The Pilgrims’ Failed Experiment

"Pilgrims' Grace" by Henry Mosler (1841-1920)

“Pilgrims’ Grace” by Henry Mosler (1841-1920)

Thanksgiving Holiday is the perfect time to revisit the story of those first Pilgrims, who, nearly 400 years ago, risked everything, including their lives, to start a new life in the desolate wilderness of the New World. What drove the Pilgrims? Why were they willing to abandon the comforts of civilization, and make a treacherous 2 + month voyage in a crowded, leaky boat across the Atlantic ocean? It was an opportunity. The Desolate Wilderness offered the Pilgrim an opportunity to worship God and live their life in accordance with his or her conscience without fear of persecution. That opportunity did not exist in Europe. The New World held promise.

The history of the Pilgrims is worth our study for many reasons, but there is one important lesson to be learned from the study of the Pilgrim’s social order that should never be forgotten: a society based on a policy of collectivism or communism is not suited to human nature. In his book The History of America, first published in 1777, the eminent Scottish historian William Robertson described the Pilgrim’s early experiment with collectivism:

“Under the influence of this wild notion, the colonists of New Plymouth, in imitation of the community of primitive Christians, threw all their property into a common stock, and, like members of one family, carried on every work of industry by their joint labor for public behoof. But, however this resolution might evidence the sincerity of their faith, it retarded the progress of their colony. The same fatal effects flowed from this community of goods, and of labor, which had formerly been experienced in Virginia…”

The Pilgrims’ misguided policy of owning all property in common proved to be a disaster. What was Robertson referring to when he compared the Pilgrims’ plight to the “same fatal effects” in the Virginia settlement? Let’s have a look at his history of the Jamestown colony, founded in 1607.

“During the interval of tranquillity procured by the alliance with Powhatan, an important change was made in the state of the colony. Hitherto no right of private property in land had been established. The fields that were cleared had been cultivated by the joint labour of the colonists; their product was carried to the common store-houses, and distributed weekly to every family, according to its number and exigencies. A society, destitute of the first advantage resulting from social union, was not formed to prosper. Industry, when not excited by the idea of property in what was acquired by its own efforts, made no vigorous exertion. The head had no inducement to contrive, nor the hand to labour. The idle and improvident trusted entirely to what was issued from the common store; the assiduity even of the sober and attentive relaxed, when they perceived that others were to reap the fruit of their toil; and it was computed, that the united industry of the colony did not accomplish as much work in a week as might have been performed in a day, if each individual had laboured on his own account. In order to remedy this, Sir Thomas Dale divided a considerable portion of the land into small lots, and granted one of these to each individual in full property. From the moment that industry had the certain prospect of a recompense, it advanced with rapid progress. The articles of primary necessity were cultivated with so much attention, as secured the means of subsistence; and such schemes of improvement were formed, as prepared the way for the introduction of opulence into the colony.”

Robertson’s History clearly demonstrates that the colonists’ experiments in communism were a failure. But once capitalism was introduced, or the right to accumulate private property, an incentive was created to produce more than one could consume and the colonists began to prosper. That is because the right to ownership of the fruits of one’s labor creates an incentive to work harder; it holds out the possibility of building a better life and empowers people to achieve prosperity on their own. On the other hand, collectivism breeds laziness and stifles human potential because the most productive workers have no incentive to produce more than what the average workers produce when all is divided equally among the community.

How is it that very few of us have ever even heard about this part of our American history? Why don’t the government-run schools (public schools) teach these lessons to our children? It seems to me that important parts of our early history have been suppressed. We must revive them.

The collectivist arrangement of society ignores the power of incentives and even human nature itself. Therefore, experiments in collectivism will never succeed beyond the family unit. It nurtures the destructive idea in some that by right they are entitled to benefit from the production of others. They seek advantage by taking more from the common pool than they contribute to it. This idea spreads like a cancer. Their more productive neighbors see this and become resentful. They in turn make the conscious, micro-rational decision to produce less. We see this process happening in the United States today. This may be one reason businesses both large and small are doing very little hiring these days. Hardly anyone gains under this arrangement and almost everyone loses.

