medicine?  Perhaps.

“At top labs, scientists are optimistic they can make a vaccine that’s effective against the new virus. But in a country where one in seven people lack medical insurance, doctors worry that some individuals won’t get needed protection because of cost.”

Yes, the corporations are concerned that one in seven (if we accept that number as truth) people will miss out on a chance to give them money.  Remember, so far this virus hasn’t moved quickly, nor is it very lethal.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., have introduced legislation to pay for temporary medical treatment for uninsured people during a public health emergency. It could be a natural disaster such as an earthquake or hurricane, a bioterror attack, or a medical emergency such as a flu pandemic. “We can’t afford to have barriers that keep people from getting care when an epidemic is sweeping the community,” Capps said. Separately, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has proposed to offer all individuals a free flu shot each year.

Strangely, with a budget busting at the seams, a down economy, and an unstable world, Congress seems to find new ways to spend money we do not have on projects the Constitution does not permit.   A ‘free’ (as if no one pays for it) flu shot every year?   Outstanding for the corporations.   No need to advertise, no need to do anything but lobby government.   Remember President (then candidate) Obama talking about how tired he was of lobbies and PACs?   Good to see Congress feels this way.

The reason this is all being able to be done is because the world is fearing a rather plain virus as if it were a sweeping plague.   Remember: “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”

Obama’s ‘Spread the Wealth’ comment, and Emanuel’s comment show their plan…. they lay it before us to see, and we the people fall for it.  They tell us we’re entitled to it, and so many Americans have no sense of self-worth, or understanding of cause and effect, so many Americans swallow it hook, line, and sinker and actually think they are indeed entitled to so many things.  Wake up America, do something for yourselves… and keep doing it.

Small Government is the Only Way

For far too long the federal government has been taking over more and more power and more and more freedom from the people of the United States.   This has happened under Republican and Democrat administrations – neither are immune from criticism.  I have taken time to illustrate many of the actions taking place which are eroding our freedom and I have attempted to explain why it is in our interest to reduce and then enforce the limits put on the federal government by instruments like the Constitution and the judicial system which is supposed to clarify the limit of the federal government.

From many troubling elements of the Patriot Act (most every congressman voted for this without reservation), the Campaign Finance Reform Act (sponsored by John McCain), to most everything President Obama’s administration has done show that were are heading down the road to federal totalitarianism quicker and quicker.    I am not completely against the Patriot Act, and I can even see the need to have passed it in its whole after 11 September and the realization that we were not well equiped to deal with the modern threats to our security, but that time as passed, for a while, it has been an appropriate time to look over all the parts of this legislation – line by line – and get rid of the more questionable and downright unconstitutional elements of the bill.   For instance, the fact that, if I see my neighbor’s house being searched by the feds, the feds can order me to NOT speak about it to anyone or else I myself may face federal charges.   Considering that I am a conservative / libertarian blogger, you can imagine how well that sits with me.

The McCain Feingold Act (Campaign Finance Reform), puts restrictions on both when I can speak and how I can speak regarding a candidate, as well as limiting the amount of money I can give to a candidate directly.   This last part may seem good on the surface, but what needs to be remembered is that the entrenched politicians who cater to the needs of their parties can get soft money from those parties as well as the fact that the parties can run ads and smears against the opponents just fine.   but if I were to run as either an ‘off the reservation’ Republican, or as an Independent, I would not get that money from the party organ, and with the limit people can give me how would I ever be able to compete against the parties in power?  I can not.  I can not get my word out enough, because I can not get money in the same amount as the parties of the status quo.  All this passed with a name as friendly as ‘finance reform’ since so many people thought it was a bad thing to see so much money in politics.   Did it work?  Not at all.  There is more money in politics today than yesterday, and tomorrow will have even more.   The powers-that-be know how to manipulate the system — they wrote the law, but you and I can get hammered if we fall out of line.

President Obama’s administration has taken control of the 19 largest banks, has pushed for the removal of a CEO of a large auto maker, and constantly is having his people push an agenda of growing control — all in the name of us, the people, or more disturbingly, the environment.   This is an incredibly large power grab mixing private business, publically traded corporations, and the government into the same pool where to object is to be moved off the scene.   The same Congress who rallies around these ideas is also the one who gives more money to supporters via pork barrel ear marks, yet complains and fakes outrage when AIG, who was forced to take money, pays some of the better executives it has bonuses that are of a smaller whole value as well as percentage than the pork barrel corruption in congress (versus the bailout money vis a vis budget).  AIG bonuses: Less than 1% of all bailout money given to them, Congress: Pork barrel spending between 1% and 2%.   Millions vs. hundreds of billions.

Complicit in this abuse of power is the media who seem more interested in smearing AIG and the Tea Parties than in asking tough questions and bringing concerns about Congress’ spending and politial theater.  There is a media mentality that truly thinks that it can not be the average citizen who is upset with the government, it must just be those people on DHS’ list of potential threats.    This thought is why they treated the Tea Parties the way they did.

