The Violence Worker!

The Logical Result Of Government Health Care

Nothing is free and that includes healthcare.  Someone pays for it and when you start running out of someones, you are going to have to start cutting back.  Canadian baby boomers are starting to consume more and more of the available resources and there are less and less younger people to pay for it.

TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

Simply put, Canada can no longer afford their healthcare system.  When I was in Ontario a few years back, it was in the news that people who moved to a new area often  had to wait two or more years before they could be assigned a primary care physician.  Outside of the southern cities, there are few doctors.  If you live in the less populated areas, you might get lucky to see a nurse for routine care.

And despite what some would have you believe here in the states, Canada Care does not cover everything.  There was a radio host on a local radi0o station in Belleville, Ontario whose son had cancer.  They were advertising fundraisers  to pay for his care

Scotia Capital's [Senior Economist Mary] Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.

"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"

They won't care - to them, it's still free.  You might hear, "Gee, that's a lot of money, but that's what it's there for.  If I don't use it someone else will."  I guarantee you that such a an idea will do little to stem the costs.

Eventually, the logical result will be a system that collapses on top of itself because the costs.  This is why Government Healthcare will not work - for long.

VW

Satire? Yeah right....

Thanks Instapunk.

THE AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT

Washington, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans.

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real ambition or skills...

'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer.

'We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.'

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the Transportation Security Administration, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. 

Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U. S. employer of Persons of Inability. Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%).

At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.

The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'

'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. 'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added. 

With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen,   regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.'

On Greed - Part I

This is the first of a two part series exploring the concept of greed and an attempt to define it a little differently than most people.

PART I

Greed - It's one of the seven deadies.  It's one of those sins that Christian tradition says will get you a reserved spot in one of the more roastier-toastier places in Hell.  Dante Alighieri imagined the greedy eternally pushing huge stones against another greedy soul who is pushing back against the other in his work, "The Divine Comedy".  I've been thinking about greed since Mrs. VW and I watched a History Channel mini-series few weeks ago that exposited each of the seven sins from several different faiths. 

What is greed?  Is working hard and trying to better your station really greed?  Am I really taking something from someone else when I make more money? 

Greed is one of those things that seems to be as hard to define as it is to nail gelatin to a wall.  Modern life demands that I need to make a certain amount to sustain myself and my family.  Back in Alighieri's day, existence was more precarious and it took much less to eke out an existence.  Back in the 13th and 14th centuries, greed and covetousness were often linked together under the Latin word for avarice - avaritia.

Part of the problem is that we've been defining greed in the same way since the 13th century.  In Summa Theologica (written 1265–1274), Thomas Aquinas said this about greed or covetousness:

Covetousness may signify immoderation about external things in two ways. First, so as to regard immediately the acquisition and keeping of such things, when, to wit, a man acquires or keeps them more than is due. On this way it is a sin directly against one's neighbor, since one man cannot over-abound in external riches, without another man lacking them, for temporal goods cannot be possessed by many at the same time.

In other words, if I have more than I need, then someone else is without.  That seem to be a prevalent thought still today. If I achieve a certain amount of wealth or status, it must be at the expense of another less fortunate person.  Although Aquinas' words have some truth to them which we will explore in Part II, that's not necessarily how things always work.  Bill Gates didn't become wealthy by making me poorer.  We traded.  I got something of value for my money and I considered it a fair trade.  Read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" if you have trouble understanding that idea.  Smith understood the relationship of trade and labor.

If my wealth or status was ill-gotten, then I would not deserve it.  That, I suppose, is my delineator.  Simply put, if I came by wealth dishonestly, I really would be making someone poorer.  Their loss would be my gain and that would be wrong.

A desire to obtain wealth is not necessarily greed or wrong.  Without that desire, we might still be living in a cave hunting with a spear.  Certainly, we wouldn't be near as technologically advanced.  What would be the incentive?  We benefit when someone decides they can do it better, or cheaper then the last guy.  Sometimes, it's someone who gets a stroke of genius and comes up with something completely out of the blue.

