Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
It is not often that I link to the American Conservative Magazine but I found this article very interesting. Real libertarians do not demand labor protectionism, bigger government bureaucracies and a police state on the border.
According to Lou Dobbs, "a third of the prison population in this country is estimated to be illegal aliens," and Glenn Beck regularly warns of "an illegal alien crime wave." Congressman Tom Tancredo insists, "The face of illegal immigration on our borders is one of murder, one of drug smuggling, one of vandalism for all the communities along the border, and one of infiltration of people coming into this country for purposes to do us great harm." Michelle Malkin adds an even more terrifying note, calling our borders "open channels not only for illegal aliens and drug smugglers, but terrorists, too." Even as far back as 2000, the highly regarded General Social Survey found that 73 percent of Americans believed that immigration caused higher crime rates, a level of concern considerably greater than fears about job losses or social unity.
Get yer Baileys out! Longtime Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey will be making two speaking appearances in the greater New York City area next week, at Princeton Univ. and at The New York Salon.
In 1995, Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Harry Browne wrote a book called Why Government Does Not Work. In it, he wrote his take on issues and offered his proposals on how to solve this nation's challenges. What caught my eye at the time was his proposal in reforming Health Care. I was thinking about his solutions recently when Barack Obama had his Health Care summit at the Blair House.
On March 3rd, 1882 Charles Ponzi, the creator of our modern Social Security system was born. The Ponzi Scheme is now used to describe any scam that pays early investors returns from the investments of later investors.
Today, I was watching and hearing the Barack Obama Health Care Summit. Republicans and Democrats sat down and discussed the present Health Care bill supported by the President and what they liked and disliked about it all. What caught my eye and ears, was when some members of Congress used sob stories and emotionalism to convince that those who were opposed were "ugly," "insensitive" and "mean-spirited." Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) used a sob story of a farmer who wrote to his office stating that the farmer had difficulty paying for his insurance and for those who work under him (it was later discovered that the farmer in question was a relative of one of the Senator's political aides). Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) used a story of a woman in her district that wrote to her stating that because she cannot afford health insurance, she had to use her dead sister's false teeth instead of getting her own pair. There were other sob stories that were presented at the summit and after a while, I felt nauseous.
By DEREK HARPER Staff Writer, Press of Atlantic City
Municipalities and schools will no longer be able to charge more for copies of public records than what it costs to copy them, a state appeals court recently ruled.
Open-records advocates applauded the decision.
“You couldn’t possibly say the cost comes out to 75 cents a page” said John Paff, chairman of the New Jersey Libertarian Party’s Open Government Advocacy Project. “As a libertarian, I know government is inefficient, but I would hope that New Jersey governments can produce a photocopy at least within 10 times the cost of a private vendor.”
Richard A. Lee, Director of Communications for the Hall Institute of Public Policy – New Jersey, has 30 years of professional experience in journalism and public relations. At the Hall Institute, he is responsible for media relations and all promotional and marketing activities. He also conducts research and writes papers for the institute, focusing on media, government and politics.
Having been in the room eight years ago when the State House Press Corps staged a mini-revolt in reaction to the McGreevey Administration’s attempt to set a new set of ground rules for a press briefing on the state’s fiscal condition, I must admit I was mildly amused to learn that history seems to have repeated itself in the early days of the Christie Administration.
Back in 2002, reporters walked out of a budget briefing when they were told they could not tape record the session nor could they quote by name the officials who would be outlining the issue and answering questions.
Fast forward to 2010 and the special address on the state’s budget crisis that Governor Christie delivered to the Legislature last week. According to Sunday’s Star-Ledger, the Governor’s staffers insisted that reporters refrain from using tape recorders and from quoting those conducting the briefing by name. The ground rules didn’t sit any better with the press corps this time around, but apparently a compromise of sorts was reached. Reporters were allowed to record the session, but still could not identify the officials giving the briefing.
What makes this case of déjà vu all the more intriguing is that Christie and McGreevey are on opposite ends of the political world – and that this is not an isolated similarity.
Shortly after he was elected in November, Christie tapped David Samson to head his transition committee — the same David Samson whom McGreevey chose as his Attorney General eight years earlier.
Guttenberg is latest to repeal 'outdated' loitering and disorderly persons ordinances
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
By KARINA L. ARRUE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
GUTTENBERG - Loiterers and loafers here are getting a break. The town recently repealed two ordinances - one for loitering and another for disorderly persons - that are considered out of date. Other towns with similar ordinances on the books are being asked to repeal them as well.
The two ordinances were tossed at the request of the New Jersey Libertarian Party's Preempted Ordinance Repeal Project, which has successfully had such ordinances removed in dozens of municipalities throughout the state.
There are people in the U.S. that are connoisseurs of wines, soft drinks, guns, food, music, books, television movies and shows, as well as cheese. Me? I am a connoisseur of cars and trucks. I love all kinds of motor vehicles: Classics, Multi make, domestic and foreign.
