Sunday, December 22, 2013

Objectivist Medicine Reading

     A while back, I wrote an e-mail to a Voices for Reason contributor, encouraging the writing and publishing of an Objectivist book on medicine.  I was unaware that an entire chapter had been devoted to health care in a recent book by Objectivist author, Andrew Bernstein, titled Capitalist Solutions: A Philosophy of American Moral Dilemmas.

This 21 page chapter seems to have been written shortly after the time that Obamacare was passed--as it only mentions that name once.  However, it is of great value in exploring the underlying problems of Government Health Care, because it is not enough simply to return to a pre-Obamacare mixed economy.  Government Health Care must be rolled back completely.  Only with a Separation of State from Medicine will just, medical employment opportunities be available, and skyrocketing prices be reduced.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Dying because you might otherwise

     Pharmaceutical companies seek to develop treatments and drugs that improve our lives and often can save them.  Unfortunately, Big Government such as the FDA gets between these noble business ventures and Americans who want to purchase the cures that Pharma seeks to bring to market.

The FDA claims that it is protecting us from deadly, medical side effects of irresponsible corporations that want to profit from fraud and injury to their customers.  However, any businessman can tell you that this almost never happens because satisfying the market and having a self-adopted, responsible reputation is the way that companies stay in business.

Medicine is not only an inherently responsible, economic market, it is a unique one that cries out for government to not suppress.  While some medical products don't involve life or death situations, many do.

Suppose when you reach 50 years of age, you are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.  It is not expected to kill you right away; but the doctor knows that it will eventually--as there is no cure.  Now, pharmaceutical companies, such as Eli Lilly for example, have researched and tested treatments that show more promise than anything ever before brought to market.  However, the FDA has shot down many of the hopeful candidates in the name of saving lives.  Do you see something wrong with this?  If I am going to die from a disease, anyway, how am I safer not being able to buy a life-extending treatment if I want to?

Take cancer for instance.  If I develop a certain type of cancer, but the FDA has found that most individuals who are treated with all of the drugs submitted "for approval" die within 20 years, so forced them off of the market, how am I as a purchaser protected?  If I am going to die anyway, why not buy a medicine that may or may not have some kind of long-range, negative side effect?

It can be seen, in regard to its desperately cautious nature, that the FDA's message to Americans, and theme is: "Dying because you might otherwise."

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Monday, December 16, 2013

Superior "efficacy" not a requirement for selling a product

     As the illegitimate form of government called the FDA tries to wreck further economic damage, they have now moved on to attacking anti-bacterial soap producers.  The FDA has a long history of claiming that a new product must prove that it is "more effective" than other, similar, existing products.  This is completely unjust and irrational.

Should McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's be required to submit to a hamburger test to determine which one will be the sole franchise permitted to operate?  Should Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai be required by government to prove superiority over the others to receive a coercive monopoly granted by the state?  If I want to trade for the hamburger I desire at a drive thru, in the car I chose to buy, shouldn't I be free to do so?

There is no legitimacy to an establishment of economic regulation by government.  The FDA must be abolished--not just transformed to something new by Obamacare (if that stays around a little longer).

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Poem: The FDA you will obey

     -by Paul Wharton

The FDA you will obey
every edict they have to say.
It makes you sick and starve someday.
The FDA you will obey.

The FDA you will obey
your fear of next being their prey.
From Pharma to farmers, they slay.
The FDA you will obey.

The FDA you will obey.
No drugs on the store shelf today.
Bureaucrats can't be blamed that way.
The FDA you will obey.

The FDA you will obey
your healing time with a delay.
It's no cure to be passed away.
The FDA you will obey.

The FDA you will obey
safe food for which you cannot pay.
Cozy positions then can stay.
The FDA you will obey.

The FDA you will obey
their controls from fish to fillet.
So you're served a costly entrée?
The FDA you will obey.

The FDA you will obey
the feed to cows for a parfait.
Priced out becomes what was gourmet.
The FDA you will obey.

