The Obama Administration represented the moratorium as a safety recommendation suggested in a report drafted by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and peer reviewed by experts associated with the National Academy of Engineering. However, those same experts are saying that they have been misrepresented, and that the moratorium was added to the report after they had signed off on it. They noted that they agreed to a moratorium on drilling of new wells, but not on shutting down existing operations.

A June, 17th Wall Street Journal op ed piece chronicles this and explains why the drilling moratorium is actually detrimental to safety:

A big reason why those experts would have balked is because they recognize that the moratorium is indeed a threat to safety. Mr. Arnold offers at least four reasons why.

The ban requires oil companies to abandon uncompleted wells. The process of discontinuing a well, and then later re-entering it, introduces unnecessary risk. He notes BP was in the process of abandoning its well when the blowout happened.

The ban is going to push drilling rigs to take jobs in other countries. “The ones that go first will be the newest, biggest, safest rigs, because they are most in demand. The ones that go last and come back first are the ones that aren’t as modern,” says Mr. Arnold.

The indeterminate nature of this ban will encourage experienced crew members to seek other lines of work—perhaps permanently. Restarting after a ban will bring with it a “greater mix of new people who will need to be trained.” The BP event is already pointing, in part, to human error, and the risk of that will increase with a less experienced crew base. Finally, a ban will result in more oil being imported on tankers, which are “more likely” to spill oil than local production.

This is a prime example of how those who control government operate to perpetuate their own self interests rather than act for the “good of the people.”

Numerous people have come to this site and complained about its logo because it contains a communist symbol, which according to them, has barely anything to do with socialism, or perhaps nothing at all.

Let’s see indeed what are the differences between socialism and communism…

From the Encyclopedia Britanica’s online entry on communism:

the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.

(I added the bolding.)

Communism is thus a form of socialism, and its distinction rests mostly on its revolutionary tactics.

Let’s see what Britanica has to say about Karl Marx, the father of communism:

revolutionary, sociologist, historian, and economist. He published (with Friedrich Engels) Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei (1848), commonly known as The Communist Manifesto, the most celebrated pamphlet in the history of the socialist movement. He also was the author of the movement’s most important book, Das Kapital. These writings and others by Marx and Engels form the basis of the body of thought and belief known as Marxism.

(Again, I added the bolding.)

So the Communist Manifesto is “the most celebrated pamphlet in the history of the socialist movement.” If communism were only scantly related to socialism, Karl Marx would have pulled off quite an impossible feat writing a pamphlet on communism to become the most celebrated among those who believe something very different.

Modern socialists distance themselves from the revolutionary and dictatorial aspects of communism, but in fact, people who still support communism today do the same, claiming that what happened in the Soviet Union was not true communism.

In terms of implementation, all forms of socialism, communism included, seek to enact (1) strict government control and ownership of industry and (2) redistribution of wealth.

And they all fail due to exactly the same things, (1) their inability to efficiently and properly manage and allocate common resources and (2) their inherent disincentive for achievement.

In conclusion, communism and socialism work toward achieving the same ends. Only their methods of achieving those ends are different. Communism uses revolution, while socialism uses evolution, manipulating the system into accepting it over time.

New Jersey cannot solve this problem by raising taxes. “[W]e have revenue going down, not up even though we’ve raised taxes every year,” says NJ Gov. Chris Christie.

A major contributor to New Jersey’s bloated budged is state worker benefits. A state worker could retire after 25 years at age 49, contribute $124,000 toward retirement, and get back $3.8 million in pension and health benefits over the rest of his lifetime.

The money to finance this excessive retirement plan isn’t exactly money that’s going to save the poor from the evils of capitalism. Then why is a liberal state such as NJ spending it? Could this be because of socialist greed? Or perhaps it’s because once a state acquires money in the name of the poor it just spends it which ever way…

Watch the interview with Gov. Christie here:

The core explanation for why this is so, is that a tax increase discourages people from engaging in the taxable activity, (earn income in the case of income tax,) and it encourages them to avoid the tax (by shifting money around, taking it out of the country, etc.) or even illegally evade it, thereby reducing the tax base. At some point, the increase in tax rate is not enough to compensate for the reduction in tax base, resulting in a reduction of tax revenues despite the rate increase.

Now, it is debatable at which point tax revenues start decreasing with increasing rates. However, it is apparent, that there is no tax rate for “the rich” sufficient to support a significant expansion of the welfare state. The evidence is the tax structure of the social democracies in Europe, whose tax rates are considerably higher than those in the U.S. for lower income brackets. In addition, sales taxes, which are paid by all regardless of income, are considerably higher in Europe than in the U.S. Those tend to hover around 20% in most of Europe, a figure which is twice as large as that of the highest sales tax state in the U.S., California. If anyone could figure out how to support a large welfare state by soaking the rich, it surely is a Western European socialist, but no one did!

