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.