The FDA you will obey
Obamacare's changing foray.
Is reform better or horseplay?
The FDA You Will Obey.

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Read The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure


  I have just finished reading John A. Allison's book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure: How Destructive Banking Reform Is Killing the Economy

The author is the longest-serving CEO of a top-25 financial institution, having served as Chairman of BB&T for twenty years.

The basic theme of the book is an analysis of how government interference in business, especially banking, caused the financial crisis, and that removing government from economics is the only cure.

From the existence of the Fed, to FDIC insurance, to government housing subsides, the solution is the same; get government out of business!

It is shocking to learn of so many, concrete ways in which government has intervened in business in the name of solving economic problems; but in reality it actually causes them or makes them worse.

This book makes Ayn Rand's wisdom shine forth that every government intervention in economics always causes a violation to the Individual Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Monday, December 9, 2013

Defund Obamacare by Impeaching Obama

     The vast majority of the American people don't want it.  Most of Congress doesn't want it.  Even many Democrats don't want it--though some are pressured otherwise.  Only one individual really wants it.  It fits his dream of destroying America--as does everything he supports.

The Republicans in the House of Representatives tried to legislatively "defund Obamacare".  Due to Speaker Boehner's concept that the House is supposed to take a stand, and then make some concessions, combined with Obama's concept that he will simply make no concessions--no matter what--Obamacare was not defunded.

So, we have this guy born in Kenya who thinks that he is President of the United States standing against all of America.  What do we do?

I see the best course of action that of Impeachment.  Recently, I came across a long blog that listed 100 separate grounds for Impeachment, where any one of them easily gives America reason.

We tried to defeat Obamacare by evading the removal of Obama from the current residence in Washington.  I see our first, best hope of repealing Obamacare, the Impeaching of Obama from the position which he really never even had.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Minimum Work for a Minimum Wage

     While reading The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure by John A. Allison, former CEO of the company BB&T, I came across some great passages that apply to Obama's big push to wipe out the jobs of a lot of workers who are earning the current minimum wage.  The following is a selection:

"The typical victims of the minimum-wage laws are the individuals that the laws are supposed to help by guaranteeing that these workers get a "living wage."  Instead, these potential employees get no wage." (p. 211)

"The minimum-wage laws are the primary cause of the high unemployment levels in the United States today.  In a free market, labor rates (wages) for many jobs would have fallen just as prices for other goods and services have fallen.  Many jobs that have left the United States for China would have stayed in the United States.  Instead of laying off employees, many businesses would have cut wages and kept their employees.  Unemployment would be much lower than it is today." (pgs. 210-211)

"...the politicians and their supporters who have raised the minimum wage in the face of a severe economic correction are inflicting an injustice on the individuals who would be willing to work at a lower wage rate.  It is both immoral and unconstitutional to deny a person the right to work on terms that are acceptable to him." (p. 212)

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Forced onto the ObamaChanges

     After the "Affordable Care Act" was jammed through Congress in 2010, someone thought to call it what it deserved: ObamaCare.  After all, most Americans didn't want it; and most of the people in Congress didn't even want it.  Basically, only one person wanted it: Obama.  Now, with the Big Lies, that were told over and over again, beginning to be revealed, America once more has the opportunity to invert a dishonest label to shine light on the truth.

Obama's plan calls for all Americans to eventually be forced to do "business" with ObamaCare, health care "exchanges".  Thinking to name those nightmare, Government Health Care bureaucracies, "exchanges", should bring a shiver to the spine of every honest American.  ObamaCare does not respect free market trade; it deals in force.  Americans won't have a choice to not "exchange".

So, as you can see, that word needs to be altered.  In regard to all the turmoil and patriotic uproar of the last two months, I propose calling those Government Health Care gestapos: "ObamaChanges".  This makes the "law" slightly more honest.  Perhaps, ObamaCare's progression can be explained something like this:

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  All of your health care will be received from the ObamaChanges.  If you like your full-time job, you can keep paying the fees of the ObamaChanges from the wages of your full-time job.  When you get too sick or old, the ObamaChanges death panels will give you a pain pill and relieve society of your economic burden.  Government Health Care from cradle to grave: such is the legacy of Barack's ObamaChanges."