We need less decisions being made in Washington and we need less of our money going to support their spending.   Congress’ addiction to spending our money for what benefits them as well as Congress habit of ignoring their Constitutional limitation shows that the danger is not from extremists on the right or even from the left — the danger lies in the hands and pens of the law makers at the federal level.   We need to remind these politicians who is in charge and who is the servant.

Corporations: Neither an Enemy nor a Friend

Far too often corporations are demonized for making money and are called greedy, selfish, and even oppressive.  They have people at the top who make far more money in a one or a few years than most people will make in their lifetime.   Corporations seem not to care about any individual employee in the workforce because there are just so many that they can either be replaced or ignored without too much of a problem at any given time.   Corporations look for the way to make the most money and will up and leave any current location to go to any other if wages and other costs tend to be less.  To a certain extent, all of the above can be true.  All of these reasons and many other lead some people to say that corporations are an enemy.

Those who support corporations tend to say that corporations provide jobs for many people and thus having a corporation in your community increases the income of the entire town / region because of people having jobs and thus money to spend in their own towns.  Corporations, unlike small shops, can afford the lofty costs of research and development in order to make advances in technology and refine existing methods and processes which cost vast sums of money and promise no guarantee of a return on such an  initial investment.  Corporations also buy failing small companies who have good ideas / employees but for some reason are failing (mismanagement, no marketable product, etc.) thus keeping ideas and workers employed.  Those who make these and other similar claims are also correct.

Corporations are really no different than an individual in that we all look for a good deal, do not want to spend a lot, decide on a mixture of quality vs. costliness and want to do more with less.  Many people frequent corporations and corporate enterprises like WalMart, Target, and so on because of the prices and possibly the selection.  When people continue to frequent such places there is only one thing that can happen:  the corporation makes a profit and thus grows.   Then people, many times the same people who shop there, manufacture outrage at the idea of such a mega-corporation like WalMart who ‘puts smaller stores out of business’.    So, as many people shop at the corporation we are reminded that they provide a service to people and the people respond to the offer of service by frequenting the stores; then we are reminded of the evils of the corporation as some smaller businesses fail because they can not compete.

Now let’s take a look at this situation as if you owned a small business, or if you work of any business at all.  You have a product or service you wish to sell.  You have a price which is competitive.  You have either a marketing team or hire a marketing firm too help advertise to get your name and product / service know to the town / region.   The competition revises their strategies as appropriate.   You do well and take market-share away from some of the competition, resulting in one of your competitors to close their door.   You and the rest of the remaining competition pick up that market share they still had as well as you hire some of the more adept staff from the old business in order to assist you in making money.   This goes on for a few cycles and another competitor fall to the way side.   You open up a larger web-presence and have people ordering from online.   This online ordering can affect sales from around the country and indeed possibly the world.  Competition is pinched again.   You expand to a second location, forcing the competitors to take even more notice.   You hire more people, sell more product, and things are good.

Question 1:  When is it your duty, responsibility, or concern to help out the competition to keep them in business?

Question 2: Would your own employees like it if you couldn’t pay them, give them raises, etc. because you didn’t want to make more money?

Question 3: If you’re a publicly owned company, would your shareholders (read: partial OWNERS) appreciate you giving quarter to competition who would take your market share if possible?

Question 4:  Would the town / region appreciate losing the jobs and tax revenue because you didn’t take the idea of making a profit seriously?  There’s never a promise when a business leaves that another will take its place.

Some will argue that my scenario is for a more local or regional business and not a multinational corporation.   They are wrong.   The same situations apply, but they are on a larger scale.   The worst thing we are seeing now is that we have loads of politicians, from both parties in the US, falling over themselves to give the money of the citizenry into the hands of either the inept or the corrupt in business.   Two things should be remembered about why having a business go broke is not a bad thing:  Either the business is not competitive and this the product should either be made elsewhere or not at all, or when the failing / corrupt are removed an entrepreneurial force may reform the business / product and bring new life and ideas to the table.   Either way, the death of a business is a natural thing.   Is anyone upset that the government didn’t bail out the horse-drawn buggy business because of the competition from the automotive industry?   Should we have fed money to home-delivered milk services when they declined?   Did people lose their jobs, career, and means of living?  Did we, as a whole, do just fine in the end?

I’m opposed to government intervention on behalf of businesses because of that:   The market (read: WE the people) speaks and if those listening are too slow / stupid / corrupt to act upon our words and actions, then we will go elsewhere until those businesses catch on, or fail and others come in and are more receptive.   No business has my ‘loyalty’ because no business would ever be ‘loyal’ to me.  They are not friends, though the people who work in one may be.  They are not my enemies; I understand their purpose and function and know how to deal with them.

Government intervention to preserve failing businesses is an act of idiocy – this fact remains the same regardless of which party is for it.  One of the biggest reasons that business is LESS dangerous than the government is that when a business is so obviously inept or corrupt the business will go under and die.  When the government suffers from such ailments taxes are raised, services cut and excuses made.  Both entities, government and businesses, want to preserve their being, but only one will fold under normal conditions, and so that is the one I will favor because of this mortality.

Remember these things when the government wants to get involved with businesses and provide services to us, the people.  The government looks to preserve and for many, expand its existence — for better and worse.