Politics and Insights from History

Here in the United States people believe that we have a privately run health care system. The fact is we do not. We have a third party payer system that is heavily regulated by the federal government. We also have government run health care. The majority of our health care system consists of numerous insurance companies. People pay an insurance company monthly premiums so that when they go to the doctor their insurance company will pay the cost. In the end, the individual still pays the cost of their medical needs. They just pay for it indirectly through an insurer.

One problem with paying for healthcare this way is the amount of paperwork that springs up in the billing department. Forms are filed with the insurance company concerning the visit to the doctor. The insurance investigates the claim. The hospital bills the insurance company and they decide how much they are willing to cover. Then a bill for the remaining amount is sent to the patient. All of this paper work between the doctor’s office and the insurance company adds up. Someone has fill out these insurance claims/billing forms, file it, send it, keep track of it, and be able to find it if there is an investigation concerning insurance fraud. The people who keep track of all this paperwork and the bureaucracy have to be paid.

Another problem with the third party payer system is that no one, not even doctors, know how much medical procedures, doctor’s visits, medical tests. or medications actually cost. Without that knowledge people end up paying for medical procedures, tests, and prescriptions they do not need. Since people do not pay for health care directly they end up paying for procedures and drugs they do not need. People will also take expensive drugs even when the generic is just as good, if not better.

The government is another third party payer when it comes to medical care. The government’s health insurance is accessible only to the elderly and the poor known as Medicare and Medicaid. Everyone pays for this health coverage through taxes including those who do not receive Medicare or Medicaid pay. Again, when a patient goes to the doctor they do not pay the cost of the visit up front. The doctor gives the bill to the billing department. They in turn bill the government, the government pays the hospital, which then pays the doctor. Again there are massive amounts of paper work for all of this and someone has to file it.

Let’s take a look at our first government run health care program: Medicare. Medicare is the government’s answer to providing health care to the elderly. It was first implemented in 1966. For over forty years anyone over 65 has been forced into this program. They have no choice. We are told that Medicare is essential for our elderly. That without it, they would not have access to health care. They would not be able to afford medical procedures and would end up on the streets in bankruptcy. The problem is, Medicare is bankrupt. The government keeps it limping along with their ventilator of taxpayer money.

There are two parts to Medicare. Part A is the mandatory program that everyone 65 and over must enroll in. It is the program that most are familiar with. Part A provides premium free coverage for old folks. It also covers hospital stays and limited follow up services. Mandatory payroll taxes finance Part A. This tax was implemented based on the government’s estimates of how much this program would cost. But the government couldn’t account for the exploding costs of Medicare. There are more people in the program than there are those able to pay taxes. The reasons for these mounting costs is the expansion of Medicare’s benefits, inflation, increased used of medical facilities, and a far bigger aging population than anticipated. With the baby boomers approaching retirement, the funding for Medicare will not be enough to cover the costs of their medical bills.

Part B is the other portion of Medicare and one few know about. It is voluntary for those over 65. This program provides supplemental insurance with a $100 deductible to Part A. Those enrolled pay a monthly premium. In 1995 their premium was $46.10. This premium only covered 29% of the cost, the rest is paid for by the taxpayer. Physician services, lab tests, outpatient hospital services, and other medical services are covered by the Part B program. But even with Part B, it is not enough to cover all the costs of the medical care provided for the elderly.[i]

Most of the costs for Medicare are wrapped up on the bureaucracy that constitutes it. These bureaucracies are minute in the private sector. Bureaucracies follow every government program and always increase the costs of these programs. There is a lot of paper work associated with Medicare as hospitals must file with agencies in the government, and those files are sent to other agencies, and so on.

