Dear Mr. Huckabee,
Please let me start this by saying that while i do not agree with everything you stand for, i have always had great respect for your oipinions. That being saide, I must admit that recent actions of yours have caused me to have some doubt
about your convictions. If you may please take the time to respond to a few of these concerns, i would appreciate it greatly.
In response to your recent comments about Kennedy's death and the health care reform, when did Obama say that seniors should consider not taking the treatments for a serious Illness? I am not saying that he did not make that comment, but I am concerned that what he said may be taken out of context. Making the difficult decision to face years of painful chemotherapy, which may not be successful, or refusing the treatment when one is near the end of their life, is a choice many people have to come to terms with. It would seem to me that this is what Obama was most likely getting at.
What i can tell you, and what you should already know, is that there is no mention of this practice, or of the "Death Panels" that the opponents of healthcare want to talk about, in the bill that Senator Kennedy himself helped to write. It concerns me deeply that you would invoke Kennedy's death in an argument against something that you know he stood for. It also concerns me that you failed to mention that these "death panel" methods are already in full use by the for profit insurance agencies.
Please take the time to answer a few more questions if you may. In the Bible, it says
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Now I may be wrong but is it not true that you said "Politics are totally directed by worldview. That's why when people say, 'We ought to separate politics from religion,' I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible". Is it also not true that you believe in Biblical inerrancy. Then why is it that you seem to have political beliefs that contradict what is in the Bible. Should you not in fact be in favor of the government doing whatever they can to tend to the sick? Also i am concerned with the political party that you have alligned yourself with. Is it not true that the republican party fought tooth and nail againt welfare and social security (feeding and clothing the poor) and Medicare, (tending to the sick). I could also argue that the right wings opposition to immigration contradicts the scripture as well. (I was a stranger and you invited me in).
If you could, please name one piece of legislation introduced and passed by the republican party in the past 50 years that was truely intended to do any of these things mentioned in Matthew. I am not aware of one, The Republican party has worked in favor of the large corporations for all of the last century as far as I can tell. It would seem to me that being an anti-abortion anti-gay marriage democrat would more suitably match your religious beliefs with your political ones, because those are the only two Christian fundamentals that the Republican party seems to uphold anymore.
Now on to my biggest concern. It appears to be true, and i hope it is not, that you have sold out on your religious beliefs in order to become a larger player in the political realm. I know you have experience with christian broadcasting, yet now you are on fox news and abc. It seems only apparent that using your name to promote real christian networks was just not profitable enough for you, or is it that you are really just that the lure of power has corrupted you, and you are merely campaigning for your next presidential run. I hope that neither is true, but your recent actions have led me to believe that you are no longer working on the behalf of God, but of yourself.
Thank you for your time, Shawn Majewski.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Economics and corporate greed
well, i will piece together this argument bit by bit. i have a good start today though. for starters, i was looking up corporate control of the media, and learned about the C.F.R. (council on foreign relations). well anyways that info is here, http://www.whoownsthenews.com/. the video link on that page is broken, here is the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxTr-vMHLFk
then i decided evoke the words of one of our forefathers, since the right wing always screams about the constitution and the forefathers, thought it would be prudent.
This piece is by Thom Hartmann about Alexander Hamilton, explaining Hamiltons views on trade policies. Its heavy reading i guess but i think its worth it.
Alexander Hamilton, in 1791, proposed to the United States our first true industrial policy. We adopted it over the next few years, Abraham Lincoln reaffirmed it fourscore years later, and it was again affirmed by every President of the United States until Reagan began his now-28-year “Reagan Revolution” which has disassembled America’s industrial base and impoverished our nation. For over 200 years, Hamilton’s policy made America the most powerful industrial nation in the world; now – after just 28 years of Reagonomics and Clinton/Rubinomics – we are the largest importer of other people’s industry, and the most indebted nation in the world.
The entirety of Hamilton’s paper is easily found on the web. The first third of it deals with Jefferson’s objections to it (which Jefferson withdrew later in his life), as Jefferson favored America being an agricultural rather than an industrial power in 1791. Once you cut past that, though, Hamilton gets right to the rationale for, and the details of, his 11-point plan to turn America into an industrial power and build a strong manufacturing-based middle class. Ironically, his policies are exactly – EXACTLY – what Japan, South Korea, and China are doing today. And what we have ceased to do.
Hamilton had it right. We must reject Reagon/Bush/Clinton/Bush-onomics and return to what the Founders knew worked. Here are selected excerpts from Hamilton’s 1791 Report on Manufactures to Congress:
First, Hamilton points out that real wealth doesn’t exist until somebody makes something. A “service economy” is an oxymoron – if I wash your car in exchange for your mowing my lawn, money is moving around, it’s a service economy, but no real and lasting wealth is created. Only through manufacturing, when $5 worth of iron ore is converted into a $2000 car door, or $1 worth of raw wool is converted into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit, is real wealth created. He also notes that people being paid for creating wealth (manufacturing) creates wages, which are the principal engine of demand, which drives an economy. And both come from a foreign trade policy.
“The expediency of encouraging manufactures in the United States,” Hamilton started out, “which was not long since deemed very questionable, appears at this time to be pretty generally admitted.”
Explaining why manufacturing was importing to America, he continued: “It merits particular observation, that the multiplication of manufactories not only furnishes a Market for those articles, which have been accustomed to be produced in abundance, in a country; but it likewise creates a demand for such as were either unknown or produced in inconsiderable quantities.