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Unless Obama Endorses Capitalism, You Can't Keep "Your" Plan

     In an effort to save the Democrat party, Obama gave a speech where he appeared to be backpedaling on the consequences of Obamacare.  However, if you analyze what was said, he has made little change in his favoring of that law.

The reason why so many medical insurance companies have either canceled or increased the price of their products is because of Obamacare.  So here comes Obama claiming that he will restore everyone's medical insurance without withdrawing his support for Obamacare.

But medical insurance is a private business.  A politician can't just declare that millions of Americans are going to be offered a commercial product for a set price--that, in this case, happens to be uneconomical for the insurance businessmen because Obama is not withdrawing his endorsement of the Obamacare taxations and regulations.

To give an analogy, suppose you have been a customer of a local bakery for many years.  And, a Democrat Congressman becomes instrumental in passing a set of laws that saddles the baker with massive taxation and terrible regulations.  When the bakery closes shop because the owner can no longer make any money, there is widespread backlash. So, the Democrat Congressman decides to fix things by giving a speech in which he declares that the former customers of bakery products at that business can continue to buy cakes at the same prices they used to, but the new laws will still stand.

Don't you see what is happening?  Obama wants you to "buy" an insurance company's cake, while Obamacare puts it out of business, too!

What I see coming is a concerted attack on private insurance companies.  Intellectually arm yourself and engage.  It should be quite a battle.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Trans Fats Ban One More Step Towards Total Tyranny

     Picture for a moment a capitalist America where no individual is denied one's individual rights, no market is forcibly sacrificed, one can buy any food one can earn, and one can pay anyone in exchange for medical advice or attention.  What arguments would the government have to support a state ban on organic substances such as the present attack on trans fats?  Are unhealthy foods costing government funders money?  No.

Now refocus and look at contemporary America with the ignition of the tyranny of Obamacare; and ask, "In today's socialized medicine structure, are trans fats costing the taxpayers too much money?"  Technically, the answer is, "Yes!".

There are two divergent philosophies one can take in regard to the issue of government in medicine.  In the first case, one can recognize that maintaining a status quo of freedom reserves responsibility to the individual who has one's rights respected.  The alternative is to take steps down a despotic road in which government steals from one individual and gives a fraction of what is taken to another individual, and then panics because it realizes that it is running out of money.

In Capitalism the government solution is to remain laissez-faire.  In socialism the solution is to transform to Capitalism.  The worst course one can take, in regard to the medical market, is to go from socialized medicine to total Government Health Care, which is where the malice of Obama seeks to send us today.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Monday, November 11, 2013

Louis Pasteur: Free Lance of Science

     I have recently completed reading the book, Louis Pasteur: Free Lance of Science.  It was recommended years ago by the Objectivist, Alex J. Epstein, author of Fossil Fuels Improve The Planet.

Louis Pasteur was a nineteenth century, French scientist who achieved ground-breaking discoveries from work in fields such as: crystals, microbiology and immunology.

Pasteur contributed to food and alcohol manufacturing by studying the science of the production of: vinegar, beer and wine.  The method of pasteurization was named after him in honor of his work.

Pasteur also was an innovator in medicine.  While studying diseases such as: anthrax, gangrene, septicemia, childbirth fever, cholera, erysipelas and rabies, he created the germ theory of disease, discovered immunization techniques, and developed vaccinations for many formerly deadly human illnesses.

