Conservative Blog Reporting on Media Bias and the Liberal Agenda

As we debate the largest takeover of the private economy by the Federal government in the history of our country, we are also facing a pandemic, accompanied by what has become almost a chronic shortage of vaccines to deal with this situation. Could there be threads connecting these two events? Yes, there are very relevant threads, but you will not hear about these threads from our Fifth Estate (the so-called Main Stream Media).

So, let’s go with the obvious first: Why is there a shortage of vaccines?

The reason for this vaccine shortage is the same as it has been for ten or twelve previous shortages: there are only five vaccine makers that are certified to sell vaccines into the U.S. market. Only one of these companies resides in the U.S.

That much has been reported by the media, but Peacock has always been trained to ask the question “why” three times.

So our second of three whys is: Why are there only five vaccine makers qualified to sell vaccines to the U.S.?

The reason that there are only five vaccine makers is because, thanks to our government, the production of vaccines is no longer a profitable business.

Thirty years ago, there were no fewer than 25 companies that produced vaccines for the U.S. market, but only five remain today since they could not make an economic return on the production and sale of vaccines.

So, what about that nagging third question: Why could these companies not make a profit?

The answer to the third “why”, as you might have guessed, has to do with government involvement in the market. The National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine has pinned much of the blame on a federal vaccine-buying program.

The origins of the program go back to 1993, when Hillary Clinton’s “Vaccines for Children” program was first implemented. The big idea was to use the power of the federal government to ensure universal immunization. The government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply at a forced discount of half price, then it was distributed to the poor and un-insured. This resulted in not only a declining financial incentive to develop and produce new vaccines, but also a decline in investment into newer technologies to manufacture these vaccines more rapidly.

The irony of the program is that, at the time it was implemented, the U.S. had one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. After implementation, vaccination rates barely improved. As a capper, Mrs. Clinton had the gall to attack President Bush for shortages of vaccine that occurred during his administration! Talk about lack of accountability.

So, does any of this sound familiar? A worthy goal, to insure universal vaccination by using the power of the government to reduce prices, resulting in shortages and rationing of the product in question.

At the risk of emphasizing the obvious, or for those not familiar with how commercial enterprise works, Hillary’s bill that reduced the price of vaccines to one-half did nothing to reduce the cost of production to one-half. Her bill therefore wiped out the profit involved in making vaccines in the U.S. When you don’t make a profit you can’t pay employees. If you can’t pay employees then you can’t find anyone who will work for you to make a product. If you don’t have people to make a product you go out of business. When you go out of business the unemployment rate goes up. Clearly, Hilary, like many others in government either doesn’t understand the basics of the free enterprise system or is just playing for votes to feed her addiction to political power.

To paraphrase an old saw: For want of a profit an employee was lost. For want of an employee a vaccine was lost. For want of a vaccine a life was lost

Regardless of how noble the cause, government fails spectacularly at everything it does, yet it has an inexhaustible appetite to do more.

With this history, there is actually a fourth why that everyone needs to ask themselves: Why would any person in their right mind want government to do more?

Shortly after the narrow partisan passage of the house health bill, Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that it was a historic moment for America.

The only historic moment about the event was that the Democrats officially went on record as being economic terrorists as they continue to recklessly promote an additional $1.2 trillion in spending in a failing economy with 16 million Americans out of work, thus creating more debt that can only be supported by irrational borrowing at higher and higher interest rates.

Despite the favorable numbers being reported by MSNBC, according to the latest Rasmussen survey, only 45% of American favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats while a whopping majority of 52% remain opposed to it.

Deeper in the numbers, Rassmussen reports that only 25% Strongly Support the plan while an overwhelming 42% are Strongly Opposed.

The opposition to the Democratic plan is not purely partisan either. Clearly the Democrats are losing support of the independents who are a critical segment of the 2010 and 2012 elections — the latest Rasmussen numbers show the plan is opposed by 58% of unaffiliated voters.

MSNBC, that wholly-owned subsidiary of General Electric which has been identified by CBS News as a company whose revenue “helps to underwrite and support terrorism” is clearly determined to be the White House media spokespeople for the public option.

