Common Sense REVISITED - (Part Five)

A Sequel to "The Law - 2024"

Continuing from Part Four - Part Three - Part Two - Part One

Wow, this is becoming a task. But it is worth it if just ONE of you that reads this gets the point. Substack just lets me put up so much before the warning about the length pops up. Looking at what is left in the 48 booklet, I’d say I’m looking at one more post, making this a six part series to get it all up. I hope those of you who have been following are finding this interesting like I did back when I was willing to dish out the cost for 100 copies to be available when I first read it.

Well, let’s get into Part Five. You can go back via links on the page or even get all parts up and going if you like for reference. I’m trying like heck to finish this today. C.L.

One of the biggest fallacies regarding the health care discussion in America is the notion that individuals are not responsible for their own health, but rather that responsibility falls on someone else or on some institution. The related foolishness is that cradle-to-grave health care is somehow a natural right. There is no natural right that involves the forcible confiscation of one person’s assets by the government to pay for another person’s needs.

It is each individual’s responsibility to take care of his or her own health. Why would one who has neglected one’s health have the right to demand that someone else pay for one’s lack of self-responsibility?

The health care system in this country is not based on common sense. Common sense would dictate that each individual’s health care efforts should focus on remaining healthy. However, under the current health system, health care resources are directed toward taking care of problems after they have manifested as a disease or injury. This is extremely expensive and lacks common sense. It is, however, a great system for the medical and pharmaceutical industries. These powerful industries hire lobbyists to influence all of the nation’s federal and state health policies to maximize their profit.

In 2008, (Realize this booklet was released in 2008 - 16 years ago so the cost totals are way higher currently. C.L.) health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012. Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.111 In 2008, the United States spent 17 percent of its gross domestic product on health care. It is projected that it will reach 20 percent by 2017.112 Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured,113 we spend six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than our peer Western European nations. Even those families who have insurance are finding that health care costs are an increasing burden to already strained family budgets.

Proposals for socialized medicine are worse than the disease. These plans would increase costs, destroy jobs, impose broad new taxes on the American people, and lead to the rationing of care. The only health care reforms that are likely to have a significant impact on America’s health care problems are those that draw on the strength of the free market and individual responsibility. As with virtually everything in this country, the health care industry has suffered from centralization.

Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own health, and families are responsible for family members unable or unwilling to take care of their own health. The community is next in line for taking care of the health concerns of its citizens. State government should be involved only to the extent that the citizens want it to be involved, and the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.

Essentially, government policies have been responsible for rising health costs and the unavailability of healthcare services. The people of America can help lower health care costs and expand health care access by taking immediate steps to deregulate the health care industry, including elimination of mandated benefits, repeal of the Certificate of- Need program, and expansion of the scope of practice for non physician health professionals.

Within the current Medicare and Medicaid systems, costs are skyrocketing. About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs. The first step should be a restructuring of the system to give Medicaid and Medicare recipients more flexibility to purchase private health insurance.

Another positive step would be the elimination of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The regulatory agencies of other countries are able to safeguard their citizens for far less money and still allow innovative products to enter the marketplace. The FDA has probably protected fewer people than it has let die waiting for new therapies to come to market. In addition, it is a significant factor in the cost of bringing drugs to market, a process that can cost a manufacturer more than $200 million.

There is little evidence that the agency offers Americans any real protection, but there is massive evidence that it is causing great harm by driving up health care costs and depriving millions of Americans of the medicine they need. The FDA should be replaced by a voluntary certification system run by private-sector organizations, similar to the way Underwriters Laboratories certifies electrical appliances.

There are many ways to reduce the costs of health care and simultaneously increase quality and choice. One critical measure is to expand the scope of services offered by health care professionals other than physicians. One excellent example is having midwives provide prenatal care and attend deliveries. In Europe, midwives assist more than 70% of natural births. In 2003, midwives delivered only 7% of American babies. Midwives see these women from the beginning of their pregnancies onward, helping them to remain healthy and deliver healthy babies. The rate of problematic births is significantly lower in Europe than it is in America. The cost of the European system is significantly less as well. (I am proud to say that my wife and I used a midwife for all four of our sons. When it came time for Gideon, our second oldest to be born the midwife was inaccessible as we didn’t have cell phones in 1988. So I played midwife at his birth. It was a very exciting and rewarding experience that every father should be involved with. He was born December 8th 1988 and weight 8 pounds 8 ounces. I remember those numbers because 8 is a divine number. He’s quite the son. And the other three where born at home as well. One being 11 pounds. Yeah, you read that right. ELEVEN pounds. None of them were ever vaccinated and none ever attended the government controlled school system. Bearing children shouldn’t be treated like a disease. I hope you didn’t mind my interruption. C.L.)

