". . .life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
I hope all of you know where this quote came from so I don't have to reference it. Written by brave men standing up for what they believe. A challenge against the most powerful country in the world at the time. So what does it have to do with rights??
We talk about rights A LOT!! "I have the right to do this" "You don't have the right. . ." " (fill in blank) should be a right" But what is a right?
To make it simple, a right is freedom, some more important then others, to do, believe, or behave in some way. The right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to privacy, and right to bear arms are a few examples. In its most purest form, you have the right to do anything you want UNTIL it infringes on somebody else's rights. But we live in a society that doesn't believe in that so we pass laws restricting the rights of others. We give some people the right to marry, and take it away from others. We say it is immoral to pay for sex, but you can give it away for free. We say gambling is bad. . . well some kinds are. . . in some places. . . that their shouldn't be slots on every street corner. . . but scratcher tickets are ok. . . at every circle K. . . We say a certain firearm is OK to own, but this other one isn't. And now there is a big push that health care is a right, and that is correct, but not how they think.
Our government doesn't provide Rights. A Government can't Provide a Right. The Government doesn't hand out free books, give people free soap boxes, force people to go to church, or give every senior a free gun at high school graduation. Those examples all sound kind of funny in a scary way, don't they. Then why are so many people not just saying, but SCREAMING they have the right to FREE health care?? Yes, you have the right to health care, but you have to pay for it like everyone else. AND because it is a right, you have the option of NOT exercising that right too!! That is why the government can't provide a right. Because the second they tax everyone for it, you have lost your right NOT TO.
So be careful with your Rights!! Hold them close! Buy a controversial book, CD, or piece of art. Talk about politics, go to a church or choose not to, fight for the rights you hold dear AND the ones you don't too. Don't ever let those who would take your freedoms away do so without a fight!! Keep your gun clean and ammo dry. . .
Friday, October 2, 2009
Health care is a Right, not an Entitlement
BIG topic lately. . . And there are arguments on both sides that I find just stupid. it is kind of scary that both the republicans and the democrats are arguing from the same side. The democrats want a lot of government health care, and the republicans want just a little less government health care.
How about this idea. . . NO GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE!!!
If you really want to see what government health care would be like all you have to do is ask a vet. Just go down to the veterans hospital and ask how great government health care is. Do it. Do it on your next day off.
I do think that our health care system needs fixing. I just think that more government involvement will only make it worse. Imagine a hospital that is run like the DMV!!!
The government really got involved in healthcare in a major way starting with the creation of the FDA and regulating drugs in 1938. Much has changed since then and the government control has gotten worse. Much like our two party system of democrates and republicans, the AMA, Insurance companies, the Drug lobby, and Government regulators control the health of this country. With these four in the driver seat we have ended up with a health care system that in any other industry would be considered a monopoly and broken up. They fix costs, control how doctors can treat their patients, and block any competition. Then they sold the american people on it.
If the transmission brakes on your car, you call around and find a good deal to get it fixed. But with our current medical system you are stuck paying the set prices of the monopoly. We are so programed with this system that who would even think of calling around to different doctors or hospitals asking about prices and services offered for that cost??? Doctors, by default, prescribe the newest most expensive drugs instead of an older one that works almost as good because you could get a generic for it for much cheaper. Hospitals charge how much for an Aspirin and get away with it?? "Because insurance is paying for it. . ." Well, wake up people, WE are paying for it!!! Paying for it every pay check that they take out money for our insurance!!
I have one small personal example of what the medical system should be more like. I had a problem and had no insurance, didn't want to drive to Mexico for the medication, so I called around to different doctors' offices asking how much would they charge me for a simple doc visit with no insurance. Almost all of them were over the $150 mark. For about 20 minutes of their time!! After calling half a dozen I actually talked to a doctor and he said $50. So I went to him, got my prescription, and went on with my life. What did I learn from this. . . Well, a doctors office has to hire so many extra people to handle insurance claims and other regulations to fight for their money that $100 out of the $150 is for red tape and bureaucracy crap!!! AND malpractice insurance. . .