Just like socialized medicine of other countries, Medicare relies on price controls. Controlling the costs of something does negate its actual cost. Price controls undermine the value of a doctor’s labor and the procedures used. It also forces the costs of medical procedures to be shifted. These price controls do not control the rate at which Medicare costs have grown. In 1995, medical inflation increased by 4.7%, but employer health premiums decreased by 1.1%. But Medicare had grown by about 10% and its costs are expected to continue to rise. This is not a healthy combination.[ii]

Because of rising costs, Medicare rations its benefits. There is no freedom in Medicare to choose your benefits. It is a one size fits all program, just like every other welfare program. Medicare decides whether a patient receives a medical procedure or not. If you need chemotherapy, but the government thinks you are too old, or that it will cost too much, Medicare simply denies payment for such procedures and you are left with the bill, or no chemo. The older you get, the less Medicare covers your medical costs. Medicare lacks catastrophic coverage. Something routinely found in private insurance plans. Other aspects of medicine denied by Medicare are: preventative screenings, routine physical exam, home nursing care, smoking cessation, and home physician visits.[iii]

Another fallacy of Medicare is its resistance to innovation. Government always stifles innovation. All of our greatest inventions were done by individuals who worked on their own time with their own money and refused government help. When has the government ever invented something that benefitted mankind? Medicare is run by the HCFA (Health Care Financing Administration). HCFA issues hundreds of pages of regulations and thousands of pages of guidelines to manage every aspect of Medicare. No one can breathe under all of these regulations. HCFA decides guidelines for every piece of medical equipment and whether each new device or procedure meets its criteria for coverage under Medicare. This makes it impossible to implement new equipment for medical procedures. Medicare also refuses to reimburse hospitals for using new medical practices or prescribing new drugs. Because of this, doctors do not prescribe drugs new on the market, nor do they conduct tests or medical practices that involve new equipment. The old folks in this country are denied access to innovations in medicine because Medicare will not pay for it and they can’t pay for it themselves.

Medicare is the second largest entitlement program in the United States. Social Security is the first. Like Social Security, Medicare has no money. Medicare is paid for through payroll taxes on employees, self-employed, and employers. But taxes alone do not provide enough money to pay for it, despite an increase in taxes. The government is left with diverting funds from other programs or areas of the federal budget to cover the remaining costs. But this only buys time for an already failed program.

Many believe that the revenue raised for Medicare go in a trust fund, just like Social Security. But there is no trust fund. There never was. (Social Security has no trust fund either.) All revenue generated for Medicare is immediately spent. Most of the benefits received by the elderly exceed what they paid in their payroll taxes. The cost of Medicare continues to grow faster than the economy. They will continue to rise even in this recession. The amount taken from you to pay for Medicare go to someone else or pays for the amount of paperwork that is processed. It will never be spent on you. By the time you are eligible for Medicare, it will not be able to cover your medical needs.

An interesting thing to note is that not everyone is forced into Medicare. Federal employees and members of Congress are exempt from Medicare. Instead they are allowed to receive better health insurance plan that is privately run. They are enrolled in the FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan). This is partly why Congress refuses to fix Medicare. They have no incentive to since they are exempted from their own government run health care program.

Medicaid is the other government run health insurance plan. It too is bankrupt. Medicaid is for the poor, those who are under 65 but cannot afford private insurance. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is run on both the federal and the state level. Medicaid is also paid for by taxes. This is no surprise. Most of our taxes goes toward funding programs such as, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and other welfare entitlement programs. These also make up the biggest spending areas of the federal budget. The cost of Medicaid is increasing at an exponential rate. The federal government cannot generate enough money from taxpayers to keep it running so they divert funds from other parts of the federal budget.

In 2003 13% of federal spending went to Medicaid. By 2015 it will consume 2% of the U.S. GDP.[iv] Between 1995 and 2005 Medicaid doubled in cost. Medicaid isn’t only expensive for the federal government but also for the states. By 2003 Medicaid surpassed education has the biggest expenditure of their spending. 22% of state budgets go toward Medicaid.[v]

Medicaid does vary from state to state in how it is run and in what is covered. The federal government requires certain mandatory coverage, but the states choose whether to go beyond that. Two thirds of Medicaid’s spending is on services that the federal government classifies as optional. Like Medicare, Medicaid is plagued by a bureaucracy that welcomes wasteful spending. Typical with most government programs, the people suffer.