I really enjoyed reading this book.  I only wish that Objectivist intellectuals would find more books on medicine that are worthy of endorsement.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Obama's Naked Human Evil

     I was reading an Ayn Rand non-fiction book, last night, and I came across a passage that reminded me of what is going on with Obamacare:

"Ask yourself why totalitarian dictatorships find it necessary to pour money and effort into propaganda for their own helpless, chained, gagged slaves, who have no means of protest or defense.  The answer is that even the humblest peasant or the lowest savage would rise in blind rebellion, were he to realize that he is being immolated, not to some incomprehensible "noble purpose," but to plain, naked human evil." (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 85)

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind


Monday, November 4, 2013

An Unapproved Use of Government

     The 2.2 billion dollar lawsuit, where the U.S. government is accusing Johnson & Johnson of over-marketing medicines, (including their drug, Risperdal) is completely misguided.  The government's only possible grounds for prosecution is in response to fraud, such as false claims concerning medical effects of some of (JNJ)'s products.

But, the lawsuit raises several questions:

(1) Were false claims made by the entire company, or a few individuals?
(2) How is a fine in the billions justified for this type of possible offense?
(3) Should shareholders have to pay for fines that punish them despite a complete lack of knowledge of any possible wrongdoing?
(4) Why is so much of the penalty going to the government officials who are prosecuting the case?

I see this whole fiasco as an "unapproved use of government".  I wrote a blog years ago that philosophically analyzed the issue of fraud and its relation to government prosecution.  The concrete example I used was Martha Stewart and the way government unjustly subjected her to jail for the fraud of a handful of employees in her giant business.  What I discovered was the "fraud prosecutor's principle", which is:

The bigger the business, the more lenient the prosecution of fraud.

The reason why this is so important is that a business executive who manages 10,000 employees should not (and cannot) be as responsible for a team of 10 rogue employees committing fraud, as a business executive of a small company of 100 total employees.

Having leveled American health insurance corporations, Obama has begun to move on to pharmaceutical companies.  Have your lawyers and business bodyguard intellectuals (like me) ready.

Please note that I did not defend Johnson & Johnson out of any kind of submission to the value of Risperdal, as Eli Lilly & Co.'s Zyprexa is much better.  However, I will admit that there was a time, before I had discovered Zyprexa, when I thought that (JNJ)'s Risperdal was the best option I had.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

The White House Declares Censorship

     TeaParty.org has revealed that The White House is declaring censorship in America.  Info Wars reports:

"The White House is ordering insurance companies not to criticize Obamacare and threatening "retribution" against executives who speak out, according to CNN reporter Drew Griffin."

"...Griffin revealed that insurance companies had been told to "keep quiet" about the fact that millions of Americans are being told that they cannot keep their existing policies..."

"Basically, if you speak out, if you are quoted, you're going to get a call from the White House..."

It is interesting that it is the Democrats, in this case, who are censoring Americans.  Traditionally, it has usually been the Republicans who have had more of a disposition towards wanting some suppression of Free Speech.  But, Barack "The Kenyan" Obama is a new mix of the bad side of each.  He stands against economic freedom and personal liberty.

I have been unable to locate the exact quote.  But, what I remember reading in the Objectivist literature is that Ayn Rand advocated fighting against tyranny through peaceful means unless Freedom of Speech is violated.  At that point, physical retaliation against the State is warranted.

Personally, I don't plan to fight back, physically.  However, I think Barack "The Kenyan" Obama and his political gang may want to take into consideration those who do and give up on Obamacare, as well as the rest of the fascist and communist agenda.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Sebelius doesn't work for those she kills.

     On Friday, Hell Hurling Statism (HHS) official, Sebelius, was quoted as saying, "The majority of people calling for me to resign, I would say, are people who I don't work for and who do not want this program to work in the first place."

Apparently, Obama's next in line scapegoat to take the fall doesn't understand the proper role of officials in government.  An American politician is a public servant who works for the individuals of America, not the other way around.

But, from the view of Sebelius, she now commands American medicine, and the means to heal oneself with a centralized discretion of how to allocate your property.

So, what is the attitude of this all-assuming "authority" over the lives of Americans?  The Rush Limbaugh Show and Sean Hannity have a telling sound bite of Sebelius that reads, "Some people live.  Some people die."