Whatever the case, bettering humanity and gaining from it is not necessarily greed unless you succomb to the idea that it's all about the money and getting more money becomes your sole motivation.  Then you might have a problem.

Part II will deal with a different interpretation of greed.  What I have to say may surprise you.

VW

Expanding The Middle Class

UPDATE:  Some idiot liberal at Buzzflash thinks I'm rich and I want to keep people poor.  He took one part of one paragraph and posted it out of context.  He left out sentences and twisted things. So, read the whole thing and don't let one idiot blogger tell you who I am or what I think.  Also, you dimwits, I've never read Hannity's blog and  I don't get RNC talking points

The Buzzflash moron is a liar and I challenge him to come here and defend himself, but he won't because he's a cowardly asshat with no balls.

If after you read this and still think I'm for keeping people poor, then you are a balless, lying idiot as well.  Get a job, move out of your parents basement and lay off the Mountain Dew.

VW

I don't know what that means.  All the economic talk these days is about "expanding the middle class" and Joe Biden is going to "honcho" that task for the Obama regime administration.

"My focus is going to be, I'm going to chair this group and it is designed to do the one thing we use as a yardstick of economic success of our administration, is the middle class growing? Is the middle class getting better? Is the middle class no longer being left behind? And we'll look at everything from college affordability to after-school programs. The things that affect people's daily lives. I will be the guy honchoing that policy," he said.

Well and good I suppose, because it gives Jivin' Joe something to occupy his time for the next four years.  I just have a problem with this idea that expanding whatever the middle class is defined as, is necessarily a good thing.

Admittedly, I have only a rudimentary understanding of economics.  I'm just about one or two steps above the "Money good, no money bad!" level of economic knowledge.  One of the things I do know about economics is that government cannot create wealth.  Government must take wealth from people in order for it to operate and any wealth redistributed must necessarily filter through a myriad of bureaucracies and bureaucrats before it gets down to the street level.  In many cases, if government was a charity, it would be the subject of one of those TV News exposés on badly run non-profits.

All that said, when I picture the idea of growing the middle class, I don't understand why we focus on just the middle class.  Is the middle class (whatever that is) so great that we want everyone to be in the middle, or do we want to expand the possibilities for all Americans to advance economically?

It would seem to me that an economic policy geared toward only one section of the population will, in effect, stifle growth.  I don't want the middle class to expand; I want opportunities for everyone to advance.  I want poor people to be able to succeed, but I want the opportunity to succeed as well.  You are not going to do that by taking more from us or from successful people and give it to those on the lower level.  The old adage of teaching a man to fish is not just some quaint old saying; it is a truism that transcends time.  It's just as true today as it was when it was first uttered.  Expanding economic opportunity for the poor to be able to be part of the so-called middle class cannot be accomplished without the opportunity for people to move up at all levels.

So, if expanding the middle class is a good idea, is it not just as good or better to also work toward expanding opportunities for those in the middle to advance as well?  Despite what the communists and the socialists want to tell you, mankind's inclination is to move forward, not backwards or remain static.  They know that, but the socialists will tell you that your desire to improve your station is somehow a form of evil.  It's just not fair for you to have more than someone else.  The truth is, it's the desire to be more, to have more, to build and to dream, that are the concepts that drive us to design, build and make available to the mass market all the things we now take for granted.  In the last 100 years, technology and industry has afforded us a lifestyle only dreamed of by a few.  Man's quest to better himself and others is the impetus behind the creation of automobiles, airplanes and every modern convenience.  Our quest for knowledge has led us into space and the spin off technologies from that endeavor are now part of our everyday life.

In America, the result of our quest to be bigger, better, and richer benefits everyone at every level.  The vast majority of our poor own a car, a color TV, and even a computer.  They have a house with reliable electricity, clean water at the tap and common kitchen appliances. I'm not saying being poor is a bed of roses, but in this country, it's not exactly like most of the third world.

In order for the middle class to expand, the upper class will necessarily have to expand as well.  Government cannot expand the middle class by itself.  I don't want an expanded middle class.  I want an expanded wealthy class because the more successful people become, the more people behind them become successful.  You cannot build an economy from the bottom up.  It doesn't work and it can't work.  Giving a poor man the proverbial fish does not make him better off and does nothing to build wealth for anyone.  It kills incentive, creates dependency and destroys self worth.

We need to work on expanding opportunity at all levels.  The free market is the economic model of prosperity, not some grand scheme that robs from Peter, gets filtered through untold layers of bureaucracy and then spits a few pennies out to Paul.

VW

Are We Spinning Out Of Control?

A few days ago, there was a piece that circulated news outlets that has been on my mind.  It was an opinion piece that asked if the US was spinning out of control.

Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.

The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault. Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that's chipping away at America's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.

In some ways we are spinning out of control.  Weather and floods happen with varying frequency.  We get beat up for awhile and then things seem to level off.  It's not the first time floods have battered the Mississippi heartland nor is it uncommon for the south and southeast to be battered by hurricanes.  We've lived through droughts before and we've survived earthquakes in the past.  Who knows what tomorrow will bring?  It's enough to depress even the most cheerful among us. 

The writer's of that piece are most likely liberal.  It's surprising then that they would write that last paragraph.  It amazes me that they can write such an insight and then go on to suggest that it's the government's fault for not fixing everything.

And that is my point.  We are spinning and if we don't get some kind of handle on things, we will soon be out of control.  It's not the disasters that are propelling the spin, it's the nanny state.

America's "can-do, bootstrap approach" is disappearing because we are increasingly demanding that the President and Congress take care of us.  The dirty truth is simply that they cannot and as long as we expect them to take care of us, we will continue on this downward spiral.

When Katrina happened, government at all levels was cited for a myriad of failures.  Never mind the devastation was just not New Orleans.  Katrina affected an area the size of Minnesota.  Whole towns disappeared. But should you reasonably expect the government to give you immediate aid?  Should you expect the taxpayers to completely rebuild your life at no cost to you?  The problem with Katrina was not just one of government failure, it was also one of individual failure times thousands.  There are still hundreds of people living in hotels on our dime almost three years later!   There is no "can-do" here! 

Anyone who expects any government aid within in at least the first 72 hours is delusional, I don't care how well oiled the FEMA machine appears to be. 

Gone from our collective consciousness are the words of President John F. Kennedy:  " And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."  More often than not, people aren't asking the the government to do anything - they are demanding it and threaten to hit the streets rioting if they don't get it.

What did we do 50 or 75 years ago when a disaster hit?  There was no FEMA.  There was no organized government relief effort. 911 hadn't been invented.   We relied upon each other.  We came together as a community and did what we could do.  We banded together as Americans because as Americans, we could rebuild. 

I'm not saying that government doesn't have a place.  Certainly, with the advent of such things as FEMA, we've been able to do more to save lives and rebuild quicker.  The problem is that now, we expect government to do it all.  Why can't we set up some sort of program based upon the Habitat for Humanity model?  Let the people rebuild, but let them help.  Most people can do at least something to help themselves.

Sadly, we are no longer that nation that will do that.  We have lost our sense of community. There are pockets of America that still believe in doing for themselves and still have the ability to pull the community together, but they are fewer and fewer.  The people affected by the Mississippi floods are doing it.  Sure they are getting help, but they are also doing a lot for themselves and helping each other as they sandbag the levees.  Most of the rest of the country now expects a total free ride. 

We are spinning and all the Democrats are offering is to spin us that faster.  The lesson of JFK is forgotten and we never learned this lesson from President Reagan:  "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." and this from President Ford:  "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

The only way we will regain control is a return to our roots of self-reliance and less dependence on the handout.  I'm not sure if we will ever be able to shrug off big government.

I fear for our future.  I fear for my children and I especially fear for my grandchildren.

