This could really have been a side note to a recent post where I related the story of a major department store that lost an easy gift certificate sale simply by making the buying process so difficult I didn’t stay around long enough to buy from them.

This is actually a good example of how the free market works, when it’s allowed to work. The owners of the establishment have a right to operate their business in any way they see fit. The consumer has a right to vote with their feet and wallet and “do or not do” (yes, Luke, there is still no “try”) business with them as a result of the way they operate.

Should enough consumers voice their disapproval, or if the business loses enough money to begin to seek out the reasons why, store leadership will then decide if they want the business enough to adjust their operating procedures. That is their choice. As it should be in a free society.

This works. No government intervention needed (aside from protection against force or fraud, of course) and, so long as that store hasn’t bought special favors from congress in order to keep out competition (though not common knowledge,  monopolies are only possible with the assistance of government force) or bought special favors from congress in order to provide a context where they can take horrible risks knowing that they will not be allowed to fail regardless of the results (Think: “banking fiasco” and understand that was not free-enterprise), the consumer will eventually and always have enough choices to make it worthwhile.

One reason this works and why government regulation (again, aside from protection from force or fraud) is typically not needed is because the market is truly the best regulator there is. After all, if the market is not forced to buy, then it behooves those who run the company to do whatever is possible to please the customer (the market).

While we’d like to think they would do that simply because it’s the right way to be…it isn’t necessary for that to be the case. And, hey; we cannot control other people’s motives. What we can control is where we buy. And that is enough to make even the most “hard-core, we-really-don’t-care-about-you-at-all” companies act in a manner that is pleasing to the customer.

Yes, Free Enterprise really does work; for the business owner, their employees and, most of all, the consumer. But it must be allowed to operate. And, over the past 80 or so years, this right has been gradually and continually usurped – elected politicians of both major parties being nearly equally guilty.

What are your thoughts? Do you have specific examples where the above rewarding of good/punishing of bad has played out either in your business or one you know of?

No, I won’t see Michael Moore’s newest movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story” but not for the reason one would think…that is, assuming one cared enough to think about the movies I see, which I doubt one does. Heck, I almost don’t, and I’m me. But, since this is a blog, and I’m the publisher, this beginning seems appropriate.

One might think the obvious: “Because, Burg; you are an unabashed Capitalist who would be truly offended watching someone like Moore bash the economic system you so love.”

Well, I probably would be offended, but that’s not the reason I won’t go. Actually, since I enjoy learning from everyone, including those with opposing viewpoints, I would have gone just to see exactly how he would have made his case against Capitalism; the one economic system in the history of the world that has improved the standard of living for everyone (yes, everyone, including the poor) under its umbrella. 

But, that’s not what he’s doing. I have seen him interviewed about the movie, and I saw a movie clip. Both times there was something very obvious:

He was not talking about Capitalism!!

That’s right. He was displaying disgust at the obvious collusion between our 535 legislators and the corporations and special interests (represented by lobbyists) to which they’ve sold their law-making influence.

And, I’m just as disgusted by that as Moore is. However, that is not Capitalism…it is Corporatism (i.e., “corporate welfare” or special laws, rules and regulations intended to benefit those footing the bill).

Yes, it’s bad. It’s very bad. But, again, it’s not Capitalism.

Yet, the movie claims to display the evils of Capitalism. And Michael Moore has millions of followers who – when he says something is…something – they accept it.

Here’s my very quick open letter to Michael Moore. And, while he’ll probably never see it, I’ll feel a lot better for having written it:

Dear Mr. Moore, please understand that government colluding with and rewarding special interests who contribute to their re-election campaigns is NOT Capitalism. With all respect, your entire premise is false. Unfortunately, most of America is going to accept your conclusion without even questioning the very false premise upon which it was based. You have a right to your opinion. But, when you have as much influence as you have, you also have a responsibility to understand what is and what isn’t, and to get your premises straight. Remember, by the very nature of having a false premise you can not reach a correct conclusion. Please check your premises.

MainBob O’Connor wrote: “Perhaps the movie should be called ‘Corporatism: A Love Story.’ There is a corruption of power going on with companies lobbying for ‘company welfare’ and handouts from the government to Banks and big companies.”

I agree with MaineBob. Any chance, Mr. Moore, that you’ll change the title or at least admit your mistake? Or is there more money to be made by using a sexy – albeit false – title?

Of course, Mr. Moore, maybe you’d call that Capitalism.

I don’t call it that. I call it fibbing.

Well, it’s coming down to the wire; the Obama Administration is perhaps just weeks away from enacting legislation that will put our loved ones’ health in the hands of a colossal government bureaucracy comprised of nameless/faceless administrators, drive up job-killing taxes through massive spending, create huge waiting lists for life-saving procedures, cause a shortage of doctors, significantly harm the middle class and poor, elicit health-care rationing as we’ve never before experienced, and, in the end, bring us an inferior level of healthcare.

All of these are certain to be true…and presenting our case like this is exactly the WRONG way to win the hearts and minds of those we are trying to persuade.

Instead, we must communicate the issue at the very heart of this matter and which – as far as I can tell – no one; including any of the usual “Pro-Economic Liberty” pundits, are explaining.

In fact, the Pro-Universal Crowd has done a brilliant job of framing a false argument:

“Do we stick with a Free-Market Healthcare system which is not working?”

or…

“Do we at least do something to try and help; for example, go to a system of Universal Healthcare?”

