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

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

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

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

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

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