Our current system offers no real choice for the patient. Each individual must have freedom of choice of practitioner and treatment, and absolute say over the care of his or her body. If a person feels a particular treatment is the best one for him or her, he or she must have the freedom to make that decision.

A health care system that would help people help themselves would involve education in proper diet, exercise, rest, stress management, environmental concerns, and other prevention-oriented knowledge. Communities could offer these types of courses through adult education programs and the schools. Hundreds of private companies already offer excellent preventative health educational programs as part of training programs for their distributors and customers.

This is a private or a community function and should not involve federal funding. If the people of a particular state want state government to be involved, it could play a minimal role by offering knowledge and support, and creating a communications infrastructure for sharing information about successful preventative health programs in communities around the state.

There was a strong consensus among the Founders about foreign relations that was based on their experience, wisdom, and common sense. They certainly did not believe in pacifism and they knew that the nation could not appear weak to potential adversaries. They also knew that your friend’s enemy becomes your enemy, so they advocated having a strong defense combined with a foreign policy that would keep the country out of foreign entanglements. It was not a policy of isolationism. They believed in commerce and friendship with all nations.

The idea, in fact, was to be fully engaged with all nations in commerce without getting involved in the alliances and wars that plagued the rest of the world. The hope was that the United States would set an example as a free nation that did not get involved in wars unless attacked. With that policy in place, people of other nations would strongly desire the peace and prosperity of America and follow its example, thus creating a free, prosperous, and more peaceful world.

The idea of a strong defense was balanced with the belief that a large standing army was also a danger to the peace of any nation. Those who insisted on including the phrase, "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," in the bill of rights had a well founded fear of standing armies.

Instead of a large standing army, the Founders wanted a strong militia, and the militia, they believed, consisted of all of the people. The Second Amendment is not just about the right to bear arms, it is also about having a citizenry that is armed, well trained, and organized to come to the defense of the nation if necessary.

The fundamental philosophy of the Founders toward other nations is just as valid today as it was 248 years ago. Its basic principle is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. While the wording might be slightly different in various countries, religions, and cultures, this same principle is found in every major religious and spiritual tradition:

• Christianity - “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12, King James Bible

• Confucianism: “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” Analects 15:23

• Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” Mahabharata 5:1517

• Islam: “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Number 13 of Imam Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths

• Judaism: “…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Leviticus 19:18

• Buddhism: “…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Samyutta Nikaya v. 353

This is a rule that applies as much to nations, which are made up of individuals, as it does to individuals. This is the fundamental policy that needs to be followed today.

Many argue that the world is more dangerous today because of advanced weapons technologies, terrorism, biological weapons, scarce resources, and so on. It is precisely because of all these factors that the United States, the most powerful nation on earth militarily, must set an example that creates less volatility and acrimony in the world.

The words that best described the nation’s original foreign policy and the policy that should be pursued now were spoken by Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address in 1801: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Unfortunately, this is not the policy that has been followed in the last century.

Ever since the proponents of surrogate power took over the country, the government has grown in excess of constitutional boundaries on all levels. The nation is now involved militarily all over the world. Defense spending, added to all of the unconstitutional domestic programs, has bankrupted the country and made its people much more fearful and vulnerable to attacks.

As Douglas MacArthur said, “Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.”

Does this sound familiar to the situation today? No one could say that Douglas MacArthur didn’t know what he was talking about. Immediately after John Kennedy’s assassination, MacArthur strongly encouraged Lyndon Johnson to get out of Vietnam while he still could. On his death bed in Walter Reed Hospital, the General begged Lyndon Johnson to stay out of Vietnam.

The CIA and other covert government organizations have fomented revolutions, organized coups, and ordered assassinations of leaders who were not in harmony with the U.S./U.N. agenda (see Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins). Coercion and force have been used to interfere in the affairs of other nations for the last 60 years, yet people wonder why others hate the United States. At the same time, the current administration (George Bush) has the gall to say the U.S. is hated because it is free!

The powerful interests who benefit from a constant state of war must maintain a climate of fear. In order for them to do this, the public must be ignorant of the country’s true actions. To learn more about this, every American of voting age should read Michael Scheuer’s book, Imperial Hubris, Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. (Scheuer is a former U.S. CIA officer and was in charge of the agency’s Osama bin Laden unit.) (Maybe the book should be titled, Why the West is CAUSING the NEED for a War on Terror. C.L.) Apathy and ignorance of the impact of the country’s actions on other nations and cultures have allowed surrogates to take control of U.S. foreign policy.

