Intentions and Results

    

I get into discussions with people about the intentions of this bill or that and on most occasions I get to speak to them on the results or potential results of them too. I think it is a vital part of discussion of politics to include dialogue on intentions versus results.

     Social programs make up the majority of this discussion as it is their intention that becomes favorable or unfavorable to the public in the beginning and their result becoming the focus of numerous debates, reforms and legislative shouting matches. There is some difference too in the intentions of these programs that should be noted. The intention that is sold to the people, the commercialized face of social progress or for the good of the community is the most common form of this public form of false intent. The intent that resides in the lawmakers when these programs are thought of and drawn up is that of control. Everything the government creates is for the sole purpose of control. That is the difference in intent I mean to speak of.

     

     The results of these programs come much later and are either promulgated or denounced by political sides and ideologies.  These results will inherently be felt by the public as the face of the intent wears off and the strain of compliance becomes clearer.

PPACA

     President Obama's signature healthcare and health insurance program is the most recent example of this discussion and as such I will address this first.

This is not the first incarnate of national healthcare or mandated health insurance in America but it could become the last.

     The "public face" intent in this legislation is affordable care, as its name tries to sell it. Personally this intent is somewhat good, it is an admirable goal for people to attain affordable insurance, but the result and other end of the intent, the hidden intent, are what make these mandates, regulations and restrictions a real horrendous failure in social planning.

     

     The unseen intent of the bureaucrats and lawmakers is that of power and control. When mandated to “Do as we say or else” becomes normal and accepted the lawmakers have gained control of the people and the markets.  The intent of these “Authority figures” is power. Power of the people, power over their choice, power over their money and power over their bodies is what is intended by these mandates and laws.

     The result of these new Healthcare mandates will become clearer as time progresses. Some of what we have seen in the weeks since its implementation is people being dropped or cancelled from their private insurance plans, as these plans do not meet the standards, or regulations of the PPACA. We have seen insurance rates skyrocket for some as well as stories of people who could not get insurance before due to preexisting conditions or other faults.  As it is all premature as of now we cannot say with certainty what the future holds for these laws. My personal views are that the PPACA will fail by design; it will usher in single payer insurance, one where the federal government has all authority over the medical and insurance markets as well as the health and well being of all residents. But as I said this is all speculative.

     I don’t want to leave on a bad note and want to provide with some sort of solution, even if it is only my personal view and can be taken as such. I wrote in another Blog post on one way we as citizens can fight this law and we can win. Former President Bill Clinton laid out the plan for the collapse of the health insurance mandates. He said at a conference that if young healthy people do not sign up and reduce the cost for the older and more at risk persons this whole plan will fail. That is precisely the plan of attack this nation needs to take, Non- Compliance.

SOCIAL SECURITY

     Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt the Social Security system came into existence and its mandated compliance into the program. The systems publicly sold intent is somewhat admirable, to ensure older citizens can retain a standard of living after they have retired from employment. First let me say this, It is of no importance to anyone else what an individual saves for their own retirement, especially any sort of government.

     The problem with the public sold intent is that it has been ingrained in the minds of every generation since its creation to protect this social institution at all costs. The truth about the system is it is broke, it is coercive and it is susceptible to government fraud and theft as has been seen by previous presidential administrations.

     I don’t think it needs to be restated what the underlying intent is, Power to the Bureaucrats, to the State. This is the core intentions for almost every single piece of legislation that any size government will propose or pass.

     So what is the end result? The results since the creation of this system has been duly noted dozens of times. Under various administrations we have seen the Social Security System held hostage in quarrels over power or procedure of the legislative and executive branches of government. We have had the system bankrupted to provide an appearance of a $0 deficit. We have had the system being used for the use of fraud. It has given power to government to coerce the other political side to sway or give on certain issues or bills, it has been used to anger the people it was designed to try and help.

     My view on the system differs from most and differs from the standpoint of both major political parties. If we are to have a system designed to help those in their later years maintain a standard of living, first we need to maintain that standard of living as best we can. With the inflation of our national currency by the Federal Reserve System we simply cannot do this. Second point for a healthy savings plan is to make it voluntary, Social Security is forced from your paycheck and stuck in an account you cannot access without government approval, that doesn't sound like a very good example of a free country, or the protection of private property rights. Lastly I would have to say is that through the use of “entitlements” and “welfare” we have done away with the giving, charitable spirit of most Americans. We simply allow these down trodden people to submit to their government for a paycheck written from the backs and sweat of the producing people, this cannot be maintained for a long time.

WELFARE, SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, FOOD STAMPS AND OTHER SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

     There are a multitude of other programs that the Federal, State, and local governments will employ in the name of community wellness and poverty reduction. Each one of these programs are always run with the funding being extracted by force and redistributed. Each one of these programs comes with the same intent, both public and hidden, as well as the results, usually failed programs with more victims and creating more dependents.

     A quote comes to mind from a friend of mine, John Yowan says this, “Philanthropy through force is theft”, I think this statement best sums up the current administration of these programs. I am a firm believer in this motto, “What cannot be or is not achieved by voluntary contract between consenting parties should never be forced by the hand of government.”

Keeping with the intentions and results of social programs Ron Paul says this,"Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty.  This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge.  But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.  Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions.  The results are always negative."