Medicaid does not fully reimburse doctors for treating patients that are insured through it. It does not cover the entire cost of prescription drugs, nor can it. Medicaid is forced to cut its benefits in order to save on its expenses. Its reimbursements continue to decrease while its bureaucracy continues to grow. Because of this, many physicians refuse to treat people who are insured through Medicaid. A physician is more likely to be paid for their service by private insurers than by Medicaid. This forces them to stop accepting new Medicaid patients.

As with Medicare, many beneficiaries of Medicaid do not have access to prescription drugs. Doctors have to wait for permission to prescribe medication to those on Medicaid. This means that many wait for drugs they desperately need, if they ever get them in the first place. Even if a patient manages to be OK’ed for prescription drugs, limits are placed on the amount they can receive. Preventative medicine and procedures are denied to many Medicaid patients because Medicaid cannot afford to pay it.

Both Medicare and Medicaid reflect what happens with government run healthcare. The government cannot afford to keep these programs going, but they do so anyway at the risk of bankrupting the nation. Taxpayers can only pay so much to fund these two programs. Even if people paid 100% of their income in taxes, it still would not be enough to cover the costs. As a result, the government passes the expenses onto the private sector. This is why premiums of private insurance companies are increasing. Insurance companies are forced to pay for the government’s insurance plan.

Basically, there are three ways people pay for their medical needs. Below is a simplified diagram:

1. You-à pay doctor directly

2. Youà pay monthly premiums to insurance company-à pay billing department-à pay doctor

3. Youà pay taxes to government-à federal bureaucracy-à state bureaucracy-à county/local bureaucracy-à billing department-à pay doctor

The more people there are between you, the patient, and the doctor, the higher the medical costs. Prices always increase when there is a middleman. The U.S.’s current healthcare system can have up to whole groups, buildings, and offices of middlemen. All of whom want their cut of the profits.

President Obama wants to make sure that every American has health coverage, provided by the government of course. This means universal health care. This idea is not new. Many in Congress have been pushing for socialized medicine for the past two decades, or more. Sweden and Great Britain were two of the first western countries to institute state run health care. They have had government run health care since 1948. Over the decades other nations such as, New Zealand, Australia, Cuba, and Canada have all instituted government run healthcare.
Sweden is often referred as a country that has the most equalization. It’s true, if you believe in equal results rather than equal opportunity. Sweden is the most socialist country in the world. And they have state run health care. Many people look to Sweden as an example for how a healthcare system should be run. After all they provide the best healthcare to all of their citizens. They have equal coverage, equal access, high quality care, a longer life expectancy than in the U.S., and their health care is free.
But if Sweden’s health system is so great, then why are they privatizing parts of it? The reality is their health system is fading. Proponents for universal care point out that Sweden’s experiment with profit driven health care is not working. They are right. But not because competition fails. The reason for its failure is that the bits of privatization in Sweden’s health care system are not truly private. They are still heavily regulated by the government.
Sweden only spends about 8.4% of their GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on their health care. But GDP alone is not a measure of how well a country is performing. Health care in Sweden suffers from increase costs, lack of doctors, and long waiting lines. In a ten year period, 1980-1990, the cost of Sweden’s healthcare rose by 145%. Despite price controls on the cost of drugs, doctor visits, and medical procedures, the cost of healthcare in Sweden is increasing.
Sweden suffers from long waiting lists. Patients stand in long lines to see a doctor. Security guards are common in their clinics to ensure there are no riots. They also refuse to let new people enter if the clinic is full. Patients are denied newer, better medicines because they cost more than the older prescriptions. Patients are denied the option of paying for prescription drugs themselves because it would cause “unequal access”.
Great Britain was one of the first countries of western culture to institute nationalized healthcare. They have had it since 1948. The people there suffer from long lines, denied medical procedures, denied drugs, and inferior equipment. English hospitals are routinely over crowded causing a shortage of beds, which in turn means that patients are turned away. Overcrowded hospitals increase the risk of infections spreading from patient to patient. It is reported that at least 7,000 patients suffer from infections and that 5,000 of those die from them. One of the reasons for overcrowded hospitals is England’s attempt to cut the waiting lines. They have passed reforms to cut back on the time people spend waiting to have surgery or see a specialist. There are many stories about patients not receiving the care they need. Many cancer patients are unable to see a surgeon or receive the medication they need.
And then there’s Canada. Our neighbor to the north. Everyone talks about Canada’s health whether they are pro or con nationalization of health care. Canada spends about 10% of their GDP on health care. We see news reports about how Canadians love their health care system. They’re smiling. They cannot understand us Americans and why we resist such a great system. People only wait 30 minutes at a clinic to see a doctor. They don’t have to pay for the visit or the prescription. They don’t pay for surgery. Canadians do not pay for one cent of their healthcare needs. At least, this is what we are told. And this is what many people believe. The truth is, Canada’s health care is not free. It never was. Canadians do pay for their health care. They just pay for it indirectly through taxes.
At least 22% of all taxes collected go to health care in Canada. Canadians pay an income and sales tax and employer based premiums to generate revenue for their healthcare. In 2005 citizens from Ontario pay 40% of their tax dollars toward healthcare and the figure is on the rise. The costs are borne by the federal and provincial levels in Canada. But lately Canada’s federal government has had to cut back on how much they spend on healthcare. Much of the responsibility is being shifted to the provinces. Of all the industrialized countries that have universal healthcare, Canada spends the most. But it ranks at the bottom for access to healthcare, according to the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). “It is 17th out of 20 for its doctor/patient ratio—only 1.8 doctors per 1,000 citizens, 17th for availability of CAT scanners, and 18th for MRIs.” Here is a table of average wait times:

