Virginia Libertarian

NBC 12 - Virginia News - Wal-Mart health-care case set in Richmond

Wal-Mart health-care case set in Richmond
From NBC12 News
A case that would require Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care will be heard in Richmond today.Maryland lawmakers voted earlier this year to require non-government employers with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or pay the difference in taxes.

A federal judge stuck down the measure, saying it was against federal law. Maryland officials are now appealing.

Pay the difference in taxes?!?  What was the state of Maryland going to provide them with benefits from that money?  Somehow I doubt it.  Now it looks like Richmond is trying to be just as stupid.  Why is the state getting involved in private contracts between individuals and corporations?  The state doesn’t mandate that when I buy groceries that I spend X% on vegetables (though that may be coming soon).  The good news is that the feds struck this down, I hadn’t heard that until now.

FDA OKs wide sales of silicone breast implants - Yahoo! News

Silicone breast implants will be widely available in the United States for the first time in 14 years after U.S. health officials approved sales by two companies on Friday.

 Britain may restrict heart pump use

“Although we believe that the devices have been developed sufficiently to prolong life for some very sick patients who have rapidly deteriorating heart failure, we don’t feel they’ve been developed quite enough yet for widespread use among the whole heart failure population,” said lead researcher Linda Sharples of Britain’s National Health Service.

Shouldn’t the use or sale of these items be driven by the market, not by government regulations?  I can understand people wanting to prevent fraud in this area, as it can be life-threatening, but do we really think that the government can do a better job at this than the private market?  I mean, look at the way doctors licenses are handled.  A bad doctor can just move from state to state, continuing to practice medicine while the governments records never catch up to them.  What recourse do we have against the government not being on top of things?  None.  We need a private group that is funded by the people using the service (patients in the case of doctors), so that it is in the groups best interest to stay on top of things.  The AMA/ADA is a joke, as it is run and funded by the very doctors/dentists that it is supposedly watching.  Can you say conflict of interest everyone?  I knew you could.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Working Mothers Need the Free Market, Too

“Why,” Elizabeth asked, “has so little been done on issues like paid maternity leave; safe, affordable child care; and flexible work schedules?”I understand her pain. Elizabeth has a lot of responsibility: a full-time job, plus two young kids at home. I would find it overwhelming. But does that mean the government should impose leave, day care, and flex-time policies on employers or make taxpayers bear the cost for the choices women make?

All these well-intended laws have unintended consequences, and the consequences are usually worse than the problem they were meant to solve. When governments require companies to provide paid maternity leave and other benefits, many firms avoid hiring women. How is that good for women?

How is it that these people don’t see the consequences of their actions?  If you essentially penalize companies for hiring someone who is disabled, or black, or yellow, or white, or a woman, then naturally companies are going to avoid the class of people they are being penalized for hiring.  Why don’t the politicians see this?  Ahh, here’s the answer:

People who risk their own capital make better decisions than a politician who imposes policies on others with little risk to himself.

It’s easy to win at the stock market if you use someone else’s money to invest, but you get to keep all the profits.

Townhall.com::Why we love government::By Walter E. Williams

Today’s Americans hold a different vision of government. It’s one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another. Younger workers are forced to pay for the prescriptions of older Americans; people who are not farmers are forced to serve those who are; nonpoor people are forced to serve poor people; and the general public is forced to serve corporations, college students and other special interests who have the ear of Congress.

Once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so. You say, “Williams, don’t you believe in helping your fellow man?” Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one’s own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another’s pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I’d be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

And let us all remember:
“The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
- Thomas Jefferson

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Trade Restrictions Stick it to Consumers

I am sympathetic with those who dislike the influence-peddling involved in selective tariff suspensions. But there’s an easy answer to that: Get rid of all tariffs permanently!A free and competitive economy — meaning free trade and no tariffs — is the best deal for consumers. So let’s get the politicians out of the way. If they have no privileges to dispense, no special interests will be lining up to influence them.

This is one of the bigger problems in the legislature today. They pretend to agree that we are all “equal under the law”, but then do crap like this. They pass tariffs on this item, or that. Give subsidies to this industry or that, or to this company or that. How is that “equal under the law” when all government actions are backed by force? When the government subsidizes the growing of corn, how is that fair to people that farm other crops? Or if the government subsidizes the Agriculture industry, how is that fair to, say, the automobile industry? When the government puts tariffs on items, they are protecting a product or class of products from competition, and that’s not good for anybody.