I have had a few comments that I can point out problems but not offer solutions. So here is my solution to the problem.
How about this idea. . . NO GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE!!!
If you really want to see what government health care would be like all you have to do is ask a vet. Just go down to the veterans hospital and ask how great government health care is. Do it. Do it on your next day off.
I do think that our health care system needs fixing. I just think that more government involvement will only make it worse. Imagine a hospital that is run like the DMV!!!
The government really got involved in healthcare in a major way starting with the creation of the FDA and regulating drugs in 1938. Much has changed since then and the government control has gotten worse. Much like our two party system of democrates and republicans, the AMA, Insurance companies, the Drug lobby, and Government regulators control the health of this country. With these four in the driver seat we have ended up with a health care system that in any other industry would be considered a monopoly and broken up. They fix costs, control how doctors can treat their patients, and block any competition. Then they sold the american people on it.
If the transmission brakes on your car, you call around and find a good deal to get it fixed. But with our current medical system you are stuck paying the set prices of the monopoly. We are so programed with this system that who would even think of calling around to different doctors or hospitals asking about prices and services offered for that cost??? Doctors, by default, prescribe the newest most expensive drugs instead of an older one that works almost as good because you could get a generic for it for much cheaper. Hospitals charge how much for an Aspirin and get away with it?? "Because insurance is paying for it. . ." Well, wake up people, WE are paying for it!!! Paying for it every pay check that they take out money for our insurance!!
I have one small personal example of what the medical system should be more like. I had a problem and had no insurance, didn't want to drive to Mexico for the medication, so I called around to different doctors' offices asking how much would they charge me for a simple doc visit with no insurance. Almost all of them were over the $150 mark. For about 20 minutes of their time!! After calling half a dozen I actually talked to a doctor and he said $50. So I went to him, got my prescription, and went on with my life. What did I learn from this. . . Well, a doctors office has to hire so many extra people to handle insurance claims and other regulations to fight for their money that $100 out of the $150 is for red tape and bureaucracy crap!!! AND malpractice insurance. . .
I have had a few comments that I can point out problems but not offer solutions. So here is my solution to the problem.
- The federal government reduce its control to only approving safe drugs
- Break the Health Care Monopoly with Federal level deregulation
- Let doctors set their own prices for their services
- Any added regulation should happen at State level, just like the Constitution says. That way if you want socialized medicine, pass it in your state or move to one that did and I will go somewhere else.
- Let insurance companies offer more plans, just like auto, life, and accident insurance does. . .
- You need to take charge of your own life!! Don't settle, don't stop, and don't back down!!
With this plan we now have honest choices. If a State allows crazy "pain and Suffering" suits against doctors, you will all pay more for their services. The good doctors will leave that State and you will be left with what you created.
If a state stays out of meddling with your right, then you can take control of your own life. You can see the Nurse Practitioner for a cold, strep at the local clinic in the grocery store or shop for the best heart surgeon when you need his service. Doctors won't have to hire excessive staff to deal with insurance claims, pay malpractice insurance that runs into the hundreds of thousands a year, and we will have affordable health care again.
JPFO. . . Who?? What??
You all know I am a Gunsmith. I work in the firearm industry. Have been for about 12 years now. Seen and joined many different pro gun organizations in those 12 years. But one of the small ones stands out. The JPFO.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership
Yes, I am a member and No you don't have to be Jewish to join.
Are they Extreme? YOU BET YOUR ASS!!!
So why the JPFO?? Well, they have very good reason to support the 2nd Amendment. They saw first hand what can happen in a modern society that passes strict gun laws. They watched as Germany passed the Gun Control Act of 1928 and then again in 1938. It was for the protection of everyone. It was said that it would make the streets safer. Firearms in the hands of criminals is dangerous and should be controlled.
We all know what happened after that. But could it have been foreseen when the law was first passed in 1928?? Did anyone even guess that 20 years from then 10 million people would die in concentration camps and another 10 million just murdered by the government?? And They were not the only ones!! In the 20th century 170,000,000 Minorities were killed by their own governments!!! Depending on the country these poor minorities were christians, mulsims, jewish, gay, capitalists, communists, the educated, the disfigured, the handicapped, just about anyone the Majority disliked. Here is a list of some of the big ones:
Turkey : 1-1.5 Million
Soviet Union : 20 Million
Nazi Germany : 20 Million
Nationalist China : 10 Million
Communist China : 35 Million
Guatemala : 200,000
Uganda : 300,000
Cambodia : 2 Million
Rwanda : 800,000
EVERY single one of these countries passed gun control and bans on carrying of handguns before they killed, and killed, and killed. EVERY single one of these governments said the firearm laws were to protect the people. EVERY single one of these could have never happened!!! No government massacres on the scale of the ones listed above have ever happened in countries with firearm ownership and carry rights!!! The governments didn't even try until they first took the guns away!! Then they got down to their dirty work.
The right to own firearms and the right for self defense is important. If you like guns or don't like guns, own guns or don't own guns that is fine. You can thank the ones who do own and carry for your safety later. But do you have the right to take that protection away from the Minority? Did anyone have the right to take away the firearms of the 170 Million people that were murdered by their own governments??
Yea I believe people have the right to hunt. Yea I think sport shooting is fun. Yea I feel safer with my Concealed Weapons Permit when I happen to be out late at night. But all these reasons pale in comparison to the real reason the 2nd Amendment was written. The writers of the Constitution saw what a well meaning government could do and be so wrong. That was why the put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill Of Rights.
So next time you hear someone talking about gun control, ask them what Minority they hate so much. Who do they hate them so much that they would want them unprotected and defenseless. And if they get upset at the question, be very. . . very. . . afraid.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership
Yes, I am a member and No you don't have to be Jewish to join.
Are they Extreme? YOU BET YOUR ASS!!!
So why the JPFO?? Well, they have very good reason to support the 2nd Amendment. They saw first hand what can happen in a modern society that passes strict gun laws. They watched as Germany passed the Gun Control Act of 1928 and then again in 1938. It was for the protection of everyone. It was said that it would make the streets safer. Firearms in the hands of criminals is dangerous and should be controlled.
We all know what happened after that. But could it have been foreseen when the law was first passed in 1928?? Did anyone even guess that 20 years from then 10 million people would die in concentration camps and another 10 million just murdered by the government?? And They were not the only ones!! In the 20th century 170,000,000 Minorities were killed by their own governments!!! Depending on the country these poor minorities were christians, mulsims, jewish, gay, capitalists, communists, the educated, the disfigured, the handicapped, just about anyone the Majority disliked. Here is a list of some of the big ones:
Turkey : 1-1.5 Million
Soviet Union : 20 Million
Nazi Germany : 20 Million
Nationalist China : 10 Million
Communist China : 35 Million
Guatemala : 200,000
Uganda : 300,000
Cambodia : 2 Million
Rwanda : 800,000
EVERY single one of these countries passed gun control and bans on carrying of handguns before they killed, and killed, and killed. EVERY single one of these governments said the firearm laws were to protect the people. EVERY single one of these could have never happened!!! No government massacres on the scale of the ones listed above have ever happened in countries with firearm ownership and carry rights!!! The governments didn't even try until they first took the guns away!! Then they got down to their dirty work.
The right to own firearms and the right for self defense is important. If you like guns or don't like guns, own guns or don't own guns that is fine. You can thank the ones who do own and carry for your safety later. But do you have the right to take that protection away from the Minority? Did anyone have the right to take away the firearms of the 170 Million people that were murdered by their own governments??