The Pilgrims learned the hard way that collectivism rendered them poor and devoid of even the bare necessities of life. Collectivism or communism did not work back then, it did not work in the Soviet Union, it does not work in Cuba and it will never work anywhere that it is tried. It’s important that we all make the effort to teach this truth to our young people. Since human nature does not change, collectivism will never succeed. Nor will its ability to tempt succeeding generations disappear.

Perhaps in a future post I’ll explore the mutations of collectivism that exists in the United States today.

Canutus

Thankful for the Pilgrims – Tocqueville’s Tribute

The Landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, December 1620

The Landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, December 1620

So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years; but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city ( Heb. xi. 16), and therein quieted their spirits.

Here we re-post from last year Alexis de Tocqueville’s short tribute to the Pilgrims. His is the best short history of those brave men and women that I have ever found. For me, as an American, it is a great source of pride that this great 19th century French intellectual recognized the significance of what the Pilgrims had accomplished. Too bad more Americans don’t understand their unique contribution to freedom, and democracy.

Frotho

From Democracy in America, Part I, first published in France in 1835:

“In the English colonies of the North, more generally known as the New England states, the two or three main ideas that now constitute the basis of the social theory of the United States were first combined. The principles of New England spread at first to the neighboring states; they then passed successively to the more distant ones; and at last, if I may so speak, they interpenetrated the whole confederation. They now extend their influence beyond its limits, over the whole American world. The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth immediately around it, also tinges the distant horizon with its glow.”

“The foundation of New England was a novel spectacle, and all the circumstances attending it were singular and original. Nearly all colonies have been first inhabited either by men without education and without resources, driven by their poverty and their misconduct from the land which gave them birth, or by speculators and adventurers greedy of gain. Some settlements cannot even boast so honorable an origin; Santo Domingo was founded by buccaneers; and at the present day the criminal courts of England supply the population of Australia.”

“The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England all belonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Their union on the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenon of a society containing neither lords nor common people, and we may almost say neither rich nor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of our own time. All, perhaps without a single exception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been founded by adventurers without families; the immigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality; they landed on the desert coast accompanied by their wives and children. But what especially distinguished them from all others was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve their situation or to increase their wealth; it was a purely intellectual craving that called them from the comforts of their former homes; and in facing the inevitable sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of an idea.”

“The immigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency that had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the government of the mother country, and disgusted by the habits of a society which the rigor of their own principles condemned, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world where they could live according to their own opinions and worship God in freedom.”

“A few quotations will throw more light upon the spirit of these pious adventurers than all that we can say of them. Nathaniel Morton, the historian of the first years of the settlement, thus opens his subject:”

Gentle Reader, I have for some lengths of time looked upon it as a duty incumbent especially on the immediate successors of those that have had so large experience of those many memorable and signal demonstrations of God’s goodness, viz. the first beginners of this Plantation in New England, to commit to writing his gracious dispensations on that behalf; having so many inducements thereunto, not only otherwise, but so plentifully in the Sacred Scriptures: that so, what we have seen, and what our fathers have told us ( Psalm lxxviii. 3, 4 ), we may not hide from our children, showing to the generations to come the praises of the Lord; that especially the seed of Abraham his servant, and the children of Jacob his chosen ( Psalm cv. 5, 6 ), may remember his marvellous works in the beginning and progress of the planting of New England, his wonders and the judgments of his mouth; how that God brought a vine into this wilderness; that he cast out the heathen, and planted it; that he made room for it and caused it to take deep root; and it filled the land ( Psalm lxxx. 8, 9 ) . And not only so, but also that he hath guided his people by his strength to his holy habitation, and planted them in the mountain of his inheritance in respect of precious Gospel enjoyments: and that as especially God may have the glory of all unto whom it is most due; so also some rays of glory may reach the names of those blessed Saints, that were the main instruments and beginning of this happy enterprise.