Wait Time (Weeks) Procedure Waiting For
16.5                                    Time between referral from a general practitioner & treatment
8.5                                      To see a radiation oncologist
5.2                                      For a CT scan
12.4                                    For and MRI
3.2                                      For an ultrasound
20                                       Time between seeing specialist to surgery for hip replacement (after waiting
13 weeks to see the specialist in the first place)

(Houston Kerri, Acces Denied: Canada’s Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims, December 2003, The Center For Civic, Family, and Social Progress Policy Perspectives, vol. 10, Issue 6. http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf (I put the figures in a table to make them easier to read.)

Canada also suffers from long lines, lack of access to newer and better technology, hospital beds, and prescriptions medication. However, Canada also suffers from a shortage of physicians. Doctors are leaving Canada. They cannot charge more than what the state allows for their services meaning that they are paid the same no matter how many patients they see or the quality of care they provide. Sometimes doctors have to send payment back to the government because they saw more patients than what the government mandated they could tend. As a result, doctors quit caring about their patients’ well-being. There’s no need to. Those physicians who truly want to help people have been prevented from doing so. In the 1990s roughly 10,000 Canadian doctors left the country.
On top of doctors leaving, there are few replacements graduating from medical schools. The Canadian government has put limits on the amount of enrollments for medical schools. Only 1,530 people graduated from Canadian medical schools in 2002. There are not enough doctors to replace those who leave or retire. Ontario alone claims that “nearly 80% of its regional communities are listed by the provincial government as being ‘underserviced’ due to physician shortages”.
Prescription drug coverage in Canada is no better. Drug prices are controlled by the state. Drugs are also approved by the government. This makes it difficult to get newer drugs on the market since in an effort to control cost the government will not approve them. These new drugs may be more effective, but they are also more expensive. Canadians only have access to the drugs allowed by the government. Even if they are willing to pay for the medicine themselves, they are not allowed to buy it. So, many Canadians come to the United States for their medicine. Another problem with mandated drugs by the state is that the government can change a person’s prescription to something more generic and cheaper without consulting the patient or the physician. Many Canadian are hospitalized because of a sudden change in their prescription and the side effects that occur. Drugs are not cheaper in Canada. They appear to be because of price controls, but their prices are higher than what we pay in the United States.