Thus, each of us who Sebelius doesn't work for, who opposes her, may want to try to imagine what will happen to oneself when one wants medical attention for a serious condition, and guess if Hell Hurling Statism (HHS) will favor one to live or die.  I think the title of this post answers the question.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Monday, October 21, 2013

Obamacare Violates the Right to One's Own Life

     When a Democrat tries to justify Obamacare--whether it is Obama, Sebelius or anyone else--the argument always comes down to something like this:

If you step out into the street and are hit by a bus, suffer a heart attack, or get cancer, you will want to go to a hospital for treatment.

I object to this assertion, because, you see, if I require more free market medicine to live than I can afford, I will choose to die.

The Democrats view my attitude offensively.  They insist that I don't have the Right to My Own Life, which includes the Right to End My Own Life.  In one of those classic medical tragedies mentioned above, the Democrats insist upon the authority to take over my life--forcing me to live in tortured pain until the call comes from Washington, via death panel, to turn off the medical faucet.

But, in an America without Obamacare--one that is truly an environment of Capitalist Medicine--every dollar would go further.  Not only would one be able to make more money to pay doctors and spend on medical products, the free market would steadily drive costs down.

In a Capitalist Medicine America, if I was hit by a bus, suffered a heart attack, or got cancer, I might be able to afford to pay doctors and hospitals, and thus want to live.

So, it is Obama, Sebelius and the rest of the Democrats who vote for continued Obamacare who are the killers in America.  They seek to not only balloon an environment of Communist Health Care, but, by its nature, it will take down all remnants of Capitalist Medicine that we still have, today.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Friday, October 18, 2013

Reconciling "The National Debt"

     With the Chinese credit rating downgrade, and the raising of the debt ceiling by Congress, I think that it is time to analyze the entire concept of "The National Debt" to figure out what exactly the U.S. government is doing, and decide if it is where Americans want to go.

I have several questions concerning what is referred to as "The National Debt":

(1) What individuals receive the borrowed money to spend?
(2) What individuals will be forced to pay the spent money back (plus interest)?
(3) Will Americans renege or revolt to paying back the money spent by others?
(4) If Americans do default, will China declare war on us?
(5) Is the further increasing of "The National Debt", in essence, delivering Americans into long-term servitude to China?

Some politicians are often fond of relating a political national debt to an economic credit card.  But, if you analyze the two, you can identify that the political "credit card" is controlled by government; and only the political leaders and their friends get to choose how to spend it--while those who are not favored by Washington are forced to pick up the tab.  Further, it becomes an ever increasing, private, financial burden every time the limit is extended.  On the other hand, an economic credit card is under the owner's personal control.  If the individual spends oneself into debt, then what is owed back is not a result of the unwanted spending of others.  If debt is incurred, the individual pays for the consequences of one's own actions.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

The Mainstream Media Caved

     Right now, in the mainstream media, one of the major talking points that has been sent out to the government subsidized, propaganda networks is that the Republicans have "caved".

But, what about the mainstream media?  Aren't they responsible for reporting, and, in the case of admittedly biased shows, covering and advocating for what are stories that tell of what is good in America and the world?

Is it really the Republicans--who gave it a shot, and so far did hold out for fifteen days--who have caved on America?  Or, is it the mainstream media who has caved by selling out this great country in which we all live?

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Wrecking an Economy Over a Number

     The way things stand now, in America, the U.S. government has an unlimited power to print money--thus inflating everyone's dollars so they are worth less.  The crucial question in the current political-economy is not will the Fed inflate, but can the Fed inflate.  In my view, if government is even given the ability to print more money, then our dollars are lost.

Hundreds of years ago, there weren't digital mainframes that managed numbers in the American economy.  To inflate, money had to actually be printed on a printing press.  But, the way things are now, all the government has to do is type up a number in the trillions on a keyboard, and send it into the economy.  What kind of unlimited power is that?