And (anti-Constitutionality aside), that question would make sense, except…

WE DON’T CURRENTLY HAVE A FREE-MARKET BASED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. (Sorry for shouting but has nobody noticed that??!!)

Actually, we haven’t had a market-based healthcare system in over 50 years. When we did, it worked magnificently well for everyone, including the financially disadvantaged. Only after government first inched its way in and then eventually controlled nearly every aspect of it did we find ourselves in the predicament we are currently in, with the masses now asking the government to solve the very problem they created (I can’t think of anything more nonsensical).

While I explain all this in my five-part series, Check Your Healthcare Premises, it hardly matters if we don’t effectively communicate this faulty premise to those who advocate Socialized (i.e. Socialistic) Healthcare.  

We must “control the frame” and re-direct the argument from a choice between a current “free-market” system (which it is not) that doesn’t work (and it doesn’t) and a socialized system of healthcare that will be absolutely disastrous…and offer a third choice; indeed, the only choice that can work, and – even better – has proven to work; a healthcare system based on the free market.

The next time someone presents the argument as the false choice of two, simply tell them (with no defensiveness): “We don’t have a free market healthcare system.”

They will say, “Of course we do; how can you say that we don’t?”

You respond: “There are 133,000 pages of health care regulation in the U.S. Federal Register. Please tell me why you would consider that to be free market.”

You have just reframed the debate. Now, he/she must explain why today’s system IS market-based instead of you explaining that our current government-controlled system works just fine (which it doesn’t, and everyone knows it doesn’t and it doesn’t do anyone any good when anyone tries to say differently).

They might, in desperation, say, “but something has to change.”

You respond: “Absolutely healthcare needs to change. Wouldn’t you agree that the right change is to the system that worked before; the free market? After all, you are genuinely concerned that people who truly need medical care get it, aren’t you?”

Again, you’ve reframed this to highlight the benevolence of the free market rather than an “I don’t care about others” attitude that they wrongly believe.

Important: Once the person recognizes (or, your reader or listener understands) that the free market is not to blame for our current healthcare woes, you can offer a third alternative; that we get government OUT of our healthcare system and go back to the excellent system we once had (either read my five-part series or utilize information you already know that provides the benefits of a free-market healthcare system).

The key is that – once you set the correct premise and offer the third alternative, you must remain totally disciplined to not get “sucked into” arguing their false dilemma and continue to bring it back to the correct premise.

If we can do this consistently, and teach our fellow lovers of liberty how to do the same, then not only will we not be saddled with a socialized system of healthcare that we’ll never be able to reverse, but we’ll provide everyone; including the children, the elderly and the financially disadvantaged with the benefits of the one healthcare system that truly works…the free market.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.) Or click here to read Part 1 of the Health Care series.

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 5)

I had planned to end the series on Health Care after Part 4 but felt compelled to add the following because it’s so important an issue that I believe if there’s one more point; one more example  that will help educate us all to realize that the path to Socialized Medicine is contrary to both our individual and national health, then it needs to be made.  And, the following might or might not be it.

Health care is simply a microcosm of everything else and operates under the same basic principles, both economic and life.

As a general rule, with government programs, the following statement holds true: “The product is worse, the expense is higher, inefficiency is the rule, and everything is typically ‘up for sale’ to the highest special interest bidder via their lobbyists.” This has proven true with medicine so far as it has become more and more socialized in the U.S., and will most likely only accelerate should we actually get Universal Healthcare in our country.

The above rule also conforms with the immutable law of economics that says, “Nobody spends someone else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.

One of the most poignant stories I’ve ever read, heard, or (in this case) seen about  the inherent danger of Single-Pay insurance programs was on the online service YouTube.com from a filmaker/political commentator by the name of Stuart Browning. He has – in my opinion – simply “hit the nail on the head” regarding this topic. It’s  5:37 in length and worth every second to watch.

In this video, entitled, “A Short Course in Brain Surgery” he tells the not uncommon-enough story of a Canadian citizen who, despite being totally covered by Canadian’s provincial government for all medical procedures, couldn’t get an appointment to see what’s wrong with him…in this case, even though it was suspected that he had a brain tumor! It would be four months before he could get an MRI!!!!!

Well, brain tumors don’t necessarily wait that long to be diagnosed before they kill, so Mr. McCreith, a retiree on a limited budget, and his wife, Sandra, decided they would rather pay out of their own pocket and get it taken care of. The government said no. (The government said no. Think about that; a body of politicians and bureaucrats actually have the “right” to hold the fate of one of their citizens in their hands – which is bad enough – but they also told him, “no”).

The McCreiths eventually went south of the border to the U.S. where, fortunately, we have not yet (yet) sunk to Socialized Health Care (yet, please make no mistake – we are very far from our once excellent free-market based system).  He was able to get the MRI. It was indeed a brain tumor. He had it operated on, again in the U.S.

He was also out $28,000. (Remember, he also pays lots of taxes to the Canadian Government so he certainly expected services for his payments.) But he had no choice because, unless he headed south, he wasn’t going to get checked out – and then operated – in time to save his life.

You see, in Canada (as in every country that has Socialized Medicine), while everyone supposedly has a right to “free” healthcare coverage, what they