A governmental policy based on a free market, free individual ideology

By Brian Patterson

Chapter I

Unions and the Free Market Economy

Today there is a lot of debate on how effective modern unions are. Unions came about by companies taking advantage of the American labor worker. Historical abuse of companies include: excessively low wages, unsafe work conditions, illegal activity such as coercion, assault, and sometimes even murder. A lot of this was the result of a weak enforcement of the rule of law in the beginning of America’s becoming an industrial power, part of the problem also being that there were no checks and balances or watchdog to keep some of the large industrial companies from wielding their power unchecked.

The role unions have played in curbing such abuses is an important one. Some unions have helped curb such abuses, and brought these issues to the attention of the public and legislators, and abuse has been dramatically reduced due to laws passed that gave better working conditions, reasonable working hours, and legal protections.

Some people seem to think that if unions today were to not exist, we would all fall back into those days in the past where workers were exploited and living in penury. However, I think this is an overstatement because of the success of unions and other activists to change laws and create agencies to avoid the errors and abuses of the past, and in some ways unions have become a victim of their own successes.  This is of course not to say unions should all be done away with, but just noting that they are not the salvation or protection of the modern worker to the extent that some seem to give it, because today legislation and agencies already help to ensure the abuses of the past will not return. Unions are part of a free market economy that gives people and industries the freedom to form or not form their own unions as they see fit.

Many workers themselves in many areas do not want unions in their industry, and it is true that unionization is not a good idea in all industries and businesses. While unions have done a lot of good and have helped workers avoid exploitation, they also seem to have helped workers exploit employers. Unions can have the power to impede a company's ability to compete and thrive. A firm might be in desperate trouble, yet its unions may be unwilling to bend or compromise in order to help the company survive. Many employers find themselves left very inflexible when they have union contracts to abide by. Sometimes companies are forced to move or close their doors because they can no longer afford to stay in business. Now of course businesses sometimes use things like this as excuses when it isn’t even true they are in desperate trouble, which is a valid concern.  But for those truly struggling, they should be left with some other alternative than closing their doors.

This leads to the conclusion that Unions can be good, and they can be bad… it just all depends on the circumstance, and people working in the free market should decide themselves whether to unionize or not. Obviously where there is huge demand to form a union in a company by employees of that company (note not demand by political advocates outside of that company) over time that will become a reality. It can be a good thing that some companies that have unions help keep wages up at other companies that are non-union, in order that they may still compete for good workers.  Some businesses do pay lower than average wages, but if those workers are willing to take those wages it isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and those workers are usually lower paid because they are just starting out and in a more entry level position in their career and could use the experience, whereas the union company would tend to hire the more experienced at a higher price, which is really true as we all know “you get what you pay for”.

An example I have heard people repeat is the Wal-Mart argument.  It basically goes that the small business is forced to shut down and then those people are forced to work at Wal-Mart for lower wages. This is of course NOT what happens in most cases. Successful small businesses tend to respond to Wal-Mart by to specializing in higher quality, different kinds of items than Wal-Mart carries.  Everyone knows Wal-Mart is a great place to go for some mass produced cheap quality stuff, which is perfect for some uses… but in no way can it take the place of many smaller stores with specialized services and/or items.  In fact I can’t even complete all my shopping without going to another store to get something Wal-Mart didn’t have!  Also the people that Wal-Mart tends to employ are people willing to work for those lower wages, and not the same people that were put out of business.  It tends to add to a local economy rather that take away from it by hiring and attracting more people to the locale it surrounds… people that are younger people, people gaining work experience, people going to school, etc. that want the work That Wal-Mart offers.

Some more problems with unions taken from a forum concerning unions on the internet:

Anti-competitiveness. The Socialstudieshelp.com website suggests in one of their chat forums that, "unions… are victims of their own success. Unions raised their wages substantially above the wages paid to nonunion workers. Therefore, many union-made products have become so expensive that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors and nonunion producers."

A decline in the value of merit. In many union settings, workers can't advance much or at all on their merits, but must generally progress within the limits defined by union contracts. Employers may have trouble weeding out ineffective employees if they belong to unions. In theory, at least, unionized workers might become so comfortable and protected that they lose the incentive to work hard for their employer. And outstanding employees might lose their get-up-and-go if there's no incentive to excel -- or worse, if they're pressured by the union to not go the extra mile.