Obama has fundamentally wrecked the American economy far worse than most of us know.  The mainstream media keeps pointing to the DOW and NASDAQ averages of the biggest companies, while the government types up numbers and sends them to their friends to keep these numbers afloat.  The strength of the U.S. economy is an artificial illusion.  Obama's plan, when its value crashes, is to find some good guys to try to blame in his attempt to set up a repeat of the same disaster that inflation and other types of government controls in economics have been wrecking throughout the centuries.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Exercising a Right Does Not Have Negative Government Consequences

     On The Daily Show, Sebelius, the Witch of Hell Hurling Statism (HHS), was asked why it was that individuals can't say that they don't want Government Health Care.  Sebelius replied:

"Well they can.  They pay a fine.  They pay a fine at the end of the year.  But, they don't have to...I mean they can say I don't want to do it."

In other words, an individual has the "right" to refuse Government Health Care, but Sebelius will make you pay.

This reminds me of numerous experiences in my own life, where I was offered mind-altering drugs, and upon asking the question, "Can I refuse?", I was told loudly and with no conscience, "Yes.  You can refuse.".  However, nearly every time, I was approached by nurses with big security goons later in the night to inject me.

What Sebelius needs to be told is that Americans have Inalienable Individual Rights, and exercising those Rights cannot have negative government consequences.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Why the FDA is the Biggest Threat to the Basic American Economy

     When The Obama Economy goes into its second dip, many Americans are only going to have the money to purchase their basic needs.  That means food to be alive, and medicine to stay alive.  The FDA represses, not just one of these, but both the sale of food and medicine.  It increases prices and bans potential products--even to the extent of telling you that you cannot buy an otherwise life-saving drug.

It is my hope that the FDA will be eliminated, with nothing put in its place, before Obama's Second Crash occurs.  Only then will the trade of the most valuable products that Americans produce and exchange, in order to survive and eventually prosper once again, be able to be legally exercised.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Monday, October 7, 2013

Shut Down Government Subsidies to Mainstream Media

     I don't know exactly what has been going on that transformed the mainstream media from a semi-unbiased industry to the totally pro-Obama entity it is today.  However, I think I can identify what it was, inductively.

The Federal Reserve has been creating money and giving it to those it chooses.  With the debt ceiling repetitively expanding, that has been another cash source for Obama to play around with.  If you consider that most of the few people who watch the mainstream media "news" shows, or buy their papers, are non-productive, with little spending power to make the advertising pay off, then that shows that there is something going on to sustain the "businesses".

The House of Representatives holds the initiation of the "power of the purse".  They decide what in a government gets funded.  The outrageous assertion that some previous legislation in U.S. history was passed that gave a President the ability to pick and choose "essential government" to fund in the event of a Congressional "shutdown" is contrary to the fundamental power of the House.  Therefore, the House of Representatives can, and should, revoke the subsidies to American media businesses.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

An Ethic of Avoiding Socialism

     As I write this blog, it is the morning of October 2nd, 2013.  Political history will show that the U.S. government went into a partial shutdown at the beginning of the month.  The media has been documenting hardship and catastrophes, but in my life, yesterday was just a normal (though more profitable) day.  How can this be when a government that has been so intricately woven into our lives is rendered dysfunctional?

My answer to the above question is simple.  I go to great lengths to exercise a personally adopted ethic of avoiding socialism.  This is not necessarily in accordance with the official Objectivist philosophy--which sometimes advocates collecting back what was taken despite the fact that it was placed in a kind of homogeneous pool of "state property".  My view is that when that is done, the property is lost.

So, how do I implement my philosophy of "avoiding socialism"?  It is simple: don't go to socialized places, don't make socialized choices despite the cost, and when there is too much difficulty, try to minimize the use of socialized "stuff".

For example, I live about two blocks from a train station.  There is a heavily utilized government passenger train system that goes to different towns and into Chicago.  In the 15+ years I have lived here, I have never once set foot upon one of those trains.