“It is impossible to read this opening paragraph without an involuntary feeling of religious awe; it breathes the very savor of Gospel antiquity. The sincerity of the author heightens his power of language. In our eyes, as well as in his own, it was not a mere party of adventurers gone forth to seek their fortune beyond seas, but the germ of a great nation wafted by Providence to a predestined shore.”

“The author continues, and thus describes the departure of the first Pilgrims:”

So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years; but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city ( Heb. xi. 16), and therein quieted their spirits.

When they came to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and all things ready; and such of their friends as could not come with them followed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love. The next day they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy speeches pierced each other’s heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers that stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain from tears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loth to depart, their Reverend Pastor, falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them with most fervent prayers unto the Lord and his blessing; and then with mutual embraces and many tears they took their leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them.

“The emigrants were about 150 in number, including the women and the children. Their object was to plant a colony on the shores of the Hudson; but after having been driven about for some time in the Atlantic Ocean, they were forced to land on the arid coast  of New England, at the spot which is now the town of Plymouth. The rock is still shown on which the Pilgrims disembarked.”

But before we pass on, continues our historian,  “let the reader with me make a pause, and seriously consider this poor people’s present condition, the more to be raised up to admiration of God’s goodness towards them in their preservation: for being now passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectation, they had now no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, or much less towns, to repair unto to seek for succour: and for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts, and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes ( save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things stand in appearance with a weather-beaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew; if they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.

“It must not be imagined that the piety of the Puritans was merely speculative, or that it took no cognizance of the course of worldly affairs. Puritanism, as I have already remarked, was almost as much a political theory as a religious doctrine. No sooner had the immigrants landed on the barren coast described by Nathaniel Morton than it was their first care to constitute a society, by subscribing the following Act:

IN THE NAME OF GOD AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, &c.& c., Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; Do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience, etc.”

“This happened in 1620, and from that time forwards the emigration went on. The religious and political passion which ravaged the British Empire during the whole reign of Charles I drove fresh crowds of sectarians every year to the shores of America. In England the stronghold of Puritanism continued to be in the middle classes; and it was from the middle classes that most of the emigrants came. The population of New England increased rapidly; and while the hierarchy of rank despotically classed the inhabitants of the mother country, the colony approximated more and more the novel spectacle of a community homogeneous in all its parts. A democracy more perfect than antiquity had dared to dream of started in full size and panoply from the midst of an ancient feudal society.”

A Nice Little Fraud Brought to You by the Affordable Care Navigators

Navigators in Texas have been caught encouraging citizens who are signing up for Obamacare to lie about their income and smoking habits in order to lower their taxpayer subsidized insurance premiums. They are encouraging these people to steal from the taxpayers. It’s outrageous!

See the video by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUsUWFANPS8

Obamacare Navigators caught encouraging fraud by Project Veritas

Obamacare Navigators caught encouraging fraud by Project Veritas

Stabbed in the Back for our Own Good

Barack Obama's State of the Union Speech, January, 2010.

Barack Obama’s State of the Union Speech, January, 2010.

The New York Times editorial, Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping (Sunday, November 3rd) was a blatant attempt to excuse President Obama’s (now infamous) broken health care promise. But it is much more than that and begs some scrutiny.

In an attempt to immediately deflect the discussion away from President Obama’s repeated dishonesty the Times began its editorial by pouncing on Republicans:

Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they don’t want. That, they say, violates President Obama’s pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”

Why did The New York Times refer to the Republican claims as “charges,” as if Republicans might be manufacturing some unproven fact? Nowhere in the rest of their editorial can I find any verifiable facts that disprove the claim that insurers are cancelling existing policies or that many people are being forced to pay substantially higher premiums for coverage they do not want. Based on that, I suspect the Republicans have been telling the truth. Based on the letter I received from my health insurer, I know they are. The Times may try to characterize Republican truth-telling as stoking fears and confusion, but to the millions of honest, informed people who have had their policies cancelled, many Democrats included, they appear ridiculous.