Night after night MSNBC insists that any future insurance program for Americans must include the public option. On program after program MSNBC “journalists” (really propagandists for the White House) and their guests such as Anna Burger from SEIU, a close business relative of ACORN, insist that a public option is necessary to hold down costs.

Really?

Ed Schultz on the MSNBC program “The ED Show” has blatantly claimed that Jesus would vote for a government public option. So, MSNBC now claims to know the mind of God! Or maybe he was referring to Jesus Jimenez in Guadalajara.

MSNBC, the White House and the progressive movement members in Congress are insisting that the public option is necessary and any health plan without the public option is unacceptable.

Unacceptable to whom?

Poll after poll shows that the American public does not want a public option. With the bully pulpit of MSNBC, the White House and the rest of the progressive movement are working overtime to push through their political agenda in spite of the will of the people.

This is arrogance in the extreme and if it isn’t violation of the oath of office of each of these elected people it is certainly a violation of their sacred pact with the public they serve.

The public understands that the government cannot be trusted with the amount of money that is associated with a government run health care program. The public understands that the government cannot be trusted with the amount of power that comes with the intimate knowledge the government could be tempted to garner about each of our personal lives if they have access to all of our health information.

The public knows that our government at this point can’t be trusted!

The government has finally reached a point that Thomas Jefferson described when he said, “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”.

If poll after poll shows that the public doesn’t want a public option but the progressives in the White House, the legislature and MSNBC, which is the media arm of the progressive movement, keep pushing for a public option then our government has finally reached the point of tyranny that Jefferson describes.

God help America. God bless America.

Keith Olbermann’s recent hour long monologue about the horrors of our American health care system was a political rant in favor of the public option. One can understand his concern for his father and his desire to have a health system that could have extended his father’s life. We all understand that whether or not we have lost a loved one to sickness. Keith Olbermann has our sincere condolences for the horrible loss he has suffered.

We readily agree that health care is about improving the odds of life. At least in the term that has been allotted to us. Eventually the odds of life for all of us are zero.

We strongly disagree that a government health care program will improve the odds of life in the short term, we disagree that it is the responsibility of the government to assure our health, and we disagree that the current health insurance system is stylized blackmail. In fact, we disagree with Olbermann on almost everything except for his compassion for those who are sick and for those who have suffered the loss of those they love.

Olbermann, and MSNBC in general do not understand, or do not want to understand, why it is that most of us oppose what is called the public option. On the other hand, maybe they do understand but have become the conscious spin merchant in the media world for the public option.

Most Americans do not want the public option because most Americans no longer have full trust and faith in our government. Olbermann says health is not about politics. Of course it is about politics when you put the health plan in control of politicians! How clear can that be? Put the health plan in control of politicians by putting it under the public option and the health of all of us will be under the control of politicians who base their decisions on what they need to do to get enough votes to stay in office. Our health will always be secondary to that for most of our elected politicians. The evidence is too strong for most Americans to believe anything else.

We still have not heard of any federal government legislator who is unhappy with their own nationwide smorgasboard menu of health plans. They have had their special health plan for decades and never complain. If they truly cared about their constituents they would have been arguing for all of us to have the same plan they enjoy long long ago. Or, if they thought that the currently proposed public option would have been better for them they would have voted it in for themselves sometime in the middle of the 20^th century.

Olbermann claims there is misunderstanding about the public option. How insulting can he be? Probably about as insulting as the federal “public servants” who keep claiming that the majority of Americans are in favor of the public option. The truth is that most Americans understand perfectly. We understand that our federal government is already too intrusive in our lives and has too much control over all of us. We understand that sending more money to Washington under the guise of a public option increases the government’s power and dramatically increases the government’s visibility into the most intimate details of our lives and the lives of those we love.

Olbermann claims that the proponents of the public option are being “out terrorized” by the opponents. He asks what the opponents are afraid of . The answer is simple. We are afraid that our federal government has become too powerful over our individual lives and that the public option will increase that power dramatically. To put it succinctly, we are becoming afraid of our government. Every move the White House and the legislature make increases the power of Washington and increases our taxes while decreasing our liberties.

Thomas Jefferson said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

The public option, by Jefferson’s definition, is bad government!