Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Health care revisited

This fundamental change that our President promised is beginning to take shape. It would appear to be an Europeanization of our country. We now have increased the movement away from self reliance to one of collective dependence. I understand that people in hard times cannot afford to pay for health care. To have the Government pay for a commodity like health insurance seems like a compassionate way to deal with rising cost. But what are the real cost, and who really benefited? What decisions were just made for us, and why? I am someone who understands the market. With higher cost we saw individuals retreat from paying those higher health care cost and giving up having insurance. Businesses took away that benefit due to the high cost. As individuals began to go without insurance the natural consequence would have been an economic force to reduce the cost of insurance in order to increase the number of people who have health insurance. Insurance companies and health care providers have fixed cost, and need to have a steady revenue stream to continue operations. A reduction in the numbers who have insurance due to rising cost would have naturally lowered the price of insurance, not increased it. So what was the story that we told. We were told that if we did nothing that the cost would continue to rise, well that is a lie. Insurance and Health care providers need us to have insurance and would have to reduce the cost to increase the numbers of people partaking of that commodity of health insurance. As we saw after the bill was passed the insurance companies stock rose on that news, because the government has now forced us to have insurance and will fine us if we do not. The real result is that we just bailed out the insurance companies. I would have increased competition , and allowed for more to compete in the insurance market, by increasing competition for both the individual, businesses and a increase in insurance providers the price would have gone down and the need to have big brother takeover would never have been needed. Silly me, I forgot that we own AIG now; It is all beginning to become clear to me now. Corruption is alive and well in Our Big Government. Thanks President Obama

The problem with the progressive argument is that we can be more efficient and care for more through a collective system. That by its pure nature is to weaken the whole, so we can better take care of the individual. I whole heartily disagree. I believe that a strong society is built on a strong individual, and the social benefit of a higher taxation and larger government never appears and will only reduce individual freedom, and take individual choice away and give it to a third party. Yes I will admit that by giving such a high degree in individual freedom, we as a society also accept the fact that individuals will fail. I would argue that the human soul cannot advance if do not let it learn and grow through failure. By having a nanny state mentality we have taken away much of what makes us a human. We have allowed our failures to not affect our lives, and we have allowed our citizens to wallow in mediocrity. We are moving past a French form of Government and toward to a soviet form of governing. I guess we can still have our Vodka, and Bread lines? Well Thank you progressives, you are so smart.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Is there more money out there to tax?

Is there more money out there to tax? It would seem the media and those progressive members of our legislature believe that there is. If you have read my blog you know where I stand on this. The debate that we have not had is the one that questions if we have grown government beyond our ability to pay for it. Our leaders who continue to deny this want to enter into a system of taxation that will follow Those who has not yet been hit with tax increases, this is a policy of greed and envy. Now Mining and property taxes seem to be in the mix. I have lived here in Nevada for over thirty years now, and I am fully aware that mining is an up and down business. Depending on the price of Gold, silver and other mineral goods we have a system of boom and bust in our rural communities. Are we to reduce the boom periods by increasing the cost on these multinational companies? These companies currently have shown us that they are more than willing to close down operations, and wait till it is profitable to harvest the minerals.

Can we afford increases in property tax, with Nevada leading the nation in foreclosures; I think this too is an area that we need to avoid. This state is losing population to California; we have seen the closure of locally owned businesses that have been around for decades. Our ability to bring capitol to grow our economy has taken a big hit. And in this light, our officials want to increase cost and lower the profitability of living and working in this great state. This war on the Nevada tax payer needs to have a spokesman that believes that Government is far too big, too cumbersome and too invasive toward our ability to improve the human condition of its citizens. Again I propose a reduction in all state tax rates, fees, permits, regulatory oversight and policy back to a level that we can operate our lives and find that balance between services and our ability to prosper. The Date I would propose is January 1, 2000. Yes I know that it is over a decade, but I am not saying remove all taxes, just a reduction in all personal, property and business rates and fees. I know that this would initially hurt our tax base even further, yet I believe that capitol, and individuals would quickly begin to prosper and grow again. I want this on the ballot so the people of this state can regain some level of control from our elected officials. We need to again take control of our political process and take away the influence some of our lobbyist now have over the process.