But let’s look at a modern day example of how complete government control ruins nations and cripples people. Take Mugabe the dictator of Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe, who is a Marxist, became president of Zimbabwe in 1980,[i] a tile he has never relinquished even after a presidential election that took place in March 2008.[ii] Before Mugabe, Zimbabwe had been a very wealthy country. The most affluent in all of Africa. Since Mugabe’s takeover, Zimbabwe has sunk into economic collapse. Mugabe has spent his whole career preaching discrimination against whites and getting rid of any vestige of western influence from colonial days. The result: suffering and destitution.

Mugabe systematically took control of everything. He took over the media, law enforcement, schools and the army. Then he took over the economy by redistributing farmland, taking from white farmers and giving to poor blacks. Misled by his rhetoric of moderate reform and his promise to not change Zimbabwe or hurt it’s prosperity, many of these white farmers bought their land after Mugabe became president.

Starting in 2000, Mugabe used his army to forcefully remove whites from their farms, land they owned and worked. These farm owners sendured violent attacks. Some were killed. Their families suffered as well. Some even had children taken hostage. Mugabe then gave that land to blacks, but not any of the blacks that worked or managed the farm under the white landowner. They were thrown out on the streets. These new land owners didn’t know the first thing about running a farm causing it to fall into disarray as production ceased. Zimbabwe has very fertile land, but that land is cultivated by incompetent idiots all in the name of racial justice.

With the destruction of agricultural productivity, Zimbabwe’s exports fell, causing income from those exports to stagger. The country plunged into poverty. Warehouses that once held grain are now empty. People who used to have homes now live in slums and shabbily put together huts. What cattle haven’t been killed by the starving masses for food wander the countryside, much of which have hoof and mouth disease. Hospitals are falling apart and provide substandard medical care. Rampant outbreaks of cholera have killed many people. Those with AIDs have no access to medication. Those who have not died of disease die of starvation. Zimbabwe is now entirely dependent on foreign aid.

In an effort to attack the crippling economy, Mugabe issued edict after edict. There are so many laws in Zimbabwe no one can do anything for fear of breaking one. These laws only treat the symptoms of economic collapse. Not the root cause. (Sound familiar?) The true cause of Zimbabwe’s problem is Mugabe himself and his expansion of government into every aspect of people’s lives. His redistribution of wealth in the name of fairness or justice caused rapid inflation and weakened the currency. Zimbabwe has the highest inflation rate in the world. Compare it to the inflation rate of others countries at the height if there economic downturns.

Source: Prof. Steve H. Hanke, February 5, 2009.[iii]

Mugabe’s takeover of schools has increased the literacy rate of children. But the good news ends there. Children are taught hatred of whites, and foreigners. They are taught to fire weapons, build bombs, and to be good little soldiers that worship Mugabe. They are turned into his own, private militia who are then used to pull white farmers off their land, harass the people as the wait in food lines, and crush dissenting opinion and political enemies.

In the twenty years since his seizure of power, Mugabe has managed to take one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and turn it into the most poverty stricken. Africa’s golden gem is now dead weight, a parasite.

Zimbabwe is not the only country whose economy was destroyed by government confiscation of power and a dictator’s disregard for the welfare of the people. We still have Cuba, Sudan, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia and the list goes on.

You should notice a pattern here. Whenever a government becomes too powerful, the people suffer. We lose our freedoms, the wealthy are punished and the poor remain poor. Stalin destroyed the kulak farming class, who were quite wealthy. Hitler shut down the successful businesses of Jews. In Uganda, Idi Amin removed the wealthy Indian commercial class. Mugabe purged his country from rich, white farm owners. And now Obama wants to decide how much money CEOs can make and has taken over the auto industry. The similarities are frightening!

Obama is too much like past and present dictators. He has control of the major media. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and all of their offshoots have voluntarily thrown their support to him and report whatever he wants. If you watch these networks closely, you will notice how they paint Obama like a god, they almost always give him favorable coverage, they refuse to call his takeover of what used to be private industries for what it is, and they spend most of their time distracting the public by fawning over how good he looks in a suit and how great Michelle Obama’s arms are. You do not find much in the way of dissenting opinion. The only areas where true freedom of the press is still practiced are Fox News, talk radio, and the internet.