To give another example of my determination, mailing a regular letter as a UPS parcel costs more than 20 times as much as the stamp that one uses to send it through government.  I definitely need to improve my integrity, in this case, but I can remember at least ten times being so upset at the State that I mailed a protest letter, privately, despite the cost.

Finally, I'd like to share the ultimate defiance that one can do to avoid socialism--though the outcome may explain why I am not usually going to this extreme.  Many years ago, I decided that I had had it with socialism, so would completely avoid everything with even a hint of government being where it didn't belong.  I quit my job, bought a lot of food and drink, and camped out in my room.  I figured that since the roads and sidewalks are socialized, I was living the best life I could.  I unplugged everything electrical because they were public utilities, and disconnected my phone.  Well, my family became alarmed, and, in the end, the State put me in a mental hospital.  I guess I was too much of a threat to their concept of how government functions.

Now, I am not asking Americans to go to the extreme that I did in this last example.  But, if you can just identify several non-socialized alternatives to how you have been conducting your life, and eliminate completely your participation in easily avoidable socialism, it can go a long way towards advancing the cause of Capitalism.

Pay your bills electronically.  Don't send big packages through the USPS.  Buy bottled water.  Don't take classes at a government school.  Purchase an exercise bike so you don't have to jog down the street.  Avoid public parks and zoos.  Don't go to the local library.  Etc...

And, finally, I'd like to emphasize the crowning achievement of this cause if any of it still remains after the shutdown--Avoid Obamacare!

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Congress: Full Timers vs. Part Timers

     With nearly all of the Republican Representatives in the House voting to defund "Obamacare", there seems to be hope to reverse Obama's train wreck.  American medicine may yet be able to be saved.  The drastic increases you would be charged in what would be forced health insurance purchases,  that the "Affordable Care Act" mandates, may never come to be.  And, the vice on your employer that coerces him into cutting your hours to part time may be permanently removed.

This last piece of malice in Obama's law is what I would like to discuss in this blog.  Republicans in the House have had the majority for some time now, and yet have seemed to do little good.  However, with the destruction of "Obamacare", voters will find their spirits lifted, their morale restored, and optimism on the horizon.  Those Republicans who desire Congressional careers may get the votes required to reelect them to "full time" status in the political work that they do.  I call these politicians: Full Timers.

Obama's Democrats, on the other hand, are Part Timers with little political future.  They march lock-step in sync with the strangled, but at fault press, and fascist and commie speech writers behind the teleprompter.  They support your economic destruction.  They aim to mess with your employer to get him to cut you down to 29 hours a week.

The battle ahead will be intense.  I predict that it will be like a game of tennis with the Part Timer dominated Senate lobbing a pro-"Obamacare" ball back into the Full Timer dominated House, where they will have to vote together to try once more to save your job.  The best way for the Full Timers to win is for them to discover the moral politics of Ayn Rand who explained that the legitimate government functions include: the police, the military, and the court systems (and that's it!).

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Saturday, September 21, 2013

House Republicans Need Objectivist Philosophy

     I applaud the Republicans in the House of Representatives for defunding "Obamacare" today.  However, it is likely that the Senate will send the legislation back to them.  I saw an interview where Texas Senator Ted Cruz laid out a game plan that started with legislation to fund the military.  Philosophy is needed here; and it is the philosophy of Objectivism that stands alone as moral in the politics it offers.  To quote Ayn Rand:

"The only proper functions of government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to *objective* law."

Since Obama's goal is to destroy America, he will obviously try to shut down *legitimate* government, while pushing to keep open illegitimate government.  This must be understood.  Do not let him package group legitimate government with non-government.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Friday, September 20, 2013

The Greatest Gamble

     Imagine that you are a middle-aged man who has a perfect life.  You are intelligent.  You have had a good education.  You have a great job that pays well.  Your ability, effort, and fortune have enabled you to find a beautiful woman to marry and raise a nice family.