Therefore, any politician claiming he/she will soak the rich for “social justice” is being very dishonest, to put it delicately.

To learn more about the Laffer curve, watch the following series of videos. They do a great job explaining these concepts.

Some government spending for safety and order does facilitate prosperity, but further spending turns the relationship between the size of government and prosperity around, resulting in more government for less prosperity.

The following video from the The Center for Freedom and Prosperity does a great job explaining this and compares economic performance among Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and the U.S.A.

To answer this question, let’s first put the size of the healthcare problem in the U.S. into perspective.

Counting the Number of the Uninsured in America

When Obama ran for president, he touted health care reform as a big issue because there were 47 million people uninsured in America.

This figure comes from the Census Bureau. And according to the Census Bureau there were 47 million people without health insurance in the United States in 2006.

But out of those, 9.3 million live in a household with an income of $75,000 a year or more, and also 10.2 million are not citizens of the U.S.

Let’s discount those from the uninsured figure to arrive at a number encompassing people we’d sanely expect to have a claim for receiving government assistance, (which is always funded by money that’s reluctantly taken away from someone else.)

47 – 9.3 – 10.2 = 27.5 million.

However, there may be some who are non-citizens and are in households making more that $75,000 a year, and we don’t want to double subtract those. Since the latter are 1/3 of the population, with no further information, we can expect the double counting to be 3.3 million. So 27.5 + 3.3 = 30.7 million.

So now we’re at a point where the number of the uninsured we’d sanely expect to be given government assistance in the matter is no more than 30.7 million or about 10% of the population in the United States.

But the problem posed by the above figure of 10% is much further diminished by the following fact:

Not Having Health Insurance Does Not Necessarily Mean You Are Sick or Can’t Get Healthcare If You Are!

Let’s see why:

• 8.5 million of the uninsured live in households of incomes between $50,000 and $74,999. Like those in households making over $75,000 per year, at least some are able to afford insurance, but just choose not to get it. Still others in America, especially those making between $50,000 and $74,999, may also afford to pay for doctor visits and medication out of their own pocket should the need arise, though admittedly probably not for major illnesses.
• 19 million of the uninsured are young adults between the ages of 18-34. I would venture to guess that most won’t encounter anything but a minor illness until they’re older, at which point many would be earning more money and able to afford insurance anyway. And in addition, high deductible health insurance for this demographic is inexpensive… well, at least in states whose government does not interfere and allow such coverage.
• By law, emergency room care has to be provided to anyone walking in. The patient is still liable for the expenses incurred, and often hospitals work out discounts and financing, but good luck to hospitals trying to collect from those who truly can’t afford it.
• There are those who are uninsured and qualify for a government plan (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), yet have not signed up.
• Many government assistance programs, provide healthcare to the uninsured. Those don’t count as insurance, but still give healthcare in certain instances.

  For example, the Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) in New York, is a “comprehensive prenatal care program that offers complete pregnancy care and other health services to women and teens who live in New York State.” To qualify, the woman can earn up to 200% of the federal poverty level, which means this is available to many who don’t qualify for Medicare.

  Another example is the HIV Uninsured Care Programs (ADAP), which provides “access to free healthcare (HIV Drugs, Primary Care, Home Care, and APIC) for New York State residents with HIV infection who are uninsured or underinsured.”

• There are clinics across the USA providing free healthcare for the uninsured.

  For example, the New York City Free Health Clinic is a private clinic providing healthcare to uninsured people in NYC.

  Here’s the Web site of Georgia’s free clinic network.

  And here’s the Web site of the National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC), “whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States.”

• There are resources of financial aid for those who are uninsured and fall victim to serious illness.

  For example see the Memorial Solan-Kettering Cancer Center’s financial assistance program.

Therefore, the problems with the healthcare system in the U.S. may be a government actionable “crisis” for a percentage of the population that’s well into the… single digits!

Just looking at the Census Bureau report, it’s not possible to calculate exactly for how many of the 10%, not having insurance is a big problem or a problem at all, but one thing is for sure, all the above factors mean that for quite a large number of the uninsured, not having insurance is NOT a big problem. Therefore, for simplicity, let’s say of the 10%, it’s a problem for half. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

Therefore, all the panic, crisis, “people are dying on the streets”, “we should join every other civilized nation”, “in America people have to choose between food and healthcare” rhetoric of the left, in reality is actually referring to about 5% of the population who don’t have access to all the healthcare they need, but they do have access to some!