Dwight Eisenhower told the country that “we must never let the weight of the military-industrial complex endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” His famous speech originally referred to “the military-industrial-congressional complex” but his advisors convinced him to delete the word “congressional.” Eisenhower was clearly concerned about what already existed and was continuing to grow stronger: an extremely powerful group that benefited from war and that was easily able to buy influence in government.

This is the situation currently endangering the people’s safety. Remember, the federal government is the people’s surrogate. The people must take back control of their surrogate for many reasons, but retaking control of foreign policy is crucial. The 9/11 Commission Report says that “the American homeland is the planet.” To defend this "homeland," the United States funds more than 5,429 military bases with 1,379,551 soldiers,132 369,000 of them stationed throughout more than 150 countries. This is the greatest military colossus ever forged.

How did a nation start out with such a sane foreign policy and then become involved in a completely insane foreign policy that is not only making the world more dangerous but also creating an exponentially growing debt bubble that will inevitably cause an economic collapse? In the 1820s the very perceptive Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

“Hence it is chiefly in war that nations desire, and frequently need, to increase the powers of the central government. All men of military genius are fond of centralization, which increases their strength; and all men of centralizing genius are fond of war, which compels nations to combine all their powers in the hands of the government. Thus the democratic tendency that leads men unceasingly to multiply the privileges of the state and to circumscribe the rights of private persons is much more rapid and constant among those democratic nations that are exposed by their position to great and frequent wars than among all others.”

A foreign policy based on our founding principles would increase harmony throughout the world. What would such a foreign policy look like going forward? All alliances and treaties with foreign countries would be eliminated, as would all foreign aid. In addition, the nation would immediately withdraw from the United Nations and encourage all other nations to do the same. The country’s leaders would meet with the leaders of other nations and let them know that the U.S. will not be meddling in their affairs and that the U.S. is willing to replace the U.N. with a non-coercive arbitration organization to enhance harmonious relationships between countries. This organization would have absolutely no enforcement role, no troops, no police, no guns, no courts, and no intelligence agencies. It would have a charter based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, totally dedicated to the proposition that every individual on the planet is a sovereign with indigenous power and that all governments are surrogates that can be replaced at any time by the individuals within that country. The World Bank, World Trade Organization, World Court, International Monetary Fund, and all the other spawn of the current United Nations would be dissolved. Withdrawal of U.S. troops from other nations would also begin.

The result would be a lessening of tensions with other nations. Once the process of withdrawing U.S. troops from other nations has begun, and it is understood that the U.S. is serious, the fear and level of animosity in the world will decrease. The U.S. could then start to phase out additional bases around the world and bring even more of its troops home. This will allow our nation to have a stronger defense at a far lower cost, making the U.S. virtually invincible. The book, World War One, by Richard Maybury does an extraordinary job of explaining how our country got away from the principle of neutrality and into a belief that we have to be the world's policeman. It also explains how we can have an invincible defense in America for a small fraction of our current military budget.

This is all common sense. The problem is the fear-mongering of those who benefit from war and the threat of war. The nation is now governed by powerful interests who have purchased their position of control. It is in their interests to keep people afraid and angry at some foreign enemy. Even better for them is a worldwide, never-ending war on terror. This is the perfect war for the military-industrial-congressional complex.

The following quote should be placed on the bathroom mirror of every American citizen, so they can see it every day of their lives as a reminder of the propaganda machine that they are exposed to daily in all mainstream media.

Perhaps an even better place to put this quote would be on each television screen.

Thankfully, Americans are beginning to wake up to the disastrous effects of the current government policies. Ultimately, as the dollar declines in value, the countries and investors who have been buying U.S. debt instruments will discontinue their purchases. At that point, the government will not be able to keep the printing presses going to continue to finance this enormous military machine.

The sooner the people of this nation wake up and start following the common sense-based foreign policy of the Founders, the better it will be. Does the U.S. have to make the same mistake so many empires have made before? Not if the people remember that we are the ones with indigenous power. We own the government; it is our surrogate!

As I end Part Five, I find that I’m on page 35 of the booklet. The next section is about the “War on Drugs”. It’s a good one for sure. Hang in there with me as I make this last ditch effort to get this finished in it’s totality. It is looking more and more like it may be a Seven Part series. For all of you who have stuck in there…THANK YOU for doing so. This information is very timely. As if it was a prophesy written seventeen years ago for today. C.L.

PART SIX