In addition, Hamilton noted, an industrial policy should be interwoven with foreign policy, for to have a foreign policy that doesn’t consider its own impact on manufacturing enterprises is useless. “’Tis for the United States to consider by what means they can render themselves least dependent,” of other nation’s manufactures, Hamilton wrote, “on the combinations, right or wrong of foreign policy.”
But there were many voices – the loudest from Thomas Jefferson – who objected to Hamilton’s 11-point plan. They saw the widespread poverty in the United Kingdom and all the corruption attendant to a wealthy nation, and argued that instead of becoming an industrial power we should remain an agricultural nation. Hamilton said that both were possible, and there would even be a desirable synergy between the two.
“The remaining objections to a particular encouragement of manufactures in the United States now require to be examined,” he wrote, and then first took on the Adam Smith school of thought, that industry shouldn’t be encouraged because a “free market” will eventually work itself out.
“One of these turns on the proposition, that Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment: whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require.
“Against the solidity of this hypothesis, in the full latitude of the terms, very cogent reasons may be offered. These have relation to the strong influence of habit and the spirit of imitation — the fear of want of success in untried enterprises — the intrinsic difficulties incident to first essays towards a competition with those who have previously attained to perfection in the business to be attempted — the bounties premiums and other artificial encouragements, with which foreign nations second the exertions of their own Citizens in the branches, in which they are to be rivaled.
“To produce the desirable changes, as early as may be expedient, may therefore require the incitement and patronage of government.”
Government, Hamilton held, shouldn’t just be the igniter of an industrial state. Indeed, it would be impossible to truy and successfully build an industrial nation without the help of government.
“To be enabled to contend with success, it is evident, that the interference and aid of their own government are indispensable.”
The reasons were pretty straightforward, Hamilton wrote: it would take government’s power to set up a playing field for the game of business where investors who would otherwise be able to make more money overseas would keep their money in the United States.
“There are weighty inducements to prefer the employment of capital at home even at less profit, to an investment of it abroad, though with greater gain,” he wrote. “These impressions will prove a rich mine of prosperity to the Country, if they are confirmed and strengthened by the progress of our affairs. And to secure this advantage, little more is now necessary, than to foster industry…” He added, “[I]t is the interest of a community with a view to eventual and permanent economy, to encourage the growth of manufactures. There seems to be a moral certainty, that the trade of a country which is both manufacturing and Agricultural will be more lucrative and prosperous, than that of a Country, which is, merely Agricultural. The Nation which can bring to Market, but few articles is likely to be more quickly and sensibly affected by such stagnations, than one, which is always possessed of a great variety of commodities.”
And this was absolutely the basis of the true wealth of a nation, Hamilton believed.
“There is ground to believe, that a difference of situation, in this particular, has immensely different effects upon the wealth and prosperity of Nations.
“From these circumstances collectively, two important inferences are to be drawn, one, that there is always a higher probability of a favorable balance of Trade, in regard to countries in which manufactures founded on the basis of a thriving Agriculture flourish, than in regard to those, which are confined wholly or almost wholly to Agriculture; the other (which is also a consequence of the first) that countries of the former description are likely to possess more pecuniary wealth, or money, than those of the latter.”
Having provided this overview, Hamilton got right to the meat of the matter – his 11-step plan, based on Henry VII’s Tudor Plan, which would later be used by Japan, Germany, South Korea, and China, to build industry. After a paragraph of introduction, the first on his list was protecting duties, known today as tariffs. An easy way of explaining tariffs is to say, “If there’s a dollar’s worth of labor in a pair of shoes manufactured in the United States, and you can make the same pair of shoes with twenty cents worth of labor in China, then we’re going to charge you an eighty cent tariff when those shoes are imported into the United States. If you can make them with fifty cents of labor in Mexico, then our import tariff is fifty cents. Whatever and wereever, import duties are used to equalize manufacturing costs and protect domestic industries.
After Hamilton’s plan was adopted, tariffs became so important that 100 percent of the revenue of the US Government from the late 1700s until the Civil War came from tariffs. Two-thirds of our revenue from the Civil War to WWI came from tariffs. And even when government had grown exponentially as we led up to World War II, fully a third of all federal revenues came from Tariffs.
Here’s how Hamilton wrote it:
A full view having now been taken of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the United States, accompanied with an examination of the principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition, it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by which it may be effected. In order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those which have been employed with success in other countries. The principal of these are:
1. Protecting duties — or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged.
Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics; since, by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the, national manufacturers to undersell ;all their foreign competitors. It has the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue. Indeed, all tile duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect, in contemplation, and, except where they fill on raw materials, wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the country.
2. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to prohibitions.
This is another and an efficacious mean of encouraging national manufactures; Of duties equivalent to prohibitions, there are examples in the laws of the United States, but they are not numerous. It might almost be said, by the principles of distributive justice; certainly, by the duty of endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of advantages.
3. Prohibitions of the exportation of the Materials of Manufactures.
The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful supply for the national workmen, and where the article is either peculiar to tile country, or of peculiar quality there, the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this species of regulation. It is seen at once, that its immediate operation is to abridge the demand, and keep down the price of the produce of some other branch of industry -generally speaking, of agriculture-to the prejudice of those who carry it on; and though, if it be really essential to the prosperity of any very important national manufacture, it may happen that those who are injured, in the first instance, may, be, eventually, indemnified by the superior steadiness of an extensive domestic market, depending on that prosperity; yet, in a matter in which there is so much room for nice and difficult combinations, in which, such opposite considerations combat each other, prudence seems to dictate that the expedient in question ought to be indulged with a sparing hand.
4. Pecuniary bounties.
This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and is, in some views, the best. Though it has not yet been practised upon by the Government of the United States (unless the allowance on the expiration of dried and pickled fish and salted meat could be considered as a bounty), and though it is less favored by public opinion than some other modes, its advantages are these:
A. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other, and, for that very reason, has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss, in the first attempts.
B. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of price, which is incident to some other modes; or it produces it to, a less degree, either by making no addition to the charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a different object (which may or may not increase the price of some other article, according to the nature of that object), the second, when the fund is derived from the same, or a similar object, of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will have an equal effect with a duty of two per cent., exclusive of such bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be raised, in the one case, in the proportion of one per cent.; in the other in that of two per cent. Indeed the bounty, when drawn from another source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price; because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article, it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase the total quantity of the article in the market.
C. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency to produce scarcity.
D. Bounties are, sometimes, not only the best, but the only proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object.
The true way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that duty, by way of bounty, either upon the production of the material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon both.
Pecuniary bounties are, in most cases, indispensable to the introduction of a new branch. Bounties are especially essential in regard to articles upon which those foreigners, who have been accustomed to supply a country, are in the practice of granting them.
The continuance of bounties on manufactures long established, must almost always be of questionable policy: because a presumption would arise, in every such case, that there were natural and inherent impediments to success. But, in new undertakings, they are as justifiable as they are oftentimes necessary.
5. Premiums
These are of a nature allied to bounties, though distinguishable from them in some important features.
Bounties are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced, or manufactured, or exported, and involve a correspondent expense. Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is to stimulate general effort;
6. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.
The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly in reference to new establishments, is obvious.
Of a nature, hearing some affinity to that policy, is the regulation which exempts from duty the tools and implements, as well as the books, clothes, and household furniture, of foreign artists, who come to reside in the United States-an advantage already secured to them by the laws of the Union, and which it is, in every view, proper to continue.
7. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures.
Such drawbacks are familiar in countries which systematically pursue the business of manufactures; which furnishes an argument for the observance of a similar policy in the United States; and the idea has been adopted by the laws of the Union, in the instances of salt and molasses. It is believed that it will be found advantageous to extend it to some other articles.
8. The encouragement of new intentions and discoveries at home, and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly, those which relate to machinery.
This is among the most useful and unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. The first must be employed, according to the occasion, and the utility of the invention or discovery. For the last, so far w respects " authors and inventors," provision has been made by law. It is customary with manufacturing nations to prohibit, under severe penalties, the exportation of implements and machines, which they have either invented or improved. As far as prohibitions tend to prevent foreign competitors from deriving the benefit of the improvements made at home, they tend to increase the advantages of those by whom they may have been introduced, and operate as an encouragement to exertion.
9. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities.
This is not among the least important of the means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted. It is, indeed, {255} in many cases, one of the most essential. Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home, and exporters to foreign countries; to improve the quality, and preserve the character of the national manufactures…
10. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place –
A general circulation of bank paper, which is to be expected from the institution lately established, will be a most valuable mean to this end.
11. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
There is, perhaps, scarcely any thin" which has been better calculated to assist the manufacturers of Great Britain, than the melioration of the public roads of that kingdom, {256} and the great progress which has been of late made in opening canals. Of the former, the United States stand much in need;
These examples, it is to be hoped, will stimulate the exertions of the Government and citizens of every State. There can certainly be no object more worthy of the cares of the local administrations; and it were to be wished that there was no doubt of the power of the National Government to lend its direct aid on a comprehensive plan. This is one of those improvements which could be prosecuted with more efficacy by the whole, than by any part or parts of the Union. "Good roads, canals, and navigable rivers, by diminishing the expense of carriage, put the remote parts of a country more nearly upon a level with those in the neighborhood of the town. They are, upon that account, the greatest of all improvement.”
It may confidently be affirmed, that there is scarcely any thing which has been devised, better calculated to excite a general spirit of improvement, than the institutions of this nature. The are truly invaluable.
In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals; but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In what can it be so useful, as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry?
All which is humbly submitted.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
Secretary of the Treasury.
And to further demonstrate the prescience of Alexander Hamilton, consider this argument he embedded into point 4 in his 11 point plan, rebutting today’s “conservatives” who say that everything from trade policy to Social Security are “unconstitutional” because they’re not spelled out in the Constitution:
A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement; but there is certainty no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare,” with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution," and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."
These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive thin the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms "general welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare;" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money.
We need to begin paying attention to the wisdom of the Founders and Framers if our country is to survive…
then i decided evoke the words of one of our forefathers, since the right wing always screams about the constitution and the forefathers, thought it would be prudent.
This piece is by Thom Hartmann about Alexander Hamilton, explaining Hamiltons views on trade policies. Its heavy reading i guess but i think its worth it.
Alexander Hamilton, in 1791, proposed to the United States our first true industrial policy. We adopted it over the next few years, Abraham Lincoln reaffirmed it fourscore years later, and it was again affirmed by every President of the United States until Reagan began his now-28-year “Reagan Revolution” which has disassembled America’s industrial base and impoverished our nation. For over 200 years, Hamilton’s policy made America the most powerful industrial nation in the world; now – after just 28 years of Reagonomics and Clinton/Rubinomics – we are the largest importer of other people’s industry, and the most indebted nation in the world.
The entirety of Hamilton’s paper is easily found on the web. The first third of it deals with Jefferson’s objections to it (which Jefferson withdrew later in his life), as Jefferson favored America being an agricultural rather than an industrial power in 1791. Once you cut past that, though, Hamilton gets right to the rationale for, and the details of, his 11-point plan to turn America into an industrial power and build a strong manufacturing-based middle class. Ironically, his policies are exactly – EXACTLY – what Japan, South Korea, and China are doing today. And what we have ceased to do.
Hamilton had it right. We must reject Reagon/Bush/Clinton/Bush-onomics and return to what the Founders knew worked. Here are selected excerpts from Hamilton’s 1791 Report on Manufactures to Congress:
First, Hamilton points out that real wealth doesn’t exist until somebody makes something. A “service economy” is an oxymoron – if I wash your car in exchange for your mowing my lawn, money is moving around, it’s a service economy, but no real and lasting wealth is created. Only through manufacturing, when $5 worth of iron ore is converted into a $2000 car door, or $1 worth of raw wool is converted into a $1000 Calvin Klein suit, is real wealth created. He also notes that people being paid for creating wealth (manufacturing) creates wages, which are the principal engine of demand, which drives an economy. And both come from a foreign trade policy.
“The expediency of encouraging manufactures in the United States,” Hamilton started out, “which was not long since deemed very questionable, appears at this time to be pretty generally admitted.”
Explaining why manufacturing was importing to America, he continued: “It merits particular observation, that the multiplication of manufactories not only furnishes a Market for those articles, which have been accustomed to be produced in abundance, in a country; but it likewise creates a demand for such as were either unknown or produced in inconsiderable quantities.
In addition, Hamilton noted, an industrial policy should be interwoven with foreign policy, for to have a foreign policy that doesn’t consider its own impact on manufacturing enterprises is useless. “’Tis for the United States to consider by what means they can render themselves least dependent,” of other nation’s manufactures, Hamilton wrote, “on the combinations, right or wrong of foreign policy.”
But there were many voices – the loudest from Thomas Jefferson – who objected to Hamilton’s 11-point plan. They saw the widespread poverty in the United Kingdom and all the corruption attendant to a wealthy nation, and argued that instead of becoming an industrial power we should remain an agricultural nation. Hamilton said that both were possible, and there would even be a desirable synergy between the two.
“The remaining objections to a particular encouragement of manufactures in the United States now require to be examined,” he wrote, and then first took on the Adam Smith school of thought, that industry shouldn’t be encouraged because a “free market” will eventually work itself out.
“One of these turns on the proposition, that Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment: whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require.
“Against the solidity of this hypothesis, in the full latitude of the terms, very cogent reasons may be offered. These have relation to the strong influence of habit and the spirit of imitation — the fear of want of success in untried enterprises — the intrinsic difficulties incident to first essays towards a competition with those who have previously attained to perfection in the business to be attempted — the bounties premiums and other artificial encouragements, with which foreign nations second the exertions of their own Citizens in the branches, in which they are to be rivaled.
“To produce the desirable changes, as early as may be expedient, may therefore require the incitement and patronage of government.”
Government, Hamilton held, shouldn’t just be the igniter of an industrial state. Indeed, it would be impossible to truy and successfully build an industrial nation without the help of government.
“To be enabled to contend with success, it is evident, that the interference and aid of their own government are indispensable.”
The reasons were pretty straightforward, Hamilton wrote: it would take government’s power to set up a playing field for the game of business where investors who would otherwise be able to make more money overseas would keep their money in the United States.
“There are weighty inducements to prefer the employment of capital at home even at less profit, to an investment of it abroad, though with greater gain,” he wrote. “These impressions will prove a rich mine of prosperity to the Country, if they are confirmed and strengthened by the progress of our affairs. And to secure this advantage, little more is now necessary, than to foster industry…” He added, “[I]t is the interest of a community with a view to eventual and permanent economy, to encourage the growth of manufactures. There seems to be a moral certainty, that the trade of a country which is both manufacturing and Agricultural will be more lucrative and prosperous, than that of a Country, which is, merely Agricultural. The Nation which can bring to Market, but few articles is likely to be more quickly and sensibly affected by such stagnations, than one, which is always possessed of a great variety of commodities.”
And this was absolutely the basis of the true wealth of a nation, Hamilton believed.
“There is ground to believe, that a difference of situation, in this particular, has immensely different effects upon the wealth and prosperity of Nations.
“From these circumstances collectively, two important inferences are to be drawn, one, that there is always a higher probability of a favorable balance of Trade, in regard to countries in which manufactures founded on the basis of a thriving Agriculture flourish, than in regard to those, which are confined wholly or almost wholly to Agriculture; the other (which is also a consequence of the first) that countries of the former description are likely to possess more pecuniary wealth, or money, than those of the latter.”
Having provided this overview, Hamilton got right to the meat of the matter – his 11-step plan, based on Henry VII’s Tudor Plan, which would later be used by Japan, Germany, South Korea, and China, to build industry. After a paragraph of introduction, the first on his list was protecting duties, known today as tariffs. An easy way of explaining tariffs is to say, “If there’s a dollar’s worth of labor in a pair of shoes manufactured in the United States, and you can make the same pair of shoes with twenty cents worth of labor in China, then we’re going to charge you an eighty cent tariff when those shoes are imported into the United States. If you can make them with fifty cents of labor in Mexico, then our import tariff is fifty cents. Whatever and wereever, import duties are used to equalize manufacturing costs and protect domestic industries.
After Hamilton’s plan was adopted, tariffs became so important that 100 percent of the revenue of the US Government from the late 1700s until the Civil War came from tariffs. Two-thirds of our revenue from the Civil War to WWI came from tariffs. And even when government had grown exponentially as we led up to World War II, fully a third of all federal revenues came from Tariffs.
Here’s how Hamilton wrote it:
A full view having now been taken of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the United States, accompanied with an examination of the principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition, it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by which it may be effected. In order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those which have been employed with success in other countries. The principal of these are:
1. Protecting duties — or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged.
Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics; since, by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the, national manufacturers to undersell ;all their foreign competitors. It has the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue. Indeed, all tile duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect, in contemplation, and, except where they fill on raw materials, wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the country.
2. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to prohibitions.
This is another and an efficacious mean of encouraging national manufactures; Of duties equivalent to prohibitions, there are examples in the laws of the United States, but they are not numerous. It might almost be said, by the principles of distributive justice; certainly, by the duty of endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of advantages.
3. Prohibitions of the exportation of the Materials of Manufactures.
The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful supply for the national workmen, and where the article is either peculiar to tile country, or of peculiar quality there, the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this species of regulation. It is seen at once, that its immediate operation is to abridge the demand, and keep down the price of the produce of some other branch of industry -generally speaking, of agriculture-to the prejudice of those who carry it on; and though, if it be really essential to the prosperity of any very important national manufacture, it may happen that those who are injured, in the first instance, may, be, eventually, indemnified by the superior steadiness of an extensive domestic market, depending on that prosperity; yet, in a matter in which there is so much room for nice and difficult combinations, in which, such opposite considerations combat each other, prudence seems to dictate that the expedient in question ought to be indulged with a sparing hand.
4. Pecuniary bounties.
This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and is, in some views, the best. Though it has not yet been practised upon by the Government of the United States (unless the allowance on the expiration of dried and pickled fish and salted meat could be considered as a bounty), and though it is less favored by public opinion than some other modes, its advantages are these:
A. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other, and, for that very reason, has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss, in the first attempts.
B. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of price, which is incident to some other modes; or it produces it to, a less degree, either by making no addition to the charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a different object (which may or may not increase the price of some other article, according to the nature of that object), the second, when the fund is derived from the same, or a similar object, of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will have an equal effect with a duty of two per cent., exclusive of such bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be raised, in the one case, in the proportion of one per cent.; in the other in that of two per cent. Indeed the bounty, when drawn from another source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price; because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article, it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase the total quantity of the article in the market.
C. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency to produce scarcity.
D. Bounties are, sometimes, not only the best, but the only proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object.
The true way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that duty, by way of bounty, either upon the production of the material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon both.
Pecuniary bounties are, in most cases, indispensable to the introduction of a new branch. Bounties are especially essential in regard to articles upon which those foreigners, who have been accustomed to supply a country, are in the practice of granting them.
The continuance of bounties on manufactures long established, must almost always be of questionable policy: because a presumption would arise, in every such case, that there were natural and inherent impediments to success. But, in new undertakings, they are as justifiable as they are oftentimes necessary.
5. Premiums
These are of a nature allied to bounties, though distinguishable from them in some important features.
Bounties are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced, or manufactured, or exported, and involve a correspondent expense. Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is to stimulate general effort;
6. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.
The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly in reference to new establishments, is obvious.
Of a nature, hearing some affinity to that policy, is the regulation which exempts from duty the tools and implements, as well as the books, clothes, and household furniture, of foreign artists, who come to reside in the United States-an advantage already secured to them by the laws of the Union, and which it is, in every view, proper to continue.
7. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the materials of manufactures.
Such drawbacks are familiar in countries which systematically pursue the business of manufactures; which furnishes an argument for the observance of a similar policy in the United States; and the idea has been adopted by the laws of the Union, in the instances of salt and molasses. It is believed that it will be found advantageous to extend it to some other articles.
8. The encouragement of new intentions and discoveries at home, and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly, those which relate to machinery.
This is among the most useful and unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. The first must be employed, according to the occasion, and the utility of the invention or discovery. For the last, so far w respects " authors and inventors," provision has been made by law. It is customary with manufacturing nations to prohibit, under severe penalties, the exportation of implements and machines, which they have either invented or improved. As far as prohibitions tend to prevent foreign competitors from deriving the benefit of the improvements made at home, they tend to increase the advantages of those by whom they may have been introduced, and operate as an encouragement to exertion.
9. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities.
This is not among the least important of the means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted. It is, indeed, {255} in many cases, one of the most essential. Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home, and exporters to foreign countries; to improve the quality, and preserve the character of the national manufactures…
10. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place –
A general circulation of bank paper, which is to be expected from the institution lately established, will be a most valuable mean to this end.
11. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
There is, perhaps, scarcely any thin" which has been better calculated to assist the manufacturers of Great Britain, than the melioration of the public roads of that kingdom, {256} and the great progress which has been of late made in opening canals. Of the former, the United States stand much in need;
These examples, it is to be hoped, will stimulate the exertions of the Government and citizens of every State. There can certainly be no object more worthy of the cares of the local administrations; and it were to be wished that there was no doubt of the power of the National Government to lend its direct aid on a comprehensive plan. This is one of those improvements which could be prosecuted with more efficacy by the whole, than by any part or parts of the Union. "Good roads, canals, and navigable rivers, by diminishing the expense of carriage, put the remote parts of a country more nearly upon a level with those in the neighborhood of the town. They are, upon that account, the greatest of all improvement.”
It may confidently be affirmed, that there is scarcely any thing which has been devised, better calculated to excite a general spirit of improvement, than the institutions of this nature. The are truly invaluable.
In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals; but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In what can it be so useful, as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry?
All which is humbly submitted.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
Secretary of the Treasury.
And to further demonstrate the prescience of Alexander Hamilton, consider this argument he embedded into point 4 in his 11 point plan, rebutting today’s “conservatives” who say that everything from trade policy to Social Security are “unconstitutional” because they’re not spelled out in the Constitution:
A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement; but there is certainty no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare,” with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution," and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."
These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive thin the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms "general welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare;" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money.
We need to begin paying attention to the wisdom of the Founders and Framers if our country is to survive…
Sunday, August 09, 2009
health reform
My thoughts on healthcare
I don’t think doctors are much of the problem, and the pharma companies would have to play ball if the government was allowed to shop around. Medicare part d was designed by the republicans to bankrupt Medicare via a provision that forces the government to pay full retail price for the meds it uses (1) very similar to the way they have tried to bankrupt social security, a perfectly viable system before they got their hands on it.(2)Seems to me the biggest problem is the private insurance companies, whom all in all will probably dump a trillion dollars into fighting a public plan before this is over. For profit hospitals are another problem, since most hospitals will be private before long at this rate, but I’m hoping that if the government takes a larger role in insuring people that they wont let the hospitals take advantage of people in life threatening conditions, but who knows.
Another interesting tid-bit that adds to the problem is that doctors in McAllen, Texas are investing in the labs and clinics, and then sending patients for unnecessary tests to line their own pockets. (3) and I’m sure this is happening in other places to. Docs are becoming quite the business-men. Here are a few other things, Over 50% of people going bankrupt in the U.S. are from healthcare bills, over 70% of those are from people who HAVE health insurance. (4) Meanwhile William McGuire, ex c.e.o. of united healthcare makes 1.78 BILLION over ten years, and if you took the top ten healthcare ceos out of the picture you could insure at least 100,000 Americans with their paychecks. Here’s an example of the sick profits these snakes make while providing no real services. *http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/* that doesn’t count all the other people making millions off of denying coverage to people for any reason they can find, plus the corporate jets and all the other perks... its past time we got these leeches off of our backs completely.
I don’t know that its going to happen, too much money being thrown at preventing the government from doing anything about heath care. On a plus note Dennis Kucinich placed a bit into the bill he worked on that allows states to create their own single payer plans regardless of what the public option comes out looking like. Apparently there is a law in effect right now that prohibits this, but if his amendment survives and makes it into the final bill, then it will be the start of a great thing. This is exactly how Canada got their healthcare plan, and regardless of what the right-wingers lie about, the truth is over 80% of Canadians would not trade their healthcare for American insurance (5). kind of says something doesn’t it. Meanwhile over 70% of Americans want to see a public plan here, (6) Oh speaking of right wing talking points, how come people come to America for health care? I submit that it is because those people coming here for surgeries or whatever are wealthy individuals. The real question is why did over 100,000 Americans (7) Go to India for healthcare last year? Why is that number going to be up to 4 times that this year? (8) In addition to this, All aspects of healthcare are natural monopolies and need to be regulated. Unfortunately the insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws (9). And If your about to die from a heart attack, your not going to take the time to go through the phone book and find the best deal on ambulance services.
Are there any Americans who haven’t been lied to, or screwed over, by the health insurance companies? If you haven’t you probably know someone who has, and if not you can find plenty of horror stories at (10). but my personal favorite is about a woman in her thirties who had her claim denied because she forgot to disclose to the insurance company that she took a prescription acne medicine when she was a teenager. right wingers like to complain about unions, such as the cost of pay after benefits to the g.m.c. employees. Well if they didn’t have to buy health care for their employees, like their competitors in every other industrialized nation they would save billions (11). That’s probably why the unions are mostly for a single payer plan I bet. Oddly enough it would seem to me that anyone who actually believes in American industry would be dying to take this cost away from American companies and put it on the governments back. Weird how the republicans are so against healthcare.
Employee based healthcare is really nothing more than another way for the big money interests to control the average person. Either you work for a big company that can afford to give its employees health insurance, or you and your family go bankrupt or die if someone happens to get sick. It also destroys entrepreneurship, its risky enough to start your own business, but when you cant afford to pay these insane prices for private insurance in the meantime, the risk is way more than many people are willing to take. I recently heard on the radio an ad from Wal-Mart that bragged about how most of its employees have some type of health insurance (12). They are advocating that all employers be required to buy private healthcare for the employees. Sounds innocent enough right? Well the reason the Waltons want this to become law, is the same reason why they are willing to lower prices drastically when they open a new store and run the store at a potential loss for a period of time. IT DESTROYS THE COMPETITION, PARTICULARLY SMALL AMERICAN OWNED BUSINESS! Wal-Mart can afford to do this, and they can afford to provide health insurance for all their employees, but what it will do is shut down most small American owned businesses. Say good-bye to that family owned store in the center of town, guess its off to Wal-Mart for your milk an eggs.
I fail to see what the argument can be against a good public option. I’ve tried to wrap my mind around some of them. Lets see, argument number 1. “government is bad and screws everything up“. Well then, the key word is OPTION. You like your private plan, keep it, you don’t, you have a new OPTION. Hmmm sounds like they are encouraging competition. Isn’t that what right wingers are all about when it comes to the “free market”. Besides, the government does so many things so well that this argument is just ridiculous, I’m not going to bother listing it all here but its plain as day, government is good. When you do find something that the government does badly, its more often then not because the capitalists got a hold of it and destroyed for whatever sick reason they had at the time. (ex. Medicare part d., social security, *see 1st paragraph*) If you would rather let the corporations run the whole country with no government interference, you are not only an idiot, but also either a Fascist, a royalist/monarchist, or an anarchist, all of which are pretty much anti American points of view.
Which brings us to argument number 2. “The private insurance companies can not compete with a public plan“. Wait a minute, what? The first time I heard this said by a right winger on the radio I was driving and almost had to pull over I was laughing so hard. How obvious can someone be. So lets see, if the government plan is so good that the private companies wont be able to compete, then everyone will have the option to switch over and then have better insurance then any private plan could provide. If the public option is not that great then the private companies will be fine, there is just one more choice out there providing for more competition. Competition, isn’t that what “free market” capitalists are all about? (I know I already said that.)
Ok what other empty arguments have I heard. Oh here’s one I hear a lot, “I don’t want some government bureaucrat standing in between me and my doctor.” Well personally I would much rather have the government standing there over some bureaucrat from the private industry, whose only goal is to make money and deny health care in any way possible. Also there are thousands of American doctors and nurses who are for single payer let alone the public option because they are sick and tired of the administrative hoops they have to jump through with most of the private companies as well (13). But once again, it is a public OPTION, don’t use it if you hate the government.
The one I hear the most, and is also the most ignorant, is that “everyone has healthcare, emergency rooms can’t turn people away” So outside of the fact that one trip to the e.r. without health insurance will bankrupt most Americans, and even bankrupt a lot of them with insurance if they have to stay in the hospital for more than a day, lets look at the words EMERGENCY ROOM. Key word, Emergency. Go ahead, go to the e.r. and say “I got this weird lump and I don’t know I think it might be cancer.“ You will get told to come back when your dying. At that point of course its too late to treat it. Emergency Rooms are not set up to provide preventative care, and they don’t.
Well, I know there are other arguments out there, but I think I have made my point. Feel free to throw another one at me, I will shoot it down when I get a chance. but dont echo some lie without proof, there are so many lies being thrown out there right now its sickening, and i wont respond. Of course its hard not to believe a lie when there are hundreds of billions of dollars promoting it. (14)
(1)*http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/01/the_80_billion_medicare_sellout.php*
(2)*http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_thom_har_061022_the_truth_about_the_.htm*
(3)*http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/9/740385/-McAllen,-Texas-and-Collaborative-Medicine*
(4)*http://www.examiner.com/x-15753-SF-Wellness-Examiner~y2009m7d15-Middleclass-insured-Americans-filed-75-of-personal-bankruptcies-due-to-healthcare-costs*
(5)*http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5haqIdwLkO0bfRWlsx51kCcdeG0GQ*
(6)*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1*
(7)*http://www.rense.com/general69/ameri.htm*
(8)*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/americans-outsourcing-hea_n_245310.html*
(9)*http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51800*.
(10)*http://www.sanders.senate.gov/files/letters/*
(11)*http://www.carlist.com/autonews/2005/autonews_131.html*
(12)*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242272,00.html*.
(13)*http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_doctors_revolt*
(14)*http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4913.shtml*
I don’t think doctors are much of the problem, and the pharma companies would have to play ball if the government was allowed to shop around. Medicare part d was designed by the republicans to bankrupt Medicare via a provision that forces the government to pay full retail price for the meds it uses (1) very similar to the way they have tried to bankrupt social security, a perfectly viable system before they got their hands on it.(2)Seems to me the biggest problem is the private insurance companies, whom all in all will probably dump a trillion dollars into fighting a public plan before this is over. For profit hospitals are another problem, since most hospitals will be private before long at this rate, but I’m hoping that if the government takes a larger role in insuring people that they wont let the hospitals take advantage of people in life threatening conditions, but who knows.
Another interesting tid-bit that adds to the problem is that doctors in McAllen, Texas are investing in the labs and clinics, and then sending patients for unnecessary tests to line their own pockets. (3) and I’m sure this is happening in other places to. Docs are becoming quite the business-men. Here are a few other things, Over 50% of people going bankrupt in the U.S. are from healthcare bills, over 70% of those are from people who HAVE health insurance. (4) Meanwhile William McGuire, ex c.e.o. of united healthcare makes 1.78 BILLION over ten years, and if you took the top ten healthcare ceos out of the picture you could insure at least 100,000 Americans with their paychecks. Here’s an example of the sick profits these snakes make while providing no real services. *http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/* that doesn’t count all the other people making millions off of denying coverage to people for any reason they can find, plus the corporate jets and all the other perks... its past time we got these leeches off of our backs completely.
I don’t know that its going to happen, too much money being thrown at preventing the government from doing anything about heath care. On a plus note Dennis Kucinich placed a bit into the bill he worked on that allows states to create their own single payer plans regardless of what the public option comes out looking like. Apparently there is a law in effect right now that prohibits this, but if his amendment survives and makes it into the final bill, then it will be the start of a great thing. This is exactly how Canada got their healthcare plan, and regardless of what the right-wingers lie about, the truth is over 80% of Canadians would not trade their healthcare for American insurance (5). kind of says something doesn’t it. Meanwhile over 70% of Americans want to see a public plan here, (6) Oh speaking of right wing talking points, how come people come to America for health care? I submit that it is because those people coming here for surgeries or whatever are wealthy individuals. The real question is why did over 100,000 Americans (7) Go to India for healthcare last year? Why is that number going to be up to 4 times that this year? (8) In addition to this, All aspects of healthcare are natural monopolies and need to be regulated. Unfortunately the insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws (9). And If your about to die from a heart attack, your not going to take the time to go through the phone book and find the best deal on ambulance services.
Are there any Americans who haven’t been lied to, or screwed over, by the health insurance companies? If you haven’t you probably know someone who has, and if not you can find plenty of horror stories at (10). but my personal favorite is about a woman in her thirties who had her claim denied because she forgot to disclose to the insurance company that she took a prescription acne medicine when she was a teenager. right wingers like to complain about unions, such as the cost of pay after benefits to the g.m.c. employees. Well if they didn’t have to buy health care for their employees, like their competitors in every other industrialized nation they would save billions (11). That’s probably why the unions are mostly for a single payer plan I bet. Oddly enough it would seem to me that anyone who actually believes in American industry would be dying to take this cost away from American companies and put it on the governments back. Weird how the republicans are so against healthcare.
Employee based healthcare is really nothing more than another way for the big money interests to control the average person. Either you work for a big company that can afford to give its employees health insurance, or you and your family go bankrupt or die if someone happens to get sick. It also destroys entrepreneurship, its risky enough to start your own business, but when you cant afford to pay these insane prices for private insurance in the meantime, the risk is way more than many people are willing to take. I recently heard on the radio an ad from Wal-Mart that bragged about how most of its employees have some type of health insurance (12). They are advocating that all employers be required to buy private healthcare for the employees. Sounds innocent enough right? Well the reason the Waltons want this to become law, is the same reason why they are willing to lower prices drastically when they open a new store and run the store at a potential loss for a period of time. IT DESTROYS THE COMPETITION, PARTICULARLY SMALL AMERICAN OWNED BUSINESS! Wal-Mart can afford to do this, and they can afford to provide health insurance for all their employees, but what it will do is shut down most small American owned businesses. Say good-bye to that family owned store in the center of town, guess its off to Wal-Mart for your milk an eggs.
I fail to see what the argument can be against a good public option. I’ve tried to wrap my mind around some of them. Lets see, argument number 1. “government is bad and screws everything up“. Well then, the key word is OPTION. You like your private plan, keep it, you don’t, you have a new OPTION. Hmmm sounds like they are encouraging competition. Isn’t that what right wingers are all about when it comes to the “free market”. Besides, the government does so many things so well that this argument is just ridiculous, I’m not going to bother listing it all here but its plain as day, government is good. When you do find something that the government does badly, its more often then not because the capitalists got a hold of it and destroyed for whatever sick reason they had at the time. (ex. Medicare part d., social security, *see 1st paragraph*) If you would rather let the corporations run the whole country with no government interference, you are not only an idiot, but also either a Fascist, a royalist/monarchist, or an anarchist, all of which are pretty much anti American points of view.
Which brings us to argument number 2. “The private insurance companies can not compete with a public plan“. Wait a minute, what? The first time I heard this said by a right winger on the radio I was driving and almost had to pull over I was laughing so hard. How obvious can someone be. So lets see, if the government plan is so good that the private companies wont be able to compete, then everyone will have the option to switch over and then have better insurance then any private plan could provide. If the public option is not that great then the private companies will be fine, there is just one more choice out there providing for more competition. Competition, isn’t that what “free market” capitalists are all about? (I know I already said that.)
Ok what other empty arguments have I heard. Oh here’s one I hear a lot, “I don’t want some government bureaucrat standing in between me and my doctor.” Well personally I would much rather have the government standing there over some bureaucrat from the private industry, whose only goal is to make money and deny health care in any way possible. Also there are thousands of American doctors and nurses who are for single payer let alone the public option because they are sick and tired of the administrative hoops they have to jump through with most of the private companies as well (13). But once again, it is a public OPTION, don’t use it if you hate the government.
The one I hear the most, and is also the most ignorant, is that “everyone has healthcare, emergency rooms can’t turn people away” So outside of the fact that one trip to the e.r. without health insurance will bankrupt most Americans, and even bankrupt a lot of them with insurance if they have to stay in the hospital for more than a day, lets look at the words EMERGENCY ROOM. Key word, Emergency. Go ahead, go to the e.r. and say “I got this weird lump and I don’t know I think it might be cancer.“ You will get told to come back when your dying. At that point of course its too late to treat it. Emergency Rooms are not set up to provide preventative care, and they don’t.
Well, I know there are other arguments out there, but I think I have made my point. Feel free to throw another one at me, I will shoot it down when I get a chance. but dont echo some lie without proof, there are so many lies being thrown out there right now its sickening, and i wont respond. Of course its hard not to believe a lie when there are hundreds of billions of dollars promoting it. (14)
(1)*http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/01/the_80_billion_medicare_sellout.php*
(2)*http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_thom_har_061022_the_truth_about_the_.htm*
(3)*http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/9/740385/-McAllen,-Texas-and-Collaborative-Medicine*
(4)*http://www.examiner.com/x-15753-SF-Wellness-Examiner~y2009m7d15-Middleclass-insured-Americans-filed-75-of-personal-bankruptcies-due-to-healthcare-costs*
(5)*http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5haqIdwLkO0bfRWlsx51kCcdeG0GQ*
(6)*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1*
(7)*http://www.rense.com/general69/ameri.htm*
(8)*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/americans-outsourcing-hea_n_245310.html*
(9)*http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51800*.
(10)*http://www.sanders.senate.gov/files/letters/*
(11)*http://www.carlist.com/autonews/2005/autonews_131.html*
(12)*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242272,00.html*.
(13)*http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_doctors_revolt*
(14)*http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4913.shtml*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)