Reality Check: What This Debate Really Comes Down To

We all know that liberals and socialists demand government intervention in private industry because of their compassion for others, or at least that’s what some of them claim.

And as such, the following sentence comes out the mouths of proponents of national healthcare very frequently: “How can we live in a country where some people don’t have access to basic healthcare?”

First of all, the premise of the question is flawed. As shown above, we’d be hard pressed to find people unable to receive any basic healthcare at all in the U.S. should they seek it.

Is it good that 5% have problems getting full access to healthcare they need? Of course not.

However, and this is key, in countries that have a national healthcare service, a.k.a. single payer systems, people do not get access to all the healthcare they need either! Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a need for private supplemental health insurance in the U.K., and there wouldn’t be a need for average Canadian citizens to seek treatment across the border in the United States at their own expense.

No government healthcare program we can implement is ever going to give all the healthcare anyone needs to everybody. The NHS (National Healthcare Service) in the U.K. doesn’t do it, the Canadian system doesn’t do it, the French don’t do it, and Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S. don’t provide comprehensive healthcare for those who are covered.

Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, writes the following points about government controlled healthcare systems around the world:

• Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.
• Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
• In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.
• Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

You can access Tanner’s full analysis of international health systems here on the Cato Institute’s Web site.

You may also read this December 2008 New York Times article about Bruce Hardy, an NHS cancer patient in the United Kingdom, who was deprived of life saving, yet costly, medicine because “at that price, Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging.”

And you may read this March 2010 Daily Mail article about how thousands of NHS cancer patients are denied life saving drugs:

Last year the Government’s drugs rationing body, NICE, promised to make it easier for patients suffering from rarer cancers to receive life-prolonging drugs on the NHS.

Today, we reveal just how hollow that pledge has proved.

Since it was made, ten drugs – which could have provided as many as 20,000 cancer sufferers with precious extra months or years – have been rejected on the grounds they are too expensive.

I suppose the British government just doesn’t have enough money to pay for everyone’s care after all!

Therefore this debate is really about whether approximately 5% of the population in the United States should receive somewhat more healthcare than they do now. And it’s not whether they would go from no healthcare to complete coverage, just whether they’ll get somewhat more… at the expense of others. No, not the rich “others”, everybody! That includes you and me and all of middle class America.

So What’s Wrong With Providing More Healthcare to Those 5%?

There’s nothing wrong, as long as you can actually do it in a way that doesn’t make things worse overall. And, experience has shown this is extremely difficult or impossible to do so with more government involvement in the health care industry.

I just gave examples of cancer patients in the U.K. being denied care by the NHS. But, as some may say, healthcare is also being denied by the “evil” insurance companies in America. That sometimes happens, however despite that “evil”, cancer treatment outcomes, for example, are better in the United States than anywhere else in the world, even if you count those with no insurance.

The following is from the National Center for Policy Analysis Web site:

According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology:

• American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.
• American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
• Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
• For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.

These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal healthcare system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

You can find the full article here.

U.S. cancer survival rates are also higher than those in Canada.

So I suppose the “evil” private insurance industry indeed fairs better at providing care than the “benevolent” governments around the world.

And there are concrete reasons for that. Primary among those is that once the health care system is opened up to strong government influence, the decision making process starts running on political merits and not on the merits of science or quality of care.

Obamacare isn’t even in effect and this is already happening! This past week, the vote of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana (to start debate on the Senate health care bill) was bought off with $300,000,000 of state aid. The following is from a Wall Street Journal article dated November 22, 2009:

Take Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, who claims to have grave concerns about the bill’s cost. Those worries became less pressing when Majority Leader Harry Reid added language on page 432 of the 2,074-page opus that would raise the bill’s cost by increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” Guess which state is the only one that would qualify under that wording?

This political gratuity was quickly reported as costing $100 million, but Senator Landrieu made clear after her floor speech that her vote couldn’t be bought that cheaply. “I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” she told reporters.

Was Senator Landrieu’s vote cast on the health care quality or finance merits of the bill? No! It was cast on the merits of a dollar taken from each and every person in the United States to increase her chances of reelection in Louisiana. So that’s how socialized health care reduces costs! What a plan!

I can already hear liberals saying “but private health care isn’t about quality care either, it’s all about PROFIT!” To that I say that even assuming the motivation is all about profit, there is far more direct connection between profit and quality of product in private industry than between political gain and quality of product in the government sector. And I dare anyone to demonstrate otherwise!

Therefore, instead of legislating government takeovers of an industry, perhaps we should do something else.

As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X… What I want to do is to look up C… I call him the Forgotten Man… He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator, and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdans which are laid upon him.

(The above is quoted from Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, who skillfully summarized Sumner’s thesis.)