Armey Says Health Care Reform Stifles Innovation

In a recent interview with CNN, Dick Armey, the former House Majority Leader, said that the health care bill passed on Saturday has the potential to destroy the whole pharmaceutical industry. Armey references William Shakespeare and Thomas Edison:

"You go right back to Shakespeare, who first said, 'If it can't be sold for a profit, it's not worth writing,' or take Thomas Edison's reiteration of it, 'If it can't be sold for a profit, it's not worth inventing’…If the government is going to control what it is, whether it can be distributed, what it is, what price it can be sold, you will disincentive the whole process of research.”

First of all, why should our government sustain an industry that hurts its citizens, yet keeps investors, many of which are within the political sphere, rich through earnings? The goal of the bill is to provide greater health care coverage for all Americans, not to keep the industry thriving. Which is more important?

Armey is in a complete disregard for any success other than economic. Let me refer to one of my great inspirations: Henry David Thoreau.

Thoreau speaks of the beauty within ordinary life and about finding meaningfulness in one’s existence, which means living with each present moment, neither looking into the past or future.

Thoreau’s philosophy is that production of a person should never be defined by its market value. In order for one to finding meaning in the ordinary and within the context of their lives, one needs to produce things that express true selfhood. Financial gain is not the only goal of a creative purpose.

“In my case, did I think it work my while to weave them (baskets), and instead of studying how to make it work men’s while to buy my baskets, I studied how rather to avoid the necessity of selling them.” (Thoreau, Walden)

A true drive of imagination and creativity is what produces an innovative society striving for success, not merely a money-hungry nation focused on economic success.

There are plenty of incentives to create besides making a profit. Besides, according to the Shakespeare resource Web site, Shakespeare was never considered wealthy by London standards. One could say: If you never make it to the top of the social classes, why try at all? Why keep producing if no one buys it at first? Shakespeare kept trying and striving to be better most likely because he believed in what he did and was passionate about it, not solely because of the profit he would make.

Although the health care bill might damage the pharmaceutical industry, the benefits of it offer a promising future that can outweigh the negative outcomes.

Ron Paul's "Revolution"

Ron Paul. He is a man of many opinions, many of which I completely disagree with, but who is not afraid to truly express his biased and non-centralized thoughts. He does not appeal only to the median voter, but instead sticks to his ideals no matter their politically designated position.

Paul’s beliefs on national defense deviate from the typical politician’s frightened surrendering of any original thought for ones that will get them and keep them in office. Paul’s Web site uses this analogy to start the discussion on national security: “If you hit someone and kill their family, they will hate you and probably hit you back in the future.” Paul claims that this is the “blowback” concept, in which the things that the U.S. military does aboard certainly affect world opinions of America.

His Web site says: “Rudy Giuliani in particular believed that the 9/11 terrorists hated our wealth and freedom so intensely that they sacrificed their lives to prove it. (Of course, our government bombing their countries, propping up their dictators and supplying their enemies with money and weapons had nothing to do with it.)”

Finally! Finally a politician is willing to state a more substantial opinion towards war rather than the arbitrary meandering of Barack Obama's and John McCain’s mission statements on war, specifically in Iraq. Obama’s Web site says, “Obama and Biden will press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future.” McCain’s Web site says, “McCain will fight to ensure we do not squander the success that has been so hard won by America’s troops.”

First of all, how can the U.S. expect a country that they have been forcefully controlling to take responsibility for their future, when the U.S. took the initiative in the first place as the supreme enforcer of the world? It’s as if the U.S. is a wealthy aristocrat. That aristocrat takes in a sickly peasant from the street, dresses it in costly clothing. Then the aristocrat throws it back onto the street and yells “get a job!” That peasant may have lavish clothing, but is not structurally sound.

Second of all, what success is John McCain speaking of?

Paul states that the U.S. “unnecessarily puts the lives of our soldiers at risk” in aggressive wars that only feed the fires of terrorism instead of taming them. Paul does not stick to any Democratic or Republican ideal on his national security opinions, but acknowledges AMERICA’S issue with war.

Paul doesn’t just stick his finger up and the air to feel which way the wind is blowing and goes with it. He follows his convictions, despite how ridiculous some may seem, unlike many politicians in the U.S.

Political Horror: Bring Out the Spooky Statesman Within

Although this blog is focused on analyzing and critiquing our government, with Halloween right around the corner, I’ve decided to add a little humor to my criticizing effort.

Many choose boringly basic costumes: a wicked witch, devilish demon, or ghoulish ghost, but if you’re still searching for that perfect costume, why not dress up as one of your favorite politicians?

It gives you a chance to find your inner statesman, to really explore the lying, cheating, and viciously partisan side of you! You can be anyone from George Washington to George Bush. Here are some of my favorites:

Arnold Schwarzenegger- The Governator

Squeeze into your old business suit, throw on an Arnold mask and your costume is complete! Now you just have to practice your Austrian accent and say things like, “I’ll be back” and “Hasta la vista, baby.”

Barack Obama: Barackula

With its fierce fangs and spiked ears, this mask gets to the core of Obama’s opposition. If you’re going to pull this one off, you have to wear all black and could even add a cape. You could also just stick with the classic Obama mask to showcase your support for the president.

Abe Lincoln: Honest (and Spooky) Abe

Dressing up as Abe would be a simple costume to put together. You can throw on a top hat, although I would suggest straying away from the “gun shot in head” spoofs.

Bill Clinton: Zippergate

This could possibly be one of the most entertaining of all of the your sinister political mask options. The jokes are endless…enough said.

Other ideas include Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, or even Sarah Palin.

Even if a plastic mask is too pricey (around $10-$30), you can still buy a paper one (less than $1) to truly embrace and discover your deeply hidden politician. Or just throw on an Uncle Sam hat and go on your happy American way!

Happy Halloween!

For more information visit StarCostumes.com and Buycostumes.com.

Congress: Disdainful and Greedy?

In early June, The New York Times reported in an article that according to financial records from members of Congress, many of the lawmakers hold investments in insurance, pharmaceutical and prescription-benefit companies and in hospital interests.

This puts an interesting twist on the reasons why members of Congress oppose Obama’s health care bill. Do they truly feel that it would put a strain on the economy? Or are their motives biased?

Some argued that the bill would subsidize abortion. Are our congressional leaders so worried about retaining their money that they would viciously cling to their $100 bills and oppose beneficial reform? Instead of worrying about misrepresentation or intentional deception, things that are very costly to the health care system, these members are narrowly focusing their arguments to highly controversial topics.

When are the leaders of this country going to stop the institutional combat within their party lines and focus on the growth of the country as a whole?

This brings me to another topic: income. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the real median income for American households was $50,303 in 2008. That same year, the salaries for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate were $169,300 for each branch.

Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 45.7 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008.

With an increasing poverty rate, an increase in uninsured Americans, and an increase in unemployment, our congressional leaders, who face no financial struggle mind you, are worried that health care reform might pay for abortions. Seriously?

Sinking Politics.

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.

Will Social Security Run Out?

The Social Security Administration announced today that there will not be an automatic increase in income benefits in 2010 due to a decease in consumer prices in the last year, affecting over 57 million Americans.

This will mark the first year since the Cost-of-Living Adjustment went into effect in 1975 that there is no increase.

President Obama is proposing that Congress send an additional $250 recovery payment for the Americans affected, like the ones sent earlier this year as a part of the economic recovery package

According to a report released in May 2009 by trustees who monitor Medicare and Social Security, they predict that the trust fund from which Social Security payments are drawn from will be unable to pay full benefits by 2037.

Although many reports have predicted the future of Social Security and Medicare as a severe downturn and loss of money since its inception in the 1930s, administration official say that Congress could counter this by increasing workers’ Social Security payroll taxes and/or by decreasing benefits. (Information courtesy of The Washington Post)

No American would enjoy the benefits of either of these options, but it may be America’s only chance at supporting the basis of our social beneficiary system.

Although Obama is pushing to help those he claims were hardest hit by the recession, one wonders how long Social Security will be able to stick out the fluctuations of the economy.

Joseph Lazzaro, economic blogger, suggests the solution is to raise current Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age to 70, and to develop an accurate consumer price index.

Each option might have unintended consequences on the economy, but offers a valid standpoint for Congress to direct their efforts towards.

Many questions face Americans as they look into their own retirement future:

Will young and middle-aged people pay into this system a majority of their lives and face no return once they grow old? Will Congress and the Obama Administration stabilize the retirement system enough to keep our older generation out of poverty?

The retirement dream of vacationing on the beach, relaxing with yoga, and entertaining the grand-kiddos might wither away as our economy fights to stay above water.

Sinking Politics.

For more information visit www.ssa.gov, and washingtonpost.com.