|What follows is an initial letter
followed by links (coming soon) to a series of letters that were penned
to a "business columnist" who seemed to be an "anti-business" columnist.
The person has moved on to other work and thus remains nameless
here because the anti-business philsophy was not unique to this columnist.
The letters are reprinted to point other journalists to freedom.
Dear business columnist:
Your columns (including that Tuesday piece) seem to follow a pattern:
1. Here is a problem that hasn't been solved by the government (and you explain how the regulations that already exist don't work, and/or how additional regulations that you think would work aren't being imposed).
2. You then wrap it up by essentially saying: Because the government hasn't/won't solve this problem I'm going to have to now give you people (the readers) advice on how to deal with the problem.
That's a pretty pathetic formula for writing. It is heavy-duty statist thinking. It's as if you regret that you have to write a business column, and that your chore of writing is simply proof that the government hasn't done enough. It is as if it would be nice if the government would "do it's job and fix everything" so that you wouldn't have to write anymore.
Try to develop a greater appreciation and understanding of individual and economic freedom and of how the market solves problems. It is ironic that you are one of the ways the market solves problems (by people like you giving advice) though you seem to consider your service a flaw in the market system, and that it is a flaw that should continually be eliminated through government intervention.
Animal Control bureaucracies are ineffective and their bureaucrats serve as enablers for sociopaths who threaten and harass people with dogs. Instead of advising and aiding victims, Animal Control bureaucrats mislead and misinform victims. When used by the government, the phrase "Animal Control" means that animals control humans (Animal Control of Humans).
There have been many examples of drug dealers using dogs to protect themselves, their drugs and cash. Many are convicted felons who have had their 2nd amendment rights removed due to their supposed potential for violence. They use dogs as substitutes for guns (on a similar topic see the Diane Whipple case http://rexcurry.net/bigdogs.html ).
Thus, there are two concepts of "drug dogs": 1) Dogs used by police to sniff drugs and arrest people for recreational non-violent activity between consenting adults and; 2) Vicious dogs used by drug dealers to threaten violence against non-consenting adults (those victims are often people who live near the drug dealer).
Police officers often have to shoot such dogs in self defense (for examples google "police officer shoots dog").
Many owners of vicious dogs are criminals with felony records and may be on active probation. They behave as if they or their dogs were shouting "Pay attention to me! Research me! Investigate me!" Their dogs are surrogates for their own inferiority complex and/or persecution complex in which they wish to be the territorial alpha dog intimidating others.
In one case an investigation resulted in the discovery that a dog-owner was a convicted drug-dealer felon on active federal probation with a history of mental health issues, drug arrests, and long-term addictions to more than five substances (most illegal). In that case, his use of dogs was consistent with his history of felony drug dealing. In another case the dog-owner had served three years in prison for cocaine, been re-arrested for cocaine, and was on active state probation. Both cases developed into contenders for "America's Dumbest Criminals."
In one of those cases the felon had no prior convictions for violence and had been arrested for a recreational drug in a sting (where a police officer buys or sells drugs to a person and then arrests him). He faced years in prison even though there was no "victim," no one had complained and the arrest occurred due to a set-up created by police. Later, while the defendant was on probation, he engaged in constant harassment, torture and terrorism of new neighbors (the defendant moved to a new location) with vicious barking dogs (that he had used during his lengthy drug-dealing career and that he had kept after his arrest and while on probation). Yet, complaints to his probation officer and to the judge fell on deaf ears even though the defendant engaged in daily threats of violence through his vicious dogs and produced real victims with real complaints. The government spends tax dollars fabricating crimes out of non-violent activity between consenting adults. The government ignores true crimes of violence against complaining victims. Government bureaucrats were blind to the fact that the defendant's use of vicious dogs probably spanned his long career of drug-dealing (that the two activities were related).
People with threatening dogs are people who want to use dogs for attacks and physical violence (that is their logical "progression").
Through their threats and harassment they show that they are dangerous. They are reminders of the Michael Vick case and the Diane Whipple case (the lady in San Francisco who was killed by her neighbor's vicious dogs). Neighbors are not only threatened and harassed, their lives are in danger around such sociopathic misanthropes.
A victim of persecution via dogs stated: “When we (the neighbors) compare notes in the morning, we’ve all had the same problems,” Landry said. “I don’t think it’s a dog problem. It’s an owner problem.”
Some people are so vile and/or ignorant that they will not take the simple short measure of teaching their dogs not to bark.
They become enraged if someone tells them that their dog barks and asks them to train it to stop. It's the same reaction as telling someone that their child misbehaves because they are a lousy parent. It's not rational, although it explains much about those many dog-owners who have a history of drug use and abuse with felony convictions and probation. In other words, they WERE misbehaving youths with lousy parents. Now they are sociopaths.