That can easily change. Obama, Pelosi, and other liberals want to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, which is nothing more than censorship. Obama’s appointment of a cyber czar is an attempt to control the internet. He can give excuse after excuse for why we need the government to monitor the internet, but the real reason is to control it, to control the people.

Obama passed his stimulus bill which greatly expanded the size of government, took over the auto industry, the banks, and is trying to force individual states to take money from the federal government. Obama has decreed that only environmentally friendly cars are to be manufactured in the U.S. His administration has decided how much CEOs can earn by putting caps on their income. Obama is now pushing health care reform, which is little more than government run health care. They already decide the quality of health for the elderly. The government owns the education system. It owns your retirement plan. Obama wants to redistribute wealth to bring what he and other liberals call social justice. Class warfare is how they gained power and how they keep it.

The federal government has steadily grown in size since the days of F.D.R. Barack Obama has managed to outdo that by increasing its size at an exponential rate.

Observe the events of the last five months. As you do, think about Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, Castro, Idi Amin, and every other dictator the world has seen. Think of the French Revolution where class warfare was taken to the extreme as the peasantry slaughtered the aristocracy. Robespierre used the anger of the poor to gain power. Thomas Jefferson said of Robespierre, “The rich were his victims, and perished by the thousands.”[iv]

Obama is doing the same by constantly talking about the amount of unemployed in this country and demonizing the rich. If he succeeds in his ambitions, we will all suffer a loss of our freedoms and an economic collapse. We will become a third world country. Obama, like all liberals, is a parasite. Like all parasites, he takes a healthy body, or in this case a nation, and turns it into an ailing corpse. He feeds off of people’s fears, desperation, and anger.

Obama’s announcement for the need of a cyber czar is another in a long list of endeavors to seize power from the people. He uses the fear of terrorism to win our support for this newly created post. But what we really have to fear is not terrorism, but our own government and Barak Obama.

Obama’s appointment of a cyber czar, and his other government take overs, are very similar to what has happened from past dictators.  Two most notable examples are Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Hitler was elected by the German people.  With his foot in the door, he was well able to take over the German governmnet.  After securing his power with the Nazi win of the Reichstag election, Adolf Hitler outlawed Communist/Socialist writings and took control of all radio stations. This made it where his propaganda was heard and no dissenting views. Afterwards he proceeded to outlaw the Weimar Constitution of Germany and got rid of any rivals securing his power as dictator of Germany.

Here Hitler began taking control of the social and economical aspects of Germany. He outlawed religion replacing it with the worship of the Third Reich and its leader, him. He controlled the media so the people were unable to have access to any views other than those supported by the state. He provided jobs for the German people by outlawing the Jews from working. Many Germans were also sent to work in public works projects or conscripted in the German Army. Hitler also took over the education system in the country by requiring all children to be involved in the Hitler Youth where they received a steady dose of indoctrination and became good little Nazis. As Hitler changed the German identity and formed the country into what he thought it should be, the German people found themselves with less freedom and no security. Any dissent was squashed by the Gestapo. If suspected of helping a Jew a person and his entire family would be arrested without charge and without warrant. The people quickly discovered that they had been duped by Hitler and the Nazi Party. Hitler promised change and restoration of Aryan glory. The people voted for him as they were desperate for change.

The same thing happened in Russia. Life under the Czars was no picnic. Many people lived in poverty. They were sick and tired. So along come Lenin, and the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks won their revolution, Czar Nikolas and his family were killed and Lenin became the leader of Russia, which was renamed the USSR.

Lenin pushed his communist agenda through economic means. He nationalized all farms making it where the state owned all of the land in the country, the farmers were just allowed to work on it. They took what they thought was excess food and purchased crop at such low prices that the farmers lived in poverty. Some burned their crops and destroyed livestock rather than have it all go to the government. They were severely punished. Lenin also took over ownership of industry and abolished all private trade. Workers were paid with food ration cards instead of cash and even then it was never enough to feed a family.

The result of these two economic changes was continued poverty for the Russian people and famine. So Lenin had to change his policy slightly allowing ownership of private industry.