Here’s a personal testimony from that same website:

The issue of unionized labor is something that I hold very near to my heart because of what it has done to my father. He has been a union iron worker for the better part of three decades. He loves the work he does and has always been my hero for the way he has provided for his family. However, in the past few years I noticed a change in my father's attitude toward his job. Where he once believed that the union was what kept him in his current job, he now despises it. He has noticed how younger, non-experienced people have been hired at almost the same pay rate that he earns. He also notices that these same young hires have little work ethic and even less ambition. They refuse to work overtime unless mandatory, show up to work late and hung over, and constantly leave an hour early. And yet with all this, when it comes time for yearly wage increases, they are rewarded with the same pay increase. When I ask my father what the union has done for him, his reply is "Nothing. Bill (his boss) has always been very good to us with raises, benefits, and contract renegotiations. He even manages our pension fund himself." My father has spoken of attempts in the past to oust the union. Of course these attempts were met with harsh criticism, usually from the younger employees.

Stories like this are what truly boils my blood. In my humble opinion, I feel that today's organized labor movement has done nothing to protect worker's rights, but everything to promote laziness and incompetence. The most recent cause of outrage was the unionizing of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Organizations such as the TSA are where we need only the most competent and diligent employees. So in other words, unionized labor is now helping to promote breeches in our national security. To some that may sound like a merit less claim. However, I don't see it as anything but the truth.

“The grocery chains are crying that they're being pinched as they fight the threat of Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) -- yet some have been recording increases in sales and earnings lately. Kroger (NYSE: KR), for example, posted a 3% increase in sales and a 16% increase in earnings between fiscal 2001 and 2002.

What's really going on? I suspect that both sides fear a slippery slope: Workers fear that if they give in a bit on healthcare, they'll eventually lose it all. (And with healthcare costs skyrocketing lately, that's a valid concern.) Employers fear that they're already on a slippery slope as they fight the encroaching behemoth that is Wal-Mart.

The Wal-Mart situation: Wal-Mart itself is interesting, when you consider unionization. Thus far, in its not-that-short history, it has escaped having most of its workers belong to unions. But a passionate fight is being waged right now, as workers struggle to establish a union.

This raises interesting questions for investors: Should we root for the union, as it might lead to more livable wages for employees and might keep more of Wal-Mart's million-plus employees enjoying healthcare benefits? Or should we root for Wal-Mart, figuring that a union will almost certainly put pressure on profits and might threaten the company's ability to sustain its track record of formidable global growth?

I'd like to tell you what I think of the Wal-Mart situation, but I can't. I'm torn. I see both sides of the issue. I wouldn't want to see Wal-Mart unduly restricted by union stipulations. I recognize that although it's enormous, its net profit margins aren't that hefty, at around 4%. That doesn't leave lots of room for adding expenses (though of course there is some room). But at the same time, I wouldn't want employees to be taken advantage of simply because Wal-Mart is big enough to do so. I admire generous companies, ones that treat their workers well. I'd want Wal-Mart to be, as many folks would argue it currently is, fair or even generous to workers. I suppose what I'd like to see is a more perfect solution than a traditional union or successful union-busting.” 

A history of Unions from http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Unionization.htm

as of 1/19/06 states:

For the past forty years there has been a steady decline in both union membership and influence. There are several reasons for such a decline, the first having to do with employers keeping their businesses union-free. Some were active in their opposition and even hired consultants to devise legal strategies to combat unions. Other employers put workers on the management team by appointing them to the board of directors or establishing profit-sharing plans to reward employees. The second reason for union decline is that new additions to the labor force have traditionally had little loyalty to organized labor. Because more and more women and teenagers are working and their incomes tend to be a family's second income, they have a proclivity towards accepting lower wages, thus defeating the purpose of organized labor. The third and possibly the most important reason for the decline in unions is that they are victims of their own success. Unions raised their wages substantially above the wages paid to nonunion workers. Therefore, many union-made products have become so expensive that sales were lost to less expensive foreign competitors and nonunion producers. This resulted in companies having to cut back on production, which caused some workers to lose their jobs, and hence, unions some of their members. Also, the recent shift in this country towards technology and service has made our economy less reliant in the types of industrial jobs that tended to be union strongholds. Today's worker tends to more highly educated and tends to the professional, white collar class. All of these have conspired to decrease union membership.

There you have some good information just from posts of normal people on a website discussing unions on the web.