But, there is one lethal flaw to the family's metaphysical existence.  Both you and your wife have a genetic history of the same terminal disease.  There is a high probability that you and/or some of your family members will die from that illness.  There is no definitive cure; and the existing treatments can only delay it from killing you.

You and your family have it all in life, but for how long?  One day, you sit down with your wife and offer her a solution that is perhaps the greatest gamble that the family will ever make.

Your plan is to find a promising, pharmaceutical research company, and buy millions of shares of stock--then use your stockholder influence to steer some research effort into working on a cure for your nemesis.

I seek to do this in my own life.  My grandmother died from Parkinson's disease.  The hereditary nature of that illness means that I have a significant chance of getting it.  There is only limited treatment available that offers no cure.  Now, I don't have millions; but, what if I owned 100 shares of the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly? (Which I do).  And, what if I have picked a company that has been increasing research spending while much of the Pharma industry has been slashing R&D? (Which Eli Lilly's done).  Then, what if I campaigned for other investors, and the Eli Lilly company management, to fund one promising treatment that could result in a Parkinson's cure? (Which I just did).

If through my productive investment, I can save my own life in the future, that is, in my opinion, the highest, aesthetic achievement that one can obtain.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Eli Lilly: Investing in the Human Mind

     Businessmen have long recognized that the root of wealth is the productive mind.  They have sought out schools to improve education in the hope that more talented and intelligent graduates would seek employment at their businesses.  But, what too few have recognized is that certain medical companies play just as important a role in fostering intellectual ability as better education.  Eli Lilly (LLY) is a business that fits this model.

The innovation-driving, pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly (LLY), is the leader in two areas of mental efficacy.  It invented and sells the greatest mental health medicine ever created--a drug called Zyprexa.  And, as of last year, in the race to develop the first preventative medical treatment for Alzheimer's disease, Lilly's drug, Solanezumab, was the only advanced-tested medicine that showed experimental promise--while those of two competitors fell by the wayside.

Zyprexa is so great a drug that even Lilly's own research laboratories have been having trouble beating it's mental health champion.  Last year, Eli Lilly (LLY) issued a press release announcing that it is ending clinical studies of pomaglumetad methionil--a medicine that would have been a competitor in Zyprexa's market.  However, the research and testing continues.  Jan Lundberg, Ph.D., executive vice president, science and technology, and president of Lilly Research Laboratories reported, "...neuroscience remains a core area of focus at Lilly.  Our clinical development pipeline includes nearly a dozen neuroscience molecules being studied to treat illnesses such as depression, bipolar disorder and cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia."

As Eli Lilly (LLY) exploits the leads from its research and clinical observations in the fight against Alzheimer's disease, and, as the challenged, but determined, mental health researchers forge ahead to invent the human mind's better mouse-trap, shareholders may not only be investing in better products (as such), but the human mind, itself, and all the compounded economic effects that surge forth from that fountainhead of productivity and progress.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Eli Lilly's Quest to Cure Cancer

     Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) is a business that dates back to 1876.  Its founder, Colonel Eli Lilly, went into the pharmaceutical industry after his wife died of malaria, which had not been dealt with well here in the United States.  Having read three books about the company and its leadership, I believe that the driving goal of Colonel Lilly, in opening the business that he did, was to try to combat malaria so that other Americans would not suffer his loss.  In fact, one of Eli Lilly's first medicines produced was quinine which was used to treat malaria.

Considering that both Colonel Eli Lilly, and his son who ran the company for decades, died from cancer, Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) has been embarking on a massive quest to find treatments, and eventually a cure.  According to the lilly.com website:

As one of the top 10 oncology companies in the world, Lilly Oncology focuses on speeding innovation and improving outcomes for individual patients, and boasts one of the largest clinical pipelines in the oncology industry.

I counted 24 molecules being tested against cancer in either phase I or phase II of that pipeline, with 2 more nearly available to purchase.  Perhaps, one day the company will know that had the Lillys still been alive, the financial fruit of their efforts could have saved their own lives, as they will save so many more when curative drugs are placed on the market.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind