How State run health care could kill Freedom

Whenever the state wants to trample all over your rights without appearing to do so,  it typically must find a States interest in whatever it is it wants to do.  This, in the simplest of terms, means that if the state as an advocate for the people, can demonstrate that they are acting in the people’s best interests (because the people somehow share a  stake in some common outcome) the State can presume to ‘manage’ that something for that purpose.   This is not to suggest that that is how the government has ever done anything in the past, only that technically, this piece of the puzzle makes it easier for them to assume control over things we might otherwise want them to stay out of if we spent more than a few minutes actually considering the consequences of letting them do just that.

 

So having said that, what happens if the state takes over the dispensing or management of health care insurance, or health care employees, or facilities themselves?   

 

Well, since there is probably not one circumstance or activity in the scope of human existence which cannot somehow, in some way, be tied to “Health Care” you are giving the government a license to take over anything it wants to.

 

Everything can (and would) eventually be drilled down to a cause and effect relationship where any impact on federal funding or assistance for health insurance or medical treatment with tax payer dollars, creates a State interest in acting upon those relationships.   This by extension and therefore default would make everything that happens everywhere an object of State interest.  When everything is an object of State interest freedom is reduced to whatever the state defines it as, in the interest of “protecting the people” of course. 

 

While this outcome may not be the stated objective of the democrats and those who favor partial or total socialization of health insurance or health care, once this door is opened, how can we reasonably expect the state to stop itself from regulating everything, and trampling our rights in the process.

 

The answer is that we can’t and shouldn’t expect it.   The government can’t give you freedom, it can only take it away.  And If you keep betting a little freedom to get something for nothing, you’ll eventually find yourself with nothing left to bet.

Did Shaheen try to ‘Cell’ you on another bad deal?

 

The largest deal in Stem Cell research history is under way between two bio-techs who are prepared to invest 1.4 billion of their own money in the joint venture.  Genzyme and Osiris are coordinating an effort to bring the next two stem cell drugs through the end stages of their trials and on to market– Prochymal and Chondrogen.

 

 While this could be the beginning of a new wave of such partnerships, democrats might want to take note:  these are private companies, investing their billions, and they are developing these new drugs with those other stem cells.  You know, the ones that actually produce cures.  The ones that come from Jeanne Shaheen, and the other so called adults in the government, not from harvested embryos. 

(That’s right–Adult Stem cells)

 

 This would bring the number of viable cures and treatments developed from adult stem cells to at least 80, with roughly 1200 more FDA approved clinical trials currently under way.

 

 Embryonic stem cell research, by comparison, has yet to produce one single treatment or cure that I am aware of.  The distinction is critical because our newly minted Senator elect, Jeanne Shaheen, has promised she’d try to pump 12 billion into the National Science Foundation specifically for embryonic stem cell research.  Is she dumb enough to keep the promise?  She certainly is.

 

 

The Supreme’s are back

The Supreme Court is back in session, and their first decision of the 2008-2009 US tour lifted a lower court ban on sonar use off the California coast.   This from Yahoo news.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

 

Six justices agreed with the outcome, although Justice John Paul Stevens did not join the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer would have allowed some restrictions to remain, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter said the prospect of harm to the whales was sufficient to justify limits on sonar use.

 

The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. It said, rather, that federal courts abused their discretion by ordering the Navy to limit sonar use in some cases and to turn it off altogether in others.

 

The overall public interest tips “strongly in favor of the Navy,” Roberts wrote. He said the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals

.

“In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet,” the chief justice wrote.

 

Ginsberg’s dissent favors the emanations of the penumbras of the unknown quantity of marine mammals over those of the US Navy and the American Republic.  No one is or should be surprised.  Even a young liberal would be better than Justice Ginsberg.  She has clearly wanderd off the plantation.  Souter sold out to the Georgetown liberal celebrity circuit early on and has long since lost constitutional credibility.

For the record I happen to consider most of Ginsberg’s (and Souter’s) opinions to be harmful to a known quantity of land mammals living in the Constitutional Republic of the United States.

 

So maybe the Navy can point some Sonar in their direction?

Welcome to the Resistance

Supporters of small government are officially in the minority.

And eentrenched Liberalism, to be referred to from here on out as the Empire, is going to use its ‘mandate’ for change to expand government, and then figure out how to pay for it later–with our incomes.  (At the state and federal level)

No matter what you may think that means to you today, understand that government is a beast whose own survival requires tax dollars to feed upon.  No one person in government–with only a few very rare exceptions–will elect to decrease their budget willingly.  Bureaucratsare wired to multiply like rabbits, rabbits that end up in the public sector unions who then cost as much to fire as they do to keep.  The more mouths there are to feed–that includes goofy programs–the more money they need to feed them.

All of this is paid for by you and I.  Most of it is completely useless.  And if you don’t believeme, think about this, then answer the question that follows.   In the past two years the Democrats who ran New Hampshire wiped out an 80 million dollar budget surplus and added half a million in new spending all to grow government.  Despite increased revenue every year, some form all the fees and taxes they raised, the democrats still out spent themselves and had to bond 80-90 million to balance their bloated budget.  None of that addresses the expected 200-500 million deficit we already face today for the next budget.

Here’s the question.  How much better was your life as a result of all this activity–growth of government and spending–by our democrat controlled state government?   I did not gain a single thing.

My taxes went up.  It costs me more to do stuff.  That’s the only evidence I can see in my life that the efforts of the past two years amounted to anything, and I bet a significant majority of you have the exact same answer.

Well guess what–they are about to do it again.  And don’t be fooled by promises to ’slash-budgets.’  These are the same budgets they just bloated to no positive affect.  Now they want to cut them? 

The economy will only slow them down a tiny bit.  Are you prepared to protect your wallet–your very lifestyle–from a spending program just looking for a bigger budget; from a government that happens to have a state (New Hampshire) instead of a State that happens to have a government.

Join the Resistance. 

Talk radio as performance art.

The  ‘Fairness Doctrine would force private businesses to use their money and their time in a manner defined by the federal government.   If station owners with right leaning content did not include political content that toes the Democrat party line, they might not be allowed to broadcast any political content at all, could get fined, taken to court, or have their license pulled or denied by the FCC.

 

 So what’s the big deal?

The first amendment was written to protect exactly this kind of political speech from oppression by the government.  So have the liberals overstepped their bounds when it comes to Talk radio–which is nothing but political speech?