Yea I believe people have the right to hunt. Yea I think sport shooting is fun. Yea I feel safer with my Concealed Weapons Permit when I happen to be out late at night. But all these reasons pale in comparison to the real reason the 2nd Amendment was written. The writers of the Constitution saw what a well meaning government could do and be so wrong. That was why the put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill Of Rights.
So next time you hear someone talking about gun control, ask them what Minority they hate so much. Who do they hate them so much that they would want them unprotected and defenseless. And if they get upset at the question, be very. . . very. . . afraid.
Broken Window Theory
Here is a short little story with a lesson at the end. It is such a simple idea, but so many people don't grasp it. Hope this little example helps.
OK, lets look at this idea and see where it leads. If one broken window is a good thing for the economy of the town, why not then break all the windows in town. And while you are at it, burn the town to the ground. Think of all the jobs and opportunities this would create. Framers and plumbers would be needed. Cabinet makers and roofers. And in the end, everyone would have brand new homes and shops. Doesn't quite sound right, does it??
The problem is no wealth is created. Instead of the baker having $800 he was planning to spend on a new shed for his home, he used it to replace the window. The money was just redistributed from the baker to the glassier with no net wealth created for the community. Instead of the community being wealthier by one shed, it lost that wealth in the dumpster behind the bakery as little shards of glass.
The Government's "Cash for Clunkers" program is a broken window with congress throwing the brick. Not a single penny of wealth is created, just redistributed. Lets look at this idea and see where it leads. Why not have the government give everyone 4 grand trade in of their current car for a new car and destroy all the old ones. Think of all the new jobs it could create to make all those new cars. All the new factories built to make them. And in the end we would all have brand new cars to drive. . .
Doesn't sound quite right, does it??
There once was a baker in a small town. Every morning he would get up before everyone else and start baking. by the time the rest of the town woke up and was heading to work his shop was full of all kinds of tempting treats. Everyone that walked past his bakery on the way to their shops was attacked by all the wonderful scents of fresh breads and cookies. In the window you could see tarts and pastries. No one could resist the walk past the baker's shop without going inside. But one day it was different. No wonderful smells drifted down the street as you walked.
You see the baker is sweeping the sidewalk in front of his shop. A small group of people are standing off to the side watching and talking amongst themselves. "Yea, it was a brick right through his big window." "A window like that costs a bit of money." "Well, at least the glassier will have some added business." The little group talked about the $800 dollars that was to be spent on the new window. That now that money would then, in turn, be spent by the glassier on something else in town. On they went with this idea until they all agreed that the baker's broken window wasn't such a bad thing. The $800 it sent through the local economy would give it a little boost. So satisfied, the little group of people left the baker cleaning up broken glass and continued on their errands.
OK, lets look at this idea and see where it leads. If one broken window is a good thing for the economy of the town, why not then break all the windows in town. And while you are at it, burn the town to the ground. Think of all the jobs and opportunities this would create. Framers and plumbers would be needed. Cabinet makers and roofers. And in the end, everyone would have brand new homes and shops. Doesn't quite sound right, does it??
The problem is no wealth is created. Instead of the baker having $800 he was planning to spend on a new shed for his home, he used it to replace the window. The money was just redistributed from the baker to the glassier with no net wealth created for the community. Instead of the community being wealthier by one shed, it lost that wealth in the dumpster behind the bakery as little shards of glass.
The Government's "Cash for Clunkers" program is a broken window with congress throwing the brick. Not a single penny of wealth is created, just redistributed. Lets look at this idea and see where it leads. Why not have the government give everyone 4 grand trade in of their current car for a new car and destroy all the old ones. Think of all the new jobs it could create to make all those new cars. All the new factories built to make them. And in the end we would all have brand new cars to drive. . .
Doesn't sound quite right, does it??
Big Government
I believe in this country. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution is as valid today as it was when it's ink was still wet.
