Saturday, May 15, 2010

Universal Health Care





     The question has been posed, should the government implement a universal form of healthcare. No the government should not, for three reasons. Taxpayer dollars being spent, the degrading of the free market, and the necessity of  government run healthcare.
      The disputed Health Care reform will cost 1 trillion dollars (Woodward) in the first ten years. 1 trillion dollars is more than the New Deal implemented by FDR after the Great Depression. With the economy as it is right now, its no time to be adding to our national debt. Spending is what got us into this financial mess and it will not get us out of it. 
      Furthermore, the new Health Care bill eliminates competition within insurance companies and therefore destroys a portion of the free market, and gives it to the government. When we give a to the government to handle it takes business away from the private sector (in this case health insurance companies). The new Health Care plan is a monopoly. "The Week" puts it as hog tying 1/6 of the economy,"Congressmen’s town-hall meetings on the president’s health-care plan have caused a backlash of un-American fury. It comes from liberals, outraged that anyone could oppose President Obama’s intention to hog-tie one-sixth of the economy." (National Review) Hog tying 1/6 of the economy means government take over of that section, eliminating the free market over health care. Capitalism has made us one of the most prosperous countries in the world, this bill is one big step in the opposing direction. With taxpayer dollars going to a new universal Health Care plan, that covers everybody, that is one more step closer to socialism.
      For my third point, do we need government healthcare? Does the government need to step in, or is the free market doing just fine? We need some reform in health care, but not this. Not something that spreads the wealth, reduces free market. Most likely, the reason our health care is in bad shape is because of the government intervention that we all ready have. They should not. They are taking taxpayer dollars for something we do not need.
      If this bill was put under a Cost/Benefit Analysis, the results would be, to much money spent for something we do not need. That is why we should not let government handle Health Care. 

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Global Warming


     The question has been asked, Should the United States take initiative to reduce man made global warming?  No, the United states should not try to reduce Global Warming for three reasons; spending of taxpayer dollars, increased government restriction, and the lack of evidence for Global Warming.
      Before anyone buys anything they evaluate the cost, or should.  So how much would it cost to fix Global Warming?  The Climate Change bill (a bill written to solve Global Warming) has a budget of $79 billion, (Boshni) this is a major dent in the economy, and one we cannot afford.  A weaker economy means that smaller businesses will go bankrupt, and it will discourage entrepreneurs to start their own businesses. This downplays the free market, which is a major disadvantage.
      The second reason the U.S. government should not try and reduce Global Warming is all the additional restrictions that will be imposed. To give you an idea of what the Climate Change bill restricts here is an excerpt from the book Protectionism Under a Green Label  "The Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill was introduced by democrats Henry Waxman and Edward Markey. It would establish an aggressive cap-and-trade program, initiatives aimed at promoting renewable energy (25 percent renewable by 2025), energy efficiency, updating standards for transportation emissions, and reducing greenhouse gases emissions (GHG emissions)." (Boshni)More stringent CAFE standards (transportation emissions) would mean, lighter, more dangerous cars. More restrictions on GHG emissions would mean less gas production in America and causing us to rely on foriegn contries for oil.  More restrictions mean less freedom.
      With all the disadvantages I've mentioned we'd better make sure that Global Warming is a significant problem.  So, is Global Warming a real issue, or a normal phase in the weather?  Some say it is a real issue; "That forests cut down in the Amazon may reduce carbon sequestration, and hence speed up global climate change, is only one example of the environmental chain of causation. Forests also perform a variety of ecosystem services, such as improving air quality, enriching soil, providing renewable resources, regulating hydrology, and contributing to biodiversity." (Ethan Goffman) There is a consensus in the scientific community that Global Warming is a real phenomenon, but the data say different. In fact the average global temperature has only increased 1 degree since 1860. Maybe if the temperature has increased 1 degree every year, (Readinger) that might be a problem. However, 1 degree in 150 years, is not a significant problem.
      So we see this is not a significant problem to be dealt with. Why should we spend more money, regulate more, and take away freedom, for something that's not a problem?