VW

Hillary Knows Us

Hillary Clinton is floating the idea of giving everyone born in America some sort of $5000 bond redeemable at 18.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

It's so easy isn't it?  Offer to give away other people's money.  In truth, she is a savvy politician; she knows that people are greedy and always looking for an easy buck.  She knows that the mindset of most Americans is not what they can do for their country, but what can they get out of her treasury.

All the Conservative blogs are excoriating Mrs. Clinton for such audacity, but in truth, she's doing what all politicians try to do in some way or another and that is buy your vote.  Most aren't quite as obvious about it, but it all boils down to the same sauce:  Vote for me and I'll spend your money on you in someway.  Pork is king in DC and we are the ones who placed the crown on its head.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

We have no one to blame but our own greed.

VW

The Welfare Cycle

Yesterday I wrote about the tragedy in Seattle and ended it speculating that the daughter (if she survived) might someday have her own child and the cycle will continue.

That reminded me of story of a young girl I met back in the late spring of 1991 in Merced, California. 

I was stationed at Castle AFB near there and was close to retirement in a couple of months.  I used to ride a bicycle to stay in shape.  I would leave the car at home and ride to work or just ride around town.  Nothing fancy, but it was easier on my knees than running 5 miles a day.  I also had an amateur radio license and I carried around a little 2 meter HT.  HT means “Handy-Talkie”.  2 meter refers to the frequency range it operated on.  It was the size of a small kiddy “walkie-talkie” but this was no kid’s toy.  The two-meter ham band is in the 144 -148 MHz.  However, the radio would receive well past that and I could use it to listen (but not transmit) to the Merced PD that used (I think) a frequency in the 154 MHZ range.  I’d built a little carrier on my handle bars to carry and cushion the radio so I could listen while I rode the bike.  (Yes your honor, the bike and the radio are central to my case!  Please bear with me.)

OK, the ground work laid, I was out one fine sun-shiny Sunday California morning around 11 AM tooling around town on my bike.  I was bored so I went out for a ride around town with my little HT set to scan so I could monitor the Ham action as well as the local police and fire.

I heard the dispatcher tell a patrol car there was a car parked at a local strip mall in the handicap stall.  There wasn’t any handicap plate or blue mirror placard plus, there was an open container of beer on the front seat.  I was a couple of blocks away, so I thought I’d go check out the “excitement”.  (This was, after all, Merced or “Mer-Dead” as a lot of us stationed there called it.)

I arrived a minute later and I saw the cop on the other end of the parking lot already there watching. I pulled up a couple stores down and listened while they ran the plate of the offending vehicle.   As I stood there next to my bike on the walkway between stores, a teenaged girl came up to me and asked me if I was a “narc”.  She was blonde and pretty, but with a little weight on her hips.  I told her no, I wasn’t a narc and explained a little about my radio.

She said she was 16.  She said that as soon as she became 18, she wanted to take courses at the local community college to become a police officer.  I lauded her ambition and then she continued with her life story.  She told me she was worried that her mother trying to take away her two kids would hurt her chances.  She was living with her 21 year old boyfriend and couldn’t understand why her mother would do such a thing because the welfare people once tried to take her and her siblings away from her Mom several years back.  The conversation ended when a 30 something woman and an old man (her father) came out to the car.  She’d forgotten to hang the placard on the mirror so she was authorized to park there and the beer belonged to the old man who wasn’t driving.  The cops took the can and let them go with a warning.

I rode over to a park near there and immediately wrote the story down.

I sometimes think of that young girl when I hear a story like the tragedy in Seattle.  I wonder if she ever broke free of the cycle.  I doubt it, but I hope she did.  She’d be about 31 now.  If she didn’t, her kids would be well on the way to being the third generation of welfare recipients. 

I understand this story is anecdotal but I think it’s truly indicative of the fruits of the welfare state.  Dependence breeds dependence.  People talk about cycles – domestic violence, child molestation, addictions etc.  We need to re-think welfare in terms of causing cyclical dependence and find ways to get people off the dole and back to being productive citizens.  We had a nice start a few years back, but it’s been so watered down since then in many places as to be meaningless.

A safety net is one thing, a lifestyle is quite another.