The editors at the Times want us to believe that the President merely “misspoke” on numerous occasions while out selling his health care plan to the public. Therefore, let us go back and review a little of the history of ObamaCare to see if this is correct. In a speech given on August 15, 2009 President Obama said this:

“No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan you can keep your plan  –  period.”

Let’s examine very carefully exactly what the President said. Notice that when he made these statements he prefaced them by saying “No matter what you’ve heard,” thus putting forth the idea that all his skeptics were either uninformed or intentionally misleading the public about their ability to keep the same insurance coverage once the new health care law kicked in. Then at the end of these clear, carefully chosen, declarative statements the President emphasized the certainty of his pledge by saying “period.” When any person uses that word at the end of a statement everyone knows what it means (except perhaps the editors at the New York Times who think he merely “misspoke”) – ending a statement with the word “period” is a common rhetorical device intentionally used by a speaker to convince the listener that what the speaker says is going to happen, is going to happen, no ifs, ands, or buts. End of story.

We now know as a matter of fact that the opposite was true. It was Obama’s skeptics who were correct. They were not the ones who were uninformed or intentionally misleading. I know this because I am one of the millions of privately insured people who recently received a letter saying, “because of these new (ACA) requirements, your current Individual and Family Plan will no longer be available after December 31, 2013.”

   “A rough style with truth is preferable to eloquence without it.”                     — Cadwallader Colden

Not surprisingly, anger over the President’s broken pledge has caused the Administration to go into damage control. It has been trying to explain to us that what we remember the President saying is not actually what the President said. We are told that our memories are faulty.

As an example of his attempt to rewrite history the President gave a speech in Washington on Monday November 4th where he said, “What we said was you can keep it (your healthcare plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed (in March 2010).” Really now, because that seems different from what he said back in 2009 and 2010 when he was trying to sell his health care plan to the American people!

So we watch the video reruns of Mr. Obama’s speeches to refresh our memories. We would not want to be accused any further by Mr. Obama’s defenders of misrepresenting facts and demanding accountability based on faulty memories. Mr. Obama’s speeches have been preserved for all to see and hear. But when we watch these reruns we find they do not contradict our memories. In fact they support them.

Other examples of “the promise:”

“We will keep this promise to the American people – If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor – period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan – period.  No one will take it away no matter what.” — President Obama speaking before the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009

“If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan – period.” – From President Obama’s weekly speech from the oval office, August 22, 2009.

These pledges sound very precise and very specific to me. He did not elaborate back then, before the law was passed, and say there might be millions of exceptions to his promise. But now the cancellation letters have gone out and a fact of ObamaCare is verifiable – millions of Americans will not be able to keep the plans they themselves chose and were happiest with contrary to the President’s repeated assurances – assurances that included an appeal from the President to disregard the warnings of his critics. On top of that, in most cases, the new replacement plans are far more expensive, which contradicts another foolish promise candidate Obama made in 2008.

Some estimates are that between 5 and 10 million people have already received notices of insurance policy cancellations. Regardless of the exact number, each one of those is a broken promise – millions of broken promises.

The other defense that some are asking us to believe is that back in 2009-2010 the President was simply uninformed about the fact that the new health care law would not allow millions of Americans to keep their health care plans? This idea was put forth by unnamed sources in the Obama administration as reported in a recent Wall Street Journal piece. But was President Obama merely just uninformed? If so, the American people have made a grave mistake in choosing their leader. A man who does not comprehend key aspects of what has been described as his “signature legislation” and his “greatest achievement,” should not be entrusted with remaking a health care system that involves 314 million free people.

If President Obama was more than just uninformed, which an honest view of the evidence must bear out, then one must conclude that he deliberately misled the American people. The following facts will show without any doubt that he was aware of the probability that insurance policies would be cancelled under the Affordable Care Act though in almost every instance he refused to share this detail with the American people.

The Associated Press ran a piece entitled, “Promises, Promises: Obama’s Health Plan Guarantee.” The story ran on June 19, 2009. The date here is key. It began:

“WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama rarely equivocates when he promises that his health care plan will let people keep the coverage they have. His vow sounds reassuring and gets applause, but no president could guarantee such a pledge.”

President Obama spoke to the public on numerous occasions after that AP story and it is clear he did so to intentionally counter his numerous skeptics. That is why in his speech of August 15, 2009 he prefaced his pledge on health care by saying, “No matter what you’ve heard…”  Skepticism of the President’s pledge was widespread at this time; he was at the center of the public debate on health care, so he was well aware of his skeptics’ arguments. He couldn’t escape them. Does anyone seriously believe, even at The New York Times, that the President did not question whether his promise was going to be kept or not? Whether he was aware specifically of the AP story is not important, the proof that he was intentionally answering his skeptics leaves not a shadow of a doubt that he was aware of their warning that insurance plans would have to be cancelled if the Affordable Care Act was in fact passed.

Did the President not examine the question and see that the outcome would allow only two possibilities, that he would either honor his promise (since he was the one making it) or that he would not or could not honor the promise? I maintain that an honest man does not pretend that he can make promises that he knows are not within his power to keep, because that is also a form of deception. Like this one from candidate Obama in 2008: “And if you already have health care then we’re going to reduce costs an average of $2500 per family on premiums.”

The same Associated Press report contained this bit of news:

“Earlier this week (June 2009), the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would have to seek new insurance under a Democratic plan that a Senate committee is working on, because their employers would no longer offer coverage.”

Does anyone, including the highly intelligent editors at The New York Times, honestly believe that President Obama was not aware that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report contradicting his bold promise?

At the Health Care Summit held in Washington on February 25, 2010 (again the date here is important) Republican Congressman Eric Cantor argued his point of disbelief in the President’s promise this way:

Congressman Cantor: “When we were here about a year ago across the street you started the health care summit by saying one of the promises you want to make is that people ought to be able to keep the health insurance that they have…well the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) sent a letter I think it was to leader Reid about the Senate bill and in that letter it suggested that between 8 million and 9 million people may very well lose the coverage that they have because of this, because of the construct of this bill.”

President Obama responded: “The 8 to 9 million people that you refer to that might have to change their coverage, keep in mind out of the 300 million Americans that we’re talking about, would be folks who the CBO estimates would find the deal in the exchange better. Would be a better deal.  So yes, they would change coverage because they’ve got more choice and competition. So let’s just be clear about that…”

This rare admission proves that the President was, in fact, aware of the bipartisan CBO estimate that showed that millions of Americans would lose their plans if the bill were to become law. But the following month when speaking before an audience at George Mason University the President Obama just couldn’t bring himself to publicly acknowledge this damning little detail. Instead, with his usual deceptive eloquence he repeated the fraudulent pledge:

 “Now, I just — I just want to be clear, everybody.  Listen up, because we have heard every crazy thing about this bill…. But when it — it turns out, at the end of the day, what we’re talking about is common-sense reform.  That’s all we’re talking about. If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor.  If you like your plan, keep your plan. – March 19, 2010.

It’s clear that by this time President Obama was well aware that there would be millions of exceptions to his promise, that people would have their insurance policies cancelled, but he refused to go there. The dirty little secret is that everyone who had a hand in crafting the Affordable Care Act knew that people would have to be forced out their private plans and into the exchanges in order for the new health care law to succeed. But sharing this detail of the Affordable Care Act at any point during the months long public debate could only serve to weaken the chances that the bill would become law. Team Obama, which of course, includes the New York Times simply made the calculated decision to conceal the truth in any way possible until after the passage of the bill. In my book that’s called fraud.

The question then, is what level of dishonesty will the American people tolerate from their leaders and the people in the press who can make or break politicians? The president knew that the Affordable Care Act was going to force insurance companies to cancel policies and raise premiums because of certain new requirements, yet made repeated pronouncements to the contrary to get his pet legislation passed. He is no different from a used car salesman that knowingly covers up a major flaw in a car he is about to sell, even after being questioned by the customer about any known problems.

“Undoubtedly the very best administration must encounter a great deal of opposition; and the very worst will find more support than it deserves. Sufficient appearances will never be wanting to those who have a mind to deceive themselves.” Edmund Burke

People need to realize the danger our country is in when a major news source like the New York Times decides to provide cover for and manufactures excuses for the repeated dishonesty of a President of the United States? I have no beef with the fact that The New York Times is run by people who have a different vision for America than I do. But I do have a problem when they encourage deception and provide cover for it at the highest levels of government for the sake of implementing their world view. They are just as guilty of deception as the President is. They rationalize their lack of honesty and integrity because it is being done (in their minds) for a greater cause. They will never admit this in public.

The late William O. Baker, patriot genius and former leader of research at Bell Labs once warned: “The very media, founded on communications and automata, especially television, can communicate illusion as well as reality, and that is all right as long as we know the difference.”

The problem is that too many people allow themselves to be easily manipulated by news outlets like the New York Times and therefore do not know the difference between illusion and reality.

So what additional cover was the Times’ Nov. 3rd editorial attempting to provide for Barack Obama and his administration? Listen to what was written in order to justify the cancellation of  millions of insurance policies:

“Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didn’t cover hospital care.”

How many is some? Show us the data NYT! They would have us believe that only the most rotten, worthless insurance plans were the ones being cancelled. It is a bogus argument because I can tell you my deductible was $1250 with my portion of the copay being 20%, plus it included coverage for hospital care. Their extreme example does not characterize my health care plan, nor, I suspect millions of others who are having them cancelled. But the Times probably figures it can get away with this false argument because it will not be detected by the majority of people who are allowed to keep their plans (for now).

The title of the editorial itself, Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping, is a glaring example of the New York Times’ complete arrogance and the great disdain they have for people who simply want to retain the freedom to make their own decisions rather than being coerced by their government. Somehow the technocrats and their cheerleaders at the NY Times have so much confidence in their abilities that they think they know what health care plans are best for millions of individuals. This is the kind of arrogance that motivates them. Their superior version of what America should be must be imposed on the masses for their own good even if it means deceiving the people in order to attain their goals.

Then the Times editorial made this stab at the backs of millions of Americans, “And premiums may well rise, in part because insurance companies must accept all applicants, not just the healthy.”  The Times knew this all along as did President Obama. They were all well aware of the Congressional Budget Offices’ warnings. Some of us have been warning about the consequences of ObamCare all along, yet it was we who were maligned for speaking the truth and continue to be maligned by this administration and their media lap-dogs.

When the Times editors were actively working to get Barack Obama elected for the first time in 2008 did they believe candidate Obama when he said that his health care plan would save the average family of four $2500 per year? Perhaps they knew it was an impossible dream, but in the morally loose world of The New York Times editorial staff perhaps that too was an acceptable lie on the march towards socialized medicine.

And the New York Times is still at it spreading confusion and propaganda about ObamaCare. One recent story tried to draw a parallel between the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina to the flawed implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It’s utterly ridiculous to compare a government’s response to a chaotic, unpredictable natural disaster like Katrina to a self-inflicted, man-made law that this administration has had 3 ½ years to prepare for. The story also demonstrates how defensive the Times has become – they can hardly bring themselves to do a story about the failures of the Obama administration without somehow dragging the Republicans into it.

Now we get this report just out today from the Wall Street Journal: “United Health drops thousands of doctors from insurance plans.” I suspect that the Obama administration’s damage control has only just begun. It will be interesting watch the propaganda machine at New York Times as it continue to defend the indefensible.

I am working on a title for my next post. I’m thinking of calling it: “The New York Times – a propaganda machine not worth keeping.”

Frotho

College Students get the ObamaCare Shaft

Barack Obama making all sorts of great sounding promises at his State of the Union Speech, January, 2010.

Barack Obama is good at mesmerizing some people by telling them what they want to hear. Unfortunately, too few people investigate whether the President’s plans for America are probable or even possible.

“We will keep this promise to the American people – If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan – period.  No one will take it away no matter what.” — President Barack Obama, June 15, 2009.

“I guess if you like your coverage you really can’t keep it as millions of Americans have been finding out over the last month.” — Eugene Craig III, Student, Bowie State University

From Maryland’s Bowie State University website:

“Bowie State University has suspended offering health insurance for domestic students for the 2013-2014 academic year.  Due to new requirements of the Affordable Care Act which will go into effect on January 1, 2014, the cost of insurance for domestic students will increase to approximately $1800 per year.  If you were covered by the university health insurance last Spring 2013, your policy will expire on August 29, 2013.” 

Translation: Current student health insurance has been cancelled because (ACA) DemocratCare regulations have made it too costly to offer. Get ready: Your cost for student health insurance will be going up a lot next year because of the Affordable Care Act. (Oh the irony!)

Although young people voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, his policies have been a disaster for them – including high unemployment and a crushing national debt that they will have to pay off in the future. It will come out of their paychecks in the form of taxes (that is, if they are fortunate enough to have a job). That’s what you get when you vote for “cool,” or skin color, or “hope” or for sweet talking politicians who make wonderful sounding promises that are not based in reality. The current problems we are seeing coming out of Washington will hopefully encourage young people to question the judgment of many of their teachers who overwhelmingly support President Obama and his big government “solutions.”

Smaller, more frugal government is the way to go kiddies. When government is least intrusive, when government taxes less from the private sector (yes, that includes “rich people”) then the economy will boom, jobs will be aplenty and a lot of the economic problems that America is facing right now will take care of themselves.

Barack Obama and the Democrat, liberal vision that seeks to regulate all aspects of human activity, that seeks wealth redistribution from the wealthy and the middle class to people who are poor (which includes some who prefer handouts to hard work, self-respect, and ambition) and that seeks some abstract form of “social justice” is crushing our economy. Their policies, the ones that most young people voted for, are the reason why jobs are scare, the labor participation rate is tanking, wages are stagnant, the national debt is $17 trillion, etc., etc. To understand why this is true read the post below from November 2nd on Frederic Bastiat.

I argue that if young people want to improve their prospects for the future they need to educate themselves on basic economics and American history. One book on economics that I would highly recommend is Henry Hazlitt’s Economics In One Lesson. For American history, History of the American People by Paul Johnson is a good place to start. Of course, anything written by our founding fathers will inform and enlighten.

Frotho

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." -- Henry Hazlitt Photo: Mises Institute

“The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”
— Henry Hazlitt
Photo: Mises Institute

Order the book from Amazon.com by clicking here.

Order Hazlitt’s book from Amazon.com by clicking here.

Sources:

http://campusreform.org/?ID=5235

http://campusreform.org/?ID=5239

http://www.bowiestate.edu/campus-life/henry-wise-wellness-center/student-health-insurance-plan-/ (Nov. 14, 2013)

http://bulldogcollegian.com/how-obamacare-is-hurting-bowie-state-students/ (Nov. 16, 2013

Let’s be Accurate – It’s DemocratCare, not ObamaCare.

Look who is giddy about the Affordable Care Act fiasco - no Republicans present.

Look who is giddy about the Affordable Care Act fiasco – no Republicans present.

Let’s call it what it really is, DemocratCare. Only the Democrats in Congress and a Democrat President are responsible for this disaster. No one else. Consider these facts:

On December 24, 2009 the U.S. Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All 58 Senate Democrats voted for the new health care law. Not a single Republican senator voted for this destructive law.

On March 21, 2010 the U.S. House passed the Senate’s version of the Affordable Care Act with 219 House Democrats voting for it. Not a single House Republican supported this bad law. Two days later, Democrat President Barack Obama gave his seal of approval and signed the health care bill making it the law of the land. 

Democrats are the only ones responsible for this disastrous law. And remember when the President promised over and over again ” If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor – period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan – period.  No one will take it away no matter what.” Remember what candidate Obama promised the American people in 2008 in exchange for the votes that brought him to power: “And if you already have health care then we’re going to reduce costs an average of $2500 per family on premiums.” Who believed such a fantastic promise? Who wanted us to believe it?

Now the American people are paying dearly for the folly of DemocratCare. The Democrats will pay for it dearly at the next election. Dear Tom Udall, I hope the wise people of New Mexico give you what you deserve next year – an opportunity to find a new line of work.

Frotho

Nudging Asteroids to Save the Earth (and how you can help).

All you have to do is look at the craters on the Moon. How do you think they got there?

A meteor explodes over Chelyabinsk, Russia on February 15, 2013. Photo: Russiatrek.org

A meteor explodes over Chelyabinsk, Russia on February 15, 2013. Photo: Russiatrek.org

On February 15, 2013, as a delegation from the Association of Space Explorers was discussing how to prevent future Earth-Asteroid impacts at the United Nations in New York City, a meteor entered Earth’s atmosphere and exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia. Luckily, no one was killed, but the explosion caused a brilliant flash brighter than the Sun and an enormous shock wave. As a result, approximately 1100 people had to seek medical treatment and more than 7,000 buildings were damaged.

On June 30, 1908 an enormous explosion known as the Tunguska Event rocked a remote region of Russia. The energy from that explosion is estimated to have been 1,000 times greater than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It is estimated that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima instantly killed between 60,000 and 80,000 people. Although there have been other hypotheses put forth, the generally accepted explanation for the Tunguska Event is that a small asteroid or comet exploded when it collided with the Earth’s atmosphere.  Earth-asteroid collisions are not mere science fiction events created in the imaginations of Hollywood writers, they are real events and not so rare that we can afford to ignore them. Actually, we have the technology to prevent them.

Imagine the loss of life if an asteroid collided with the Earth and produced an explosion over New York 1000 times greater than the explosion over Hiroshima in 1945. New York and its 8 million people would be obliterated, and the U.S. financial system would be in danger of collapsing. It would trigger a world-wide depression.

The privately funded B612 Foundation plans to build and launch a special telescope into space in 2018 that will be dedicated to identifying near earth objects that are on a collision course with Earth. The first step to preventing a catastrophic asteroid impact on Earth is to identify the culprits. According to B612’s website:

“With current space technology, scientists know how to deflect the majority of hazardous near-Earth objects.”

“Let’s not put ourselves in that spot…. A hundred years ago if the Earth is hit by an asteroid, as it was in Tunguska, Russia, a 10 megaton explosion, that’s bad luck. If we get hit again twenty years from now that’s not bad luck, that is stupidity.  — Edward Lu, American Physicist and former NASA astronaut (Space Shuttle Missions STS-84 and STS-106), co-founder, chairman and CEO of the B612 Foundation

“This is taking responsibility for the survival of life on planet Earth.” — Russell Schweickart, former NASA astronaut (Apollo 9 Mission) and co-founder and chairman emeritus of the B612 Foundation.

Watch the video: Defending Earth from Asteroids – A panel discussion held at the Museum of Natural History in New York City on October 25, 2013.

Link to: B612 Foundation and consider a donation.

Wikipedia: Chelyabinsk Meteor Strike February 15, 2013

Read the Story: First Study of Chelyabinsk Meteor Strike Released

Wikipedia: Tunguska Event