When Stalin took over the USSR he set about modernizing it. It is because of Stalin the Russia became industrialized, however, everything was owned by the state. He repealed any private ownership allowed by Lenin. He instituted a State Planning Commission which issued orders to industries, small businesses, and farms. In an effort to increase food production, Stalin had all farm collectivized. Farmers pooled their resources and labor, whatever crops produced were sold to the government at less than market price. Any surpluses they were allowed to keep and share among themselves.

Stalin had three five year plans he used to achieve his goals of industrializing the USSR. Though his plan did create roads, dams, and infrastructure necessary in the Soviet Union, it took its toll on the people. People worked in harsh conditions, punished severely for absenteeism, and paid little. This influx of forced industrialization forced many people to move into the cities where there was inadequate housing, poor medical facilities and schools. Consumer goods were in short supply, shops were empty, clothing was scarce, and everyday household items were nowhere to be found. Basically, the standard of living under Stalin’s five year plan fell as people were forced to live in a lower state of poverty than they did under the Czars.

Stalin also took over education. Children were required to go to government run schools where they learned to be good communists. There were also taught to spy on their family, their friends, and anyone they came across. Children made excellent informers when someone refused to worship the state or voiced their discontent with Stalin.

It was only a matter of time until President Obama took over the internet by appointing a Cyber Czar. The name couldn’t be more fitting. Czars are in complete control of things and answer to no one. This Cyber Czar will answer only to Obama, not Congress, not the courts and certainly not the people. In fact the people have no say in this.

Obama says that the cyber czar will monitor online threats from terrorists and keep our internet networks safe. Admirable, but the government already has securities measures in place to keep our internet software safe. “It’s now clear this cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation,” Obama said, adding, “We’re not as prepared as we should be, as a government or as a country.”[i] Obama fails to mention who will be heading this new position and whom he will answer to. Another problem is the chance of this being abused. Too often people have been given positions of great power, such as this, and abused it. This is nothing more than another expansion of the federal government. Once it starts it does not end. We have witnessed this pattern for the last 40 years.

Obama is attempting to frighten the people into giving the government more power. Whenever he opens his mouth and attempts to sell the us on the idea of more government control, he poses a crisis. First it was the auto industry heading toward bankruptcy. Obama promised that if we allowed the federal government to give billions of dollars that it doesn’t have to GM, Chrysler, and Ford then we would save the American auto industry and be spared from an impending crisis. Well, GM and Chrysler have both declared bankruptcy, our money is gone. Obama expanded the power of the government and prevented nothing. He has also presented us with other crises: Americans have no access to health care, global warming rampant, a mounting deficit. His solution: government run health care (it has never worked in any country that implemented it), Cap and Tax (i.e. cape and trade), and introduce more taxes (while at the same time spending uncontrollably).

But we have another threat. A more sinister and dangerous plot. A major crisis! The terrorists might use our digitalized services and our internet against us! Our online services: banking, bill paying, etc. are not safe. Our way of life may be at risk. So Obama dons his red cape and swoops in to save us from another crisis. He will appoint someone to monitor the internet for such threats. Ladies and Gentlemen, do you honestly think that our way of life, our usage of cyber space will be any safer with the government in control of the internet?

We have become so afraid as a society that we are allowing the federal government to assume whatever powers they want because we have been duped into believing it will protect us. We run to our congressmen, our president, even our justices whenever we stub our toe. As a society we fear losing what we have that we allow the government to expand its “protective” arm over us. Just one problem: the government never holds its end of the bargain. When governments get as big and powerful as ours, we will lose everything that we hope to protect. I do not mean material wealth, though we will lose that too. But most importantly we will lose our freedom to do as we choose, to strive for a better life, and to just live. Benjamin Franklin wisely said, “Those that give up liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He is absolutely right.

Oh, Obama assures us that the new czar will not monitor private networks or email accounts, nor will he dictate to private businesses how they will conduct their affairs or tighten their digital security. But we have heard these assurances before from past dictators. Remember Hitler, Stalin. They promised their people that there was nothing to fear from the government. The government was going to right wrongs and improve their lives. Millions of innocent lives paid for those assurances.