It is unfortunate that some public officials have the mis-impression that dogs should be allowed to bark, and even suggest "schedules" as a resolution between victims and the sociopaths who own dogs. It is wrong to coerce victims into accepting a schedule for daily threats and harassment.
Sociopaths who want a daily schedule for their dogs to bark reveal their sociopathic goals: they want their dogs for harassment. They could leave their dogs out at any time and all the time if they would simply teach the dogs to stop barking. They prefer to abuse their dogs and maintain the bad behavior. Again, they are dog-haters who hate their own dogs, at least in that sense.
If their own teenage son ran up and down the property line shouting threats of violence at the neighbors, they would take no action if they believed they would suffer no response. Indeed the behavior of some dog owners is worse than if they took no action; some of them provoke their teenagers to run up and down the property line shouting threats. The dog-owners would do it themselves if they thought they would suffer no response.
There is no relevant difference between the dogs and their sons. They would say "Oh my son likes to do that. For him its normal. I tried, but I can't get him to stop. Just ignore him." The dog-owner would say that about themselves: "Oh we like to run up and down the property line shouting threats of violence at you. For us its normal behavior. We tried to stop, but we can't. Just ignore us (if you can, ha, ha)." (Here one begins to see the value of shock collars... if the dog-owner wore it and the neighbor had the remote control. Then the persecutor would find the wherewithal to stop the threats from the dog/son/himself).
Sociopathic dog-owners use dogs for the same end, because they believe that no one will stop it.
The use of barking dogs for psychological torture is known by military and law enforcement globally. Review a web search for images of dogs used at Abu Ghraib.
Sociopaths are notorious for using dogs in the concentration camps and ghettos of the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): the National Socialist German Workers Party (with Adolf Hilter and ~20 million people slaughtered); the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (V. I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin and ~60 million slaughtered); and the Peoples' Republic of China (Chairman Mao and ~50 million slaughtered).
Some modern victims of that behavior literally cannot crack their doors to step out without a barrage of violent threats from dogs that want to attack them. They become prisoners in their own homes as if their homes were concentration camps.
|DBPR Department of Business and Professional
Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission Division of Real Estate, Tallahassee
Florida and myfloridalicense My Florida License Licensing. http://rexcurry.net/mediabusiness1.html
Two shocking facts about this bureacracy:
1. It has no idea how many of its license holders are convicted felons, including those who are on active federal probation (or any state probation).
2. It has no idea how many of its license holders have had their licenses revoked (by the bureacracy itself). It doesn't keep track of its own revocations of licenses.
A convicted drug dealer was actively on federal felony probation for years before the State of Florida Division of Real Estate licensing ever found out. It is amazing that at the time this was written the Division did not warn the public that the person was a felon on probation.
That bureaucracy is so incompetent that they don't even have a method for checking on whether any realtors have become convicted felons actively on probation.
They rely on "self-reporting" by the licensee. If the convicted felon does not clue them in, then they won't know (unless someone else clues them in).
In the example above, the felon probationer had been convicted for selling a large quantity of GHB, also known as the "date rape" drug. Thus, the probationer was still licensed to accompany unescorted women (and men) into vacant homes. In that sense, to this day, the bureaucracy does not know what might have transpired during a time when the probationer's license could have been revoked, if they had known. The bureaucrats wish to assume that lots of bad things did not happen and that none of the many missing persons reports that go unsolved are related to this real-life example of the bureaucracy's fecklessness.
The Government's website is actually misleading to the public because it implies to the public that the license holders are not convicted drug dealers on active federal felony probation, and the public probably assumes that the bureaucracy would know and say so. That supports the argument that everyone would be better off without the bureaucracy, in that the bureaucracy would not serve to dupe people into complacency.
The government's web site needs to be improved with a warning, something along the lines of "This bureaucracy does not know how many of the license holders have become convicted felons on active probation. If you deal with any of these people, they could be convicted drug dealers on federal probation. This bureaucracy relies on "self reporting" meaning that if the licensee or someone else does not tell us, the bureaucracy does not know, and does not know if they are eligible for license
revocation. Use this government web site at your own risk."
It is hard to ascribe to mere incompetence the behavior of the DBPR Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission Division of Real Estate, in Tallahassee and Orlando Florida ( myfloridalicense My Florida License Licensing ).
It fails to file revocation orders and then its loses orders revoking licenses for convicted felons actively on probation. The behavior is covering up and enabling convicted felons on probation. DBPR personnel are completely disinterested and rude when the problem is called to their attention. If you ever call to inquire about a problem like this one and the DBPR bureacrat says: "I'll look into it and get back to you on it" that means that NOTHING will happen. If you call a month later, you will receive the same response. They will also deliberately transfer you to other people who they know cannot answer your question. The only way you will ever correct the errors is to start emailing and phoning all higher-ups and tell them you will involve the media. It raises the suspicion of corruption and worse at the DBPR Department of Business and Professional Regulation. http://rexcurry.net/swastika3swastika.jpg
In the real-life example above a convicted felon on active federal probation could see that the DBPR website showed that he possessed a license in good standing and he could continue to hold himself out as a licensed active real estate sales associate, even though his license was supposed to have been revoked for life. The DBPR misleads and endangers the public.
In the felon's case above, the felon would have been able to renew his license (upon its customary revolving expiration date) and probably could have done so for the rest of his life. No one at the DBPR would have ever noticed that the DBPR had revoked his license. It is impossible to know how many examples still exist of felons who have had their licenses revoked by DBPR but are shown by the DBPR website to be licensees in good standing.
In the felon's case above, the felon had two previous arrests for drug dealing spanning years. After he was arrested on a federal drug charge seems to have dropped drug dealing and gone into "real estate investing" near the height of the bubble. Much of that "real estate investing" involved cosmetic improvements in the appearance of a house, followed by inflated appraisals to finagle enormous loans that would actually be used for "cash back" payments at or after closing. The loan funds would be used to pay the loan in order to keep credit good so that more loans could be obtained in a similar fashion. In other words, people basically live on loans, -loans that finance other loans. It is like a ponzi scheme where earlier loans finance later loans, and the later loans are used to pay the earlier loans (or the earlier loan is doled out in payments to pay the earlier loan), until it can't go on any longer.
That scam is like a narcotic. When the credit's still hot, the addict wants more and imagines that it will go on forever. When the credit dries up the crash is painful. Recovery is slow. It can drive the addict to questionable or criminal behavior in an effort to keep the scheme going.
Similar problems at the DBPR were covered in a story by the news reporter Susan Taylor Martin on March 19, 2009 concerning a real estate flipper sentenced to 18 months in prison in Tampa.
A similar problem exists on the State of Florida Corporation and fictitious name web site in that there is no method by which anyone is warned of whether a person using a Florida Corporation or ficitious name is a convicted drug dealer on probation.
The DBPR and other bureaucracies are as counter-productive as the SEC. The Securities and Exchange Commission was repeatedly warned that Bernard Madoff was suspected of running a Ponzi scheme and the SEC did nothing.
On the other hand, the people who warned the SEC and others were capitalists / investors, including Harry Markopolos, who had spent four hours graphing Madoff's work and found it impossible to believe. They, including MarHedge and Barron's, were warning people (in a sense, similar to Consumer Reports magazine) and the SEC was not.
Perhaps the SEC did not understand the problem with a Ponzi scheme and wondered why Markopolos was complaining about something that sounded like the Social Security Scam, Obama's Stick-us package and EVERYTHING else that the government does.
That is another reason why the SEC must end: It is part of the worst ponzi scam ever - the federal government.
The SEC achieves the opposite of what was intended: by its very existence it lulls people into believing that their investments are safe. People imagine that the SEC is charting simple graphs that reveal ponzi schemes, or at least paying attention when other people chart the graphs and provide them to the SEC. Only after it is too late do investors learn, in the news, that the SEC does none of the above.
Roots of the Crisis - A History of the Panic of 2008
To understand today’s financial crisis, you must understand the long history of government interference and subsidies for housing and housing debt. [download a .pdf of this report for printing at http://www.freedomworks.org/uploads/crisis.pdf]
Since the New Deal, the federal government has passed law after law attempting to shape U.S. housing markets. The U.S. today compels banks to lend to risky borrowers, skews the cost of housing debt and benefit of housing-related capital gains through the tax code, and operates several enormous government lending programs and taxpayer-backed corporations.
The net result is a wild, multi-trillion dollar overinvestment in America’s housing stock, the encouragement of dangerously overleveraged consumers and banks, and a massive new tab for taxpayers. The market is currently trying desperately to correct a government-created housing bubble, but the federal government’s response is to actually expand the government intervention that created the problem.
Here is the timeline of the actions that led to the current crisis. See it at
What is a "stay-out-of-prison-baby" ? A stay-out-of-prison-baby is a baby that is conceived and born to a defendant during the time that the defendant is facing criminal charges and the possibility of prison. The term is based on the idea that defendants deliberately manufacture babies under such circumstances in order to manipulate the emotions of the sentencing judge to impose a sentence of probation instead of prison. Believe it or don't, prosecutions and sentencing hearings are sometimes continued, even repeatedly, by the defendant (or his lawyer) in an effort to make sure the child is born and available for the sentencing hearing. Stay-out-of-prison-babies often appear at sentencings in the arms of the non-prosecuted mother (usually the mother) who delivers a sob story about needing the defendant so that the infant will have his father. Sometimes, at those hearings, the mother and father are still unwed after nine months of pregnancy and continued hearings and despite the alleged importance of the defendant avoiding prison (the defendant has some lines he will not cross). They might never wed. It is a reminder of the child who murders his parents and then pleads for leniency on the grounds that he is an orphan. Perhaps those parent-murderers were stay-out-of-prison babies. Is that trans-generational recidivism?
Capitalism's titanic deeds
The Titanic showed that government safety regulations do not protect people. The tragedy reveals that government regulations dictated the minimum number of allowable life boats, and that the owners originally exceeded - by far - the minimum and still exceeded the minimum when the ship launched.
Furthermore, the futility of "minimum life boat" regulations was shown by the failure to fill the boats that were on board. No life boat regulation can guarantee safety if seats are left empty.
As with every tragedy, the statists receive even greater applause for reforming their failed regulations while blaming "profits" for the loss of lives. While bureaucrats gain brainless praise for worthless government regulations, the real savior goes unsung: capitalism.
Today, a Titanic tragedy could still occur despite whatever stale regulations are currently on the books, but such a strategy could be averted by the fruits of capitalism.
Even if there were not a single life boat on board, capitalism has created jet planes, helicopters and high speed boats that can rush to drop inflatable rafts and life preservers. And large inflatable boats with automatic inflation can be in abundant supply in very little space.
Thanks to capitalism, all manners of communication are possible from ship to shore, including radios, individual radio-alert beacons and satellite/cellular phones in the very hands of passengers. Radar, sonar and other technology is used to detect icebergs. Night viewing devices and intense lighting is available to detect dangers at sea.
No matter how many times any type of mishap repeats itself, most
people will just whine for "more regulations" and never sense their
own absurd redundancy. The savvy traveler doesn't need a life boat
or a ship because he can carry his own inflatable boat in a suitcase
with its own automatic air source for high-speed inflation. He can carry
his own satellite communication device. Bureaucratic statism does not
save lives, capitalism does.
SAFETY SEATS KILL
Child safety seats kill. They not only kill the children who ride in them, they kill entire families too. http://rexcurry.net/safetyregs.html
The regulatory horrors are hidden because the government does not want people to know the dangers (to life and liberty) created by thieving bureaucracies that pretend to aid safety with dictates foisted upon "ignorant and uncaring" graduates of the government's schools.
This topic is so suppressed that a recent internet search for "child safety seats kill" provided no results with or without quotation marks, other than that of Dr. Rex Curry's report on the topic, the first for that web search.
Curry is a lawyer and a libertarian spokesman known as Dr. Capitalism. He exposes unintended consequences of safety regulations, consequences that are suppressed by media and government. The work proves the maxim "Capitalism heals. Socialism kills."
Child car seats kill because of three terrifying problems: (1) Children die from heat or exposure after being forgotten in cars and (2) Entire families die after parents leave cars running overnight in garages, filling homes with deadly carbon monoxide (3) Children die from rear-facing seats that are/were incompatible with another "safety" feature: car air bags.
Entire families have perished because people drive inside a hot garage and leave the car engine running in order to continue the cooling air conditioner while struggling with the children and their safety seats. After children are inside the home, no one remembers to turn off the car.
The heartbreak spreads when another parent discovers that she has accidentally killed her infant by forgetting the infant in the car's back seat under a sweltering sun all day, instead of being dropped off at day care or another destination.
Child booster seats kill even after a history of fatalities due to incompatibiliy with air bags. Rear-facing infant seats would push infants into the front passenger seat via an exploding air bag slamming into the back of the child's seat. It would break the infant's neck.
It is sad to note that one of the government's "solutions" for avoiding air-bag deaths was to put the children in the rear seats away from the "life-saving" air bag feature. That led to children baking to death in cars and entire families killed by carbon monoxide.
Strapping in a child can lead to deaths if the car catches fire because it might not be possible to release the child in time, or at all (and the parent might be unconscious, incapacitated or dead). For the same reasons, strapping in a child can cause drowning deaths if the car becomes submerged.
Straps on a booster seat can kill a child in even a medium speed head-on collision of the type shown in NHTSA videos. A booster seat puts a child's head closer to the roof of the car, increasing the chance that its head will be crushed in a roll-over. Elevating a child makes it more likely that the child will be killed in an override, while it might have survived lower down. A strapped in child may suffer serious injury or death from the straps in case of other types of collisions, as well as head-on. Strapping in a child makes it more likely that the child will be crushed in other accidents where the child cannot avoid the blow or be pushed aside.
A study released 12/08/2006 in the British Medical Journal warns parents not to let their babies sleep in car seats because there is a risk they could stop breathing. That danger is echoed by researchers at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Some of the problem involves infants "flopping forward" in the seats, even when they are left in the seats inside the home, or in the car.
TRIANGLE SHIRTWAIST FIRE
The Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire of 1911 is often misused as a example of the need for safety codes and child labor laws.
It is actually a warning to employers and employees to beware of the misdeeds and negligence of other employees. It also shows the need for private fire departments instead of government-run fire departments. http://rexcurry.net/lawyer.html
The workers were 17, 18, and 19 years old or older. So workers were not children, and would not be controlled by present child labor laws and thus the incident provides no support for child labor laws.
There are persistent myths that doors were locked and that fire escapes were faulty, even though a judge exonerated the owner of the building and the proprietors of the Triangle Compnay, and an insurance company paid $64,925 for property damage.
In comparison, the government-operated fire department was slow to arrive, and it's ladders could not reach beyond the 6th floor to the fire that was raging on the 9th floor. The building was 12 floors high, and New York City had buildings 50 stories high at that time.
There was one door locked, though there were multiple exits that were used by many to escape. The exits included stairs, a fire escape and two elevators that were used heroically by the operators.
The fire started on the 8th floor, and everyone on that floor escaped. Most people on the 10th floor escaped. The 9th floor suffered the greatest loss of life where 100 of 250 people still escaped. There were about 500 people in the building, 350 escaped and about 150 died.
The fire did not burn downward and the building is still standing to this day in New York City.
What is telling about the persistent myths is how they lay blame upon the workers. One popular claim is that remote doors were locked because workers would use them for stealing or use them for unauthorized breaks for smoking cigarettes (thereby gold-bricking and also breaking factory rules against smoking). Not only does this persistent myth lay blame upon the workers for creating the reason for the alleged locking of the doors, it also suggests the source of the fire: unauthorized and negligent smoking by employees.
Socialists deliberately lied about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in order to blame capitalism and to cover-up for the usual failures of socialism.
In a market system with private fire departments, there is a direct incentive for the customer of the fire-prevention service to make sure that firefighters are properly equipped for their particular building's needs, or for customers to provide for their own safety and fire equipment.
Thanks to capitalism, and to the incompetence of government, there is a strong incentive to create ways of avoiding dependence on government fire departments today. There are sprinkler systems, smoke detectors that are cheap and widely distributed, flame retardent materials, and appliances (microwave ovens etc) that do not use flames as their predecessors did (stoves and heaters that used wood, coal, gas etc).
The book "Triangle: The Fire That Changed America" by David Von Drehle busts a lot of myths. The book explains that Triangle was not a sweatshop. The fire was not arson by the owners.
Von Drehle's book is full of detail. Most stories about the fire lack detail. Most stories are vague anecdotes from socialists that use the fire as a call for more government regulation.
Another interesting bit from Drehle: Fiorello La Guardia was a socialist before he became a republican.
Von Drehle has also drawn comparisons to the World Trade Towers on 9-11-2001, including the fact that people leapt to their deaths.
People leapt to their deaths at Triangle's building because the government's fire department didn't have ladders to reach the fire's height. Government didn't have ladders to reach the Trade Tower fire either.
Today, the average fire-truck's ladder at a government's fire department reaches only to the 8th floor. Government operates most fire departments but they don't operate firetruck factories. Firetruck factories make trucks that reach from 15 to 33 floors, but they are rarely available in government's fire departments.
Von Drehle says that the Shirtwaist fire might have been extinguished but for a problem with a water hose for fires that did not function. It was probably from a government water system that failed.
The Triangle Shirtwaist Company owners suffered greatly, but the government's fire department didn't. It is fortunate that the Shirtwaist company was not operated by the government, or the loss of life would have been even greater.
Government angers foreigners into flying private planes into private businesses, and then government security fails to prevent it from happening.
And what about the much-vaunted government regulations imposed after the Shirtwaist fire? The Trade Towers collapsed completely, and the Shirtwaist building still stands and is in use in NYC today.
The Triangle Shirtwaist fire exposes the myth of safety from government regulations, including those regulations imposed after the fire, and it shows that safety comes from capitalism and its technology.
Dr. Rex Curry is known as "Dr. Capitalism" because of his work to end socialized medicine in the United States and worldwide. But the real Dr. Capitalism is a healthcare professional who remains anonymous while advising Dr. Curry about libertarian trends in medicine.
A great T-shirt recently viewed states on the front "Capitalism Heals" and on the back "Socialism Kills." A similar sign says "Capitalism Heals, Socialism Kills!" http://rexcurry.net/doctor-capitalism-dr-capitalism-heals-socialism-kills.gif
Every individual's health is his or her personal responsibility. We should be free to do what we think is necessary to take care of ourselves without interference from anyone. The businesses mentioned at Dr. Capitalism's web site help toward that end. That is right and good.
It is the sort of freedom that everyone should have. It is enraging to see that the medical profession in concert with the state often prevents economic freedom in medicine.
HPV vaccine is an example of the need to remove government from medicine. The Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine
Governor Rick Perry should be investigated for bribery and criminal conduct. Greedy socialism. He issues executive orders acts like a dictator. He should have ended his comment with a Nazi salute. It is called the slut vaccine because Rick Perry is a slut and a whore.
He can inject the girls while they chant the Pledge of Allegiance.
Why not make the flu vaccine mandatory for adults every year?
The Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine last year for girls and women from 9 to 26 after studies indicated that it was extremely effective against infection by four of the dozens of strains of HPV, including the ones responsible for most cases of cervical and anal cancer. Why did he wait until 14, and not order it at 9 or younger?
Some religious folks object and argue that the vaccine promotes promiscuity? Does the vaccine promote promiscuity? Government schools promote promiscuity. They are so bad and boring that anyone would be driven to drink, drugs and sex through boredom and hopelessness. It is the Soviet effect. It is another reason to end government schools.
The Republican-socialist might acheive the opposite of his intention because the vaccine does not prevent all HPV, therefore, if more sex occurs as a result of the vaccine, then more HPV might occur, and therefore more cervical cancer. It could also cause a lot more of many other diseases and problems.
Must end the FDA
Must end government schools
To the question "will you encourage your children to take it?" an intelligent parent will respond "Not at this time. We will wait for more information and more results."
Socialized medicine is not planned parenthood. It is a plan to replace parenthood. Government schools are a plan to replace parenthood.
Take your children out of government schools and away from republican-socialists like Rick Perry.
Remove your children from government schools. Save them from socialized medicine and Nazi style aggression.
Doctor Capitalism writes to http://rexcurry.net in response to an article about long lines for so-called "free" flu shots from the government, that prove socialism is destroying medicine in the U.S.A. (As elsewhere).
Here are Doctor Capitalism’s comments:
Hey, we're just lucky that flu shots are still VOLUNTARY. I'm shocked that the government hasn't made them mandatory for Medicare and Medicaid recipients. As you know, many vaccines now are compulsory for school attendance. Flu will be next.
One area the author didn't mention is the mystery surrounding why the Fujian strain was left out of this year's vaccine. It's becoming the predominant strain. Why didn't the CDC recognize that and include it? There's a bigger story there.
For your information, health departments aren't required to give free shots. Some charge $15 for flu and $20 for pneumonia. They are turned down every day by patients who have high risk chronic diseases and don't think $15 is worth it. For some of these patients, it could save them a trip to the hospital, which would cost thousands. The difference is the $15 is out of their own pocket and they would be a charity case if they were admitted for a severe complication of the flu at the hospital.
Speaking of so-called “free” health care, I also see every day a few patients who seem to have very minor cold symptoms that could be easily treated by over the counter remedies and who insist on being evaluated in the clinic. I wouldn't dream of seeking medical care if similarly afflicted, but I guess I can feel good about it because they're wasting my time and not the emergency room’s time. I'm saving the government lots of money on that one.
yours in liberty,
Two patients limp into two different American healthcare businesses with the same complaint. Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement.
The first patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the following week. The second sees the family doctor after waiting a week for an appointment, then waits eighteen weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another month and finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then. Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The first is a dog at a veterinarian.....
The second is a human on medicare.
The U.S. Healthcare Certificate of Need Sourcebook
By Robert James Cimasi, ASA, CBA, AVA, FCBI, CM&A, CMP
1587982757 - Paperback - 512 pages US $199.95
Certificate of Need (CON) has had a broad impact on healthcare providers and markets for over three decades. As the bibliographies and other resources in this book illustrate, there is a large amount of literature documenting CON regulation over the years. This work is the result of over two years of dedicated, focused research resulting in a comprehensive reference manual and sourcebook encompassing the statutory, regulatory, administrative, and legal aspects CON regulation from its inception in the late 1960s to the present.
The U.S. Healthcare Certificate of Need Sourcebook provides detailed descriptions, on a state-by-state basis, of CON regulatory requirements, including application thresholds and utilization data. The book is supplemented with numerous appendices.
The U.S. Healthcare Certificate of Need Sourcebook is comprehensive in its treatment CON, which is a growing and increasingly contentious, political, and legal healthcare nightmare.
As a young attorney in the general counsel’s office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the late 1970s, the author first learned of the federal government’s quixotic efforts to rein in the rapid growth of healthcare to Americans. With its confusing acronyms and labyrinth of regulatory protocols, the Certificate of Need (CON) program became his ticket out of government service into the private practice of law. Indeed, for much of the next ten years the author was in the middle of a fierce battle between luddite regulators and helpful healthcare providers fighting for economic freedom but stymied by the government’s franchise bureaucracy.
by Lady Liberty
Last week was a tough one for a couple of my friends. One of them was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had to have immediate surgery to remove the originating tumor, and she's now waiting to hear a recommended course of treatment dependent on the results of tests to determine the cancer's spread. As of today, her prognosis is reasonably good. In the most awful of coincidences, another friend was diagnosed with lung cancer just two days later. Her prognosis is less favorable. Though she's already commenced with chemotherapy treatments, surgery isn't an option because the cancer cells have already spread beyond her lungs and into her liver and her bones.
It's an unreasonable but inevitable fact that most of us, on hearing such news, begin to question all sorts of perfectly benign symptoms we feel or see in our own bodies. Is that stomach twinge indigestion or something worse? Is that chest pain a pulled muscle or a damaged heart making its presence felt? Is that funny looking spot on our leg just a spider vein or the outcroppings of some more malevolent growth? The positive aspect of all this is, of course, that we may actually find a genuine problem at an early and eminently treatable stage as a result of our temporary paranoia.
Most of us know that, if cancer is caught early, the treatment need not cause too much suffering. Lumpectomies, for example, are far less invasive and are often just as effective for the treatment of small and contained breast cancer masses as are the more disfiguring mastectomies. But having a breast removed or a colostomy, however traumatic, seems small potatoes in comparison to the inevitable alternatives! Chemotherapy might make you terribly sick and negatively impact your appearance temporarily (I can't think of a single woman I know who wouldn't be truly devastated at the thought of losing her hair), but again, the price pales in comparison to what will ensue without the treatment. Radiation isn't much fun, either, I'm told. But again, weigh the alternatives and radiation suddenly seems a perfectly acceptable option.
The point of all this is actually a fairly simple one: You do what you can to prevent the problem. But if the problem occurs, you deal with it as aggressively as need be to save your life or, if that's not possible, to give you the best quality of life for as long as possible before the end.
In the most simplistic of terms, many forms of cancer are simply collections (usually called tumors) of cancerous cells that grow together and then extend tendrils and migrating cells to invade and infect other areas of the body. If the cancers are diagnosed while they're still contained collections of cells, simple removal is often enough to effect a cure. But if the tendrils are winding about other parts and pieces of the body in complex networks of disease, and if cells have wondered off to infect distant organs, the treatment has to get more drastic. That doesn't necessarily mean the patient will die, but it does mean that the fight to live will be more difficult, more involved, and almost certainly engender more suffering along the way.
Of all the things that can be done to prevent cancer, though, and of all the things that might be employed toward a cure, there's one overriding factor. That, of course, is the will of the patient. Just as it takes willpower to quit smoking, it takes willpower to to tolerate the treatment for lung cancer. And more than that, it takes a will to live for any treatment to reach its full potential. We've all heard heard stories of those who might have survived what others did, but who succumbed in large part because of their own fears and the certainty of failure. We've all heard about those who doctors say should have died but who instead survived and thrived because they simply refused to lay down and give up.
If you've got medical problems or know somebody who does, I'm really not the person who ought to be giving you advice. I'm a fine cheerleader, but no kind of diagnostician or treatment guru. But the problems we have in our country today is another story. Where those are concerned, I do have a little advice, and that advice relates all too closely with the subject at hand.
You see, there's a cancer in this country. The primary malignant tumor is centered in a place called Washington, DC. Just like cancer, it's comprised of those who have little in common with the rest of the body, but who never-the-less insist on running things their way and who employ out-of-control growth to achieve their ends. The sickness has spread everywhere as the cancer of government has sent its tendrils into places the Constitution never intended. There's an alphabet agency for almost every possible arena of oversight, and there are regulations for just about every eventuality. These tendrils ensure that everyone everywhere is thoroughly enmeshed in bureaucracy.
With the tendrils of bureaucracy spreading far and wide as they have, little cells here and there have dispersed and started new cancerous colonies. They've alighted in places like New York and Los Angeles. They've spread their disease to the Pacific Northwest and to the Gulf Coast. They've replaced other healthier cells in cities large and small across the country. Thanks to Washington's insatiable demand for funds to maintain its parasitic presence, we now see smaller venues emulating the larger with such things as eminent domain for monetary gain and seizure of property from those merely arrested, conviction be damned.
State governments are now so strangled by federal tentacles that they're thoroughly cowed by the mere threat of withdrawn federal highway funds, and are quite literally unable to see to their own citizens in the event of an emergency (I'm thinking, of course, of the debacle of New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina when state and local politicians drew almost as much heat as FEMA did for the lack of forethought concerning evacuations and disaster relief caused, in large part, by the fact that everything had to be routed through far too many channels).
Politicians lie, cheat, and steal, and yet somehow remain in office. They actively make exceptions to the idea of unalienable rights. And it's their actions that enable the cancer to continue to grow, and grow, and grow while the country - and freedom - gets sicker and sicker. But as metastasized as the government cancer may be, there's still some hope.
We, as individuals, might consider ourselves to be similar to the white blood cells our bodies use to fight off infection and other untoward invaders. We can write and call our politicians. We can write and call each other. Certainly, we can just plain refuse to cooperate. We can go to town council meetings and speak up when we see wrongdoing. And while our individual actions might not do a whole lot to cure or even appreciably shrink the cancer tumors, we can at the very least and even on the federal level have some small effect on the speed of its growth.
We, as groups, might call ourselves chemotherapy of a kind. Our collective efforts via boycotts, protest marches, petitions, and political action committees can make a real point with both the rest of the public and in local, state, and federal office buildings. The government cancer is already so bad that I don't expect grassroots chemotherapy to be any kind of a cure, but it sure as all get-out can start to shrink the tumors!
We, as voters, can be likened to radiation treatment. Radiation is nasty, nasty stuff unless it's aimed right where it needs to be. And then, while it sometimes causes peripheral burns, it also does quite a job on cancerous tissues. Voters can do exactly the same thing. We can obliterate some of the worst "seeds" of the disease by voting against the most sickening issues, and by voting the most malignant politicians right out of office. (By the same token, when voters aren't "aimed" properly, we can elect more really bad politicians and endorse more really bad regulations and programs. We ought to be more careful about that. Those getting burned will end up being you and yours sooner or later, probably sooner!)
Finally, we, as a whole, can act as surgeons. If the cancer is bad enough - and you had better bet that it is - we can act en masse to remove some of the worst of the cancer. We can refuse to cooperate with onerous programs like REAL ID. We can undermine every invasive program the TSA tries to implement by refusing to fly until the programs are targeted where they need to be instead of at us all. We can join the Minutemen and either actively help to patrol our vulnerable borders, or offer donations and other support to help those who can and are willing to do so. The opportunities to hack away at government largeness and largesse are many. Pick one (or several) and start slicing.
None of these things, though - not our bodies' natural defenses nor any outside treatment we might care to employ - will do much to mitigate or cure our medical problem if we have the wrong attitude. The same holds true for political activism, whether our gestures are large or small. In fact, right now, the activism of many Americans is most likely to be non-existent. There are far too many people who don't do much of anything because they're convinced that it just doesn't matter. They believe that, no matter what they do, freedom and democracy (such as it is) are already on the way out in this country.
I can't argue with those people in their belief that things are bad. The government cancer has clearly grown to a very, very dangerous extent. It's entirely possible that they're right, that there is no cure and that liberty is effectively doomed. But if the battle were on a smaller front, say in your own body, would you be so eager to simply give up and wait to die? I would hope not! I would hope that you'd fight until the end. I would hope that you'd not give up until you'd quite literally explored and exercised every option, and that you'd even hope for miracles in the knowledge that they do, albeit rarely, occur.
I think that, like me, you would fight, and you'd fight hard. That's as it should be. Life is, after all, sweet. But what is life without liberty? Can you honestly sit back and willingly do nothing to save, or at least prolong, liberty? Yes, there may be pain and sacrifice. But the sooner we get started, the sooner we can cure ourselves of the government cancer, or shrink it, or stave off its perhaps inevitable conclusion. And we can all remember that, while rare, miracles do occur. That this country exists at all is proof of that, and what happened once can happen again if only we've the courage to truly believe it.
For the record, both of the women I mention here are determined to fight. It will not likely be easy for either of them. Despite their most valiant efforts, it's possible that they will fail. But if they don't even try, the outcome isn't possible or even probable. It's certain. As a country, we're facing something more similar than I suspect we'd care to admit. I'd like to think that, singly or collectively, we've got the courage of my two friends to fight for something of such great value, too. Don't we?