I want change. Not the change that is happening today. Not the change that had been happening for the past 90 years. Why does everyone always think that bigger government is the answer? When did 1984 become a bed time story so we can sleep better?
I don't have the quote in front of me so I can't give proper credit for it but one of our "Founding Fathers" once referred to the 13 new states as " 13 little experiments". The federal government didn't have the power or money to interfere with the states. Each state could try almost any social programs they wanted. The Federal government couldn't. It was held in check by the Constitution and the States. If congress got out of hand, the Supreme Court would put it in its place. If the President became dangerous congress could get rid of them. If the House tried to take power away from the states the Senate wouldn't go along with it. So what happened. . .
THE 17th AMENDMENT!!!
"""The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."""
That amendment is what sent us on a crash course with disaster. It sounds harmless enough, or even good. This amendment changed how the Senate is selected. Under the Constitution the House was to represent The People and the Senate was to represent the States. Senators were picked by the state governments to represent their interests in Congress. The 17th Amendment made Senators elected by popular vote. States lost all control of the Federal Government. They now had no say. So who was to guard the guards??
I disagree with much of what is being proposed right now in Congress. I don't think it will make us a better more prosperous nation. I actually think it is crippling our nation for years and years to come. What I do think is that it is Constitutional to try some of these ideas but not at a national level. Our Nation of "13 little experiments" now should be 50 little experiments. The type of power that Congress is meddling with it took from the States. If you want state run healthcare, pass it in your own state. I will choose not to live in that state. If it actually works for you, good. If you want state run education, welfare, economic regulations, underwear police, pollution standards, socialized purchases of cars, that should be up to the individual states. Pass the laws in your state or move to one that has them already. If it fails we all don't go down like Titanic! If too many people move away because a state destroys its economy or industry its just one state out of 50. If a state raised its taxes too high and everyone left they would get the message.
That is freedom. Freedom of choice. Freedom that was given to us by the constitution but taken away by Big Federal Government and the 17 Amendment.
I want change. Not the change that is happening today. Not the change that had been happening for the past 90 years. Why does everyone always think that bigger government is the answer? When did 1984 become a bed time story so we can sleep better?
I don't have the quote in front of me so I can't give proper credit for it but one of our "Founding Fathers" once referred to the 13 new states as " 13 little experiments". The federal government didn't have the power or money to interfere with the states. Each state could try almost any social programs they wanted. The Federal government couldn't. It was held in check by the Constitution and the States. If congress got out of hand, the Supreme Court would put it in its place. If the President became dangerous congress could get rid of them. If the House tried to take power away from the states the Senate wouldn't go along with it. So what happened. . .
THE 17th AMENDMENT!!!
"""The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."""
That amendment is what sent us on a crash course with disaster. It sounds harmless enough, or even good. This amendment changed how the Senate is selected. Under the Constitution the House was to represent The People and the Senate was to represent the States. Senators were picked by the state governments to represent their interests in Congress. The 17th Amendment made Senators elected by popular vote. States lost all control of the Federal Government. They now had no say. So who was to guard the guards??
I disagree with much of what is being proposed right now in Congress. I don't think it will make us a better more prosperous nation. I actually think it is crippling our nation for years and years to come. What I do think is that it is Constitutional to try some of these ideas but not at a national level. Our Nation of "13 little experiments" now should be 50 little experiments. The type of power that Congress is meddling with it took from the States. If you want state run healthcare, pass it in your own state. I will choose not to live in that state. If it actually works for you, good. If you want state run education, welfare, economic regulations, underwear police, pollution standards, socialized purchases of cars, that should be up to the individual states. Pass the laws in your state or move to one that has them already. If it fails we all don't go down like Titanic! If too many people move away because a state destroys its economy or industry its just one state out of 50. If a state raised its taxes too high and everyone left they would get the message.
That is freedom. Freedom of choice. Freedom that was given to us by the constitution but taken away by Big Federal Government and the 17 Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)