So just as unions are part of a free market economy that gives people and industries the freedom to form or not form their own unions as they see fit, the determination of what fair wages are based upon the free market economy too.  Obviously most workers in large companies are not paid the minimum wage, but are paid the price that workers are willing to work for based on what is considered normal for the location.  If a company offers to little, it will have a difficult time finding employees. If it offers too much, it will hurt its ability to make money.

Rates of pay that are raised artificially too high result in inflation.  It reduces the buying power of the dollar also.  An example is the minimum wage.  If it is raised too high, your big Mac will cost more; grocery items will cost more, etc.  Your dollar will not be able to buy as much, and the hardest hit is the lower middle class. Also it should be considered that people should only be paid what their work is actually worth, as it is we do not pay general laborers doctors salaries; and so people that have chosen not to learn valuable skills through experience or college, cannot expect everybody else to pay for their life’s decisions; they must be paid what they are worth and what the free economy decides to pay them. Otherwise, they should go back to school or get in a career that they can gain the skills necessary to expect higher wages, not by taking it out of the pocket of the taxpayer or consumer. Yet that being said, the right for individuals to form unions is part of a free market, free individual policy and though not suitable in all circumstances, is within their rights if people should choose to form them.

Chapter II

The Relationship between Republicans and Business

Something important to consider is the relationship between business and the Republican Party.  In order to properly understand that relationship however, it has to be contrasted with the relationship between Democrats and the types of people that tend to support them. Not only business people support the Republican Party, many other people at the grass roots level support it. I myself am a lower middle class worker and have never owned any business. Generally all people that believe in a small, efficient government like I do will support the Republican Party.  However, Democrats do not believe in this.  They believe government is the best way of solving society’s issues. This naturally causes businesses to turn to the Republican Party, because in order for Democrats to fund larger and larger government and government programs offered by the Democrats, it is necessary to raise taxes, which hits businesses especially hard. Also Democrats believe in the re-distribution of wealth so that even if it is not necessary to raise taxes upon higher wage earners, they do anyway in keeping with their core beliefs. 

The re-distribution of wealth plays upon class envy and covetousness, appealing to the poor and lower middle class wage earners. This very system that claims to help these people in actuality hurt it, because the higher taxes force employers to lay workers off or find workers that will work for even lower wages. The re-distribution of wealth is also morally wrong because it penalizes people for studying and working hard, and taking the risks necessary to become financially successful.  By the same token, it rewards those who do not take those extra steps and makes them dependent on government hand-outs.  Most of the benefit in large government programs tends to be the lowest wage earners, and the lower middle class feel the tax hit yet cannot partake in the programs that make taxes so high.  Such differences tend to label one party the party of the rich, the other the party of the poor and middle class.  However there are many lower middle class people who support limited government regardless of income because they understand how large government can work against them even though it claims to aim to improve their lot in life through government handouts and benefits.

Also Republicans by some have been called the “friends of Wall Street” which in my opinion is no slander, by it’s nature it IS easier on an economy if government spending and taxes are low… it isn’t that the politicians intentionally enact the policy they do in order to pay off big business and corporations; it’s because they believe in an ideology of government that is by it’s very nature easy on business and the economy. This point is critical to grasp. The Democrat’s tendency to be hostile to Wall Street is amazing to me. Who is it that employs you? Do you benefit if Wall Street goes in the tank? Doesn’t your job depend on Wall Street doing well? Of course it does! Anyone who thinks it doesn’t is living in a dream world. It is a lie that Democrats benefit the poor and lower middle class and that Republicans only care about the rich. Everything Democrats do has a bad effect on the poor and lower middle class because of it’s anti-business ideology that when enacted brings a negative effect upon the economy, and it actually winds up keeping its power by bringing others down so they are dependent on their programs.

It is a good thing to have some regulations that business must adhere to, which avoids that employers exploit workers, as some have said, “the goal of business is to get the most work out of you for the least amount of money”. Yet it is also true that businesses should have freedom to operate and not have heavy restrictions that make success in business nearly impossible, and the best way to achieve a reasonable outcome is through some basic legislation like we currently have in the form of restrictions on hours worked, the age of workers, a minimum wage, etc. Insofar as any job is concerned, it is not the role of government to step in and regulate what I or you should get paid. That is up to us to try to get a better wage or leave to another company, or increase our skills in order that we obtain the wage we would like to have.  The unfortunate thing is too many people depend on the government for many things they would like to have in life instead of being self-reliant and showing the initiative to work hard for what they want to achieve. In many cases people have given up before they have started… and handed over that responsibility to the government, and in so doing handed over their dreams and freedoms to it as well.

Have you handed over your dreams to the government?  Have you ever invested in a good mutual fund, or do you depend on Social Security and trust that it will be there when you are old? What if it isn’t? What then? Have you ever given up a dream of completing a college class, perhaps night school, because it’s easier to depend on some government handouts?

Some restrictions on business can be of great help to the general workforce to insure a reasonable work environment.  That having been said, those ideas are a far cry from what Democrats would like to impose upon the business community.  Nearly everything the Democrats desire to implement hurts businesses in one way or another, from high taxes to large government programs and restrictions that take money from a large pool of taxpayers and redistribute it according to the programs they make up.

Chapter III

Christians and a Liberal government

I am also amazed at how some Christians are ready and willing to depend on a Liberal government to decide on when and how to spend their money, and also to enact all of the laws and policies of government. They are basically handing over all of this power to a bunch of non-Christian secularists that tend to be hostile to their own religion. Another way Liberals wield their power is by re-defining what the constitution says and means. They often refer to the constitution as a “living, breathing document”.  By this they mean that it can be manipulated and changed. If they then change the constitution, they through non-elected judges change laws and governmental policies without the support of the democratic process. They thus force their non-Christian secular agenda upon the population with no recourse for the people to resort to, which is exactly what happened with Roe vs. Wade, allowing abortion to be legal and “constitutional”. It however, is not the business of judges to define what is constitutional, but rather to uphold and enforce the constitution. Conservatives believe that the constitution should be understood by its original intent, meaning what it meant at the time it was written, not what we would like for it to mean for us today.

Some Christians think that because the Bible teaches charity, that the Democrat’s form of government is the most biblical one, while in actuality it isn’t at all, because charity is the willing giving of money to good causes. By contrast, the democrat’s ideology forces people to give money whether they agree to the policies and programs or not. In effect, it is stealing through brute force and threat of incarceration. Government takes the place of personal giving and charity in this case and takes away money that might be spent elsewhere. The issue here is not from a vantage point of disagreeing because we are cheap; it is because we would like to choose ourselves what exactly we would like to give and not have it forcibly taken away without any choice in how much or for which cause the money is spent. Also it should be noted that the bible teaches that Christians should practice charity, it does not teach that Christians should force “charity” upon the world that does not follow the Christian faith. This is not to say that every government program should be done away with, but it should be limited as much as possible and there should be as much opportunity for willing charity, and especially Christian charities out there as possible.

Big government should especially be suspected by Christians. Big government is very powerful, takes money wherever and whenever it wants, and enacts the policies it wants over the rights of the individual. Taxes are only one way liberal government forces the population to comply with its policies. Democrats would like to control your charity, business, large taxes, large government programs, high government regulation and restrictions, and the judiciary so that they may control and enforce as many of their liberal policies as they possibly can. All of this results in the tendency for small and large businesses to generally trend towards the Republican Party. 

This paradigm does not always fit however, as we have seen in the recent supreme court ruling that has handed over to the government the right to take away our property if it can benefit the community in some way…. Such as taking down individual homes and putting in condos or shopping malls, etc… they argue that the tax revenue benefits the local economy (government) so they can use eminent domain to take the property away and use it as they see fit, and in this way they are benefiting special interest developers.  Democrats always claim to be for the little guy, but here it proves to be a fallacy as they take away the little guy’s home and give it to big business developers.  This they do because they are NOT for the little guy, they are for more government, and this exposes them for what they are.  They don’t do all of their programs for the sake of the little guy, they do it because they are the ones that want to control it..

Chapter IV

Should Government Own Business?

If Democrats had their way, Government would run all or most businesses. This is so they say, because government is not in it for a buck, and therefore can do everything at a lower price. All goods, products, services, can be offered at a lower price, they argue. At this point some may say, “oh but democrats don’t believe in this” but the fact is I have never met any democrat that wasn’t favorable of the idea of government running business; they would do it in a heartbeat if they could. It is a natural tendency for people who believe in large government to make this next leap of faith, so I'm going to include it in this discussion whether it's official Democratic Party policy or not.

Government running business may seem like a good idea, yet what invariably happens is that it squelches investment which is critical in order to have a stable and sustainable business economy. One of the main problems India had, was the communist government and it was not until private investment was allowed and the economy was opened up to free economy reforms that growth in industry could be realized. Government will never be able to take the risks, muster up the economic clout and wherewithal that individual investors can, and this is critical to a healthy economy. The only thing government could do is raise taxes spread out over the population, to try to make investments.

Walter Williams said:

It's no accident that we're a rich country, but why? Some might be tempted to say that we're rich because of our abundant natural resources. That's nonsense! Africa and South America are probably richer than we are in natural resources but are home to some of the world's poorest people. On the other hand, countries like England, Japan and Hong Kong are natural resources paupers, but their people are nonetheless rich. By the way, Hong Kong even has to import all of its food and water.

Some people might argue that a history of colonialism explains why some countries are poor. Also, nonsense. United States was a colony. So were Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong.

The reason some countries are rich while others are poor is best explained by the amount of personal liberty people have and the extent of government control over economic matters.

Here's a little experiment for you. Rank countries along a spectrum going from those closer to free markets to those where there is extensive government control over economic activity. You'll discover a remarkable result. Those closer to the free market end of the spectrum are not only richer but their people are freer.

The bottom line: any American suggesting greater government control over economic activity is really asking us to be poorer.

Also, Williams notes that government is a bad choice for running business because it has horrible accounting practices and procedures:

The Enron case made headlines because fraud and deception of such magnitude is unusual in the corporate world. Washington fraud and deception of a much greater magnitude doesn't make the headlines because it's standard practice.

According to David Walker, the head of the U.S. General Accounting Office, government property, plant and equipment cannot properly be accounted for. It is often impossible to determine the exact cost of loans and loan guarantees. Large liabilities, such as that for environmental cleanup and future health benefits, cannot accurately be determined.

Since the federal government uses cash accounting, the long-term liabilities of programs like Medicare and Social Security are largely hidden. Costs for programs like federal deposit insurance are not accounted for at all, although the government laid out $130 billion for such commitments during the savings and loan crisis just a few years ago.

Congress is, in effect, the federal government's board of directors. It's hypocrisy, and worse, when they denounce the boards of directors of Enron and Arthur Andersen for hiding debt, shoddy accounting and fleecing their shareholders when they are doing the same to their shareholders, we the American people. It's high time we demand that Congress use the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that they demand of others.

If you look at what Democrats want to do, it almost always involves government programs. The answer is always bigger and bigger government, program upon program. This is because they reach towards a common objective: to socialize our nation by growing the federal government.

http://www.answerbag.com/a_view.php/8725 as of 1/20/06:

Pure Marxism had three main characteristics. First of all, there was to be no government, no central controlling body allocating resources. If something needed doing then some person or group of people would just do it for the good of all. Second there was to be no private ownership of anything. All things were to be held in common. If you needed something you would just take it. ("From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need.") Finally, there would be no religion. Religion was created by the rich and the powerful to keep the lower classes down by pacifying them with the promise of a better existence in the fictional next life if they accepted their lot in this life. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.")

Here I insert a thought… any of this look familiar?  The Lefties in England taking away property ownership maybe?  Hmm?  Liberals in the US trying to secularize our nation, forbidding any prayers in school, removing “In God We Trust” from money, outlawing manger displays, removing monuments of the 10 commandments from public display… Hmmm? HMMM?

Marxism appeals to an innate sense of fairness in people. Nobody has more than anyone else. Everyone works for the good of everyone else. The problem was that Marx could not describe a mechanism by which we get to his utopian society beyond the masses violently overthrowing their oppressors nor did he really understand human nature.

Again I insert a thought… what is the rhetoric Democrats employ? Class envy, is it not? Always harping on redistribution of wealth, taking more and more money from Joe Blow and giving it away to others that didn’t earn it? Take from Joe Blow, and put it toward someone else’s health care, their college tuition, their time off work if a family member is ill, their retirement, someone else’s farm, their child care, their pre-school, their daycare. Whose responsibility is these things? Is it own personal responsibility of the individual or the responsibility of the collective? The communist of course says the collective via the state, little wonder that a Democrat would answer the same.

Various attempts to get to this Marxist ideal have been made over the decades. These usually start with the creation of a socialist government. People aren't psychologically ready to live Marxism, so they need a government to take everything away from them and train them to work for the good of all. This is socialism in its purest form. The government owns everything and directs the allocation of all resources. Since the people own nothing they theoretically should learn to do everything for the good of the whole. Eventually, when the people have been properly trained, the government is disbanded and the Marxist utopia is achieved.

The problem is that human nature gets in the way. The people in power grow to like having the power. So, they start do things to ensure that they stay in power. ("Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Additionally, there is a very broad lazy streak that runs through much of humanity. People only do as much work as they have to in order to survive. If the government is going to take from Joe and give it to me, then why should I work for a living. Joe then sees his industry going to support me, a lazy bum who doesn't contribute anything myself, and thinks why should I bother. This mentality means that the people never reach a state where the government, even if it were inclined to do so, can step aside. So, the corruption just continues to fester.

Again I must interject. How do the Liberals stay in power? They do it by offering more and more social programs to various groups. Immigrants and minorities, for example, are targeted with different social programs that help shore up the vote and at the same time further advance the big government agenda of the Liberals. Republicans are called “racist” because they don’t believe in taking money away from one citizen and giving it to another, but since most Americans don’t even understand the technical differences between Republicans and Democrats, they believe the lie. Lastly, Liberals are hostile to business, because in the end that’s what they want to take over. And make no mistake about it, they do.  

So, this then is the difference between the three social organizations. Marxism and communism were initially the same thing. However as people tried to institute them, Marxism became the ideal that can never be achieved and communism came to be synonymous with the failed, corrupt, transitional, utrasocialist governments. Socialism is any form of government that takes control of various industries away from the private sector. All governments have some elements of socialism in the mix because there are just some things that the private sector cannot do. The debate is over just how much the government should do.

How much should the government do? I believe we need to be very, very careful any time we talk of the government doing anything. I also know that one party’s answer always STARTS with government, and that for sure isn’t my party.

Chapter V

Should medical care be nationalized?

Who should run medical care? Can you guess the Democrats answer?

According to Walter Williams,

Let's start out by not quibbling with America's socialists' false claim that health-care service is a human right that people should have regardless of whether they can pay for it or not - it should be free. Before we buy into this socialist agenda, we might check out just what happens when health-care services are "free." Let's look at our neighbor to the north - Canada.

The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, British Columbia-based think tank, has done yeomen's work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows that the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients into Victims",(http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf) in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News (www.canoe.ca), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s. Compounding the exodus of doctors is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Houston, Ontario has chosen to turn to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It's "creating" 369 new positions for nurse practitioners to take up the slack for the doctor shortage.

Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors". That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail, for the Fraser Institute's Forum titled "Oh To Be A Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so. The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health care system and pay for your own surgery.

Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand is going to exceed supply. Since price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand over a given supply is through queuing - making people wait. Another way is to have a medical czar who decides who is eligible, under what conditions, for a particular procedure -- for example, no hip replacement or renal dialysis for people over 70 or no heart transplants for smokers.

I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.

Today we hear a lot about medical care, and usually get this huge number thrown at us like “30% of all Americans without healthcare” when those numbers usually come from a list that counts if you were uninsured for 1 day in a year. Yep, that’s right 1 day. Why? Well say if you quit your job and were out of work a few days till you started your new one… did you know you would be included on that list and part of that figure? It’s just another convenient little fudge of the facts, another tactic of the left.

Actually, if you think about it, we tend to pay about as much for our health care insurance as we do our car insurance. Where’s the big stink about car insurance? We need nationalized car insurance!!! Um, well no. We don’t need either. As much as it hurts to pay doctor bills, it needs to. This is because of our human nature. When we don’t see the cost of a thing, we tend to abuse and overuse. That’s why employers have had to drop the traditional “all expenses paid” health plans and get ones that have co-pays and minimum expenditure amounts. Also it is the fact that we are granting HUGE lawsuits to victims of malpractice. If we could reduce that to economic compensation and not HUGE sums of money to “send a message” we would be a lot better off, because guess who pays that money? That’s right! You do! See what happens is, the doctor has to buy malpractice insurance. He gets sued 100 million bucks. Insurance company has to pay 100 million bucks.  Insurance company has to raise rates in order to not go bankrupt. Doctor now has to pay more money to insurance company. Surprise, your medical bill just got much larger!

This now is where Tort reform comes in. It limits the amounts layers can sue to economic and reasonable compensation only. The thing is though, Democrats don’t, absolutely DO NOT want this to happen! Why? Because it would take away the need for their “fix” which is no fix at all, a socialized, nationalized healthcare system, and that would be one les area of government they could not expand, get the idea?

To sum it all up, Democrats have a socialist, communist leaning agenda that will always want more and more government control of just about everything, and it will not stop until it is stopped by the will of the people, or it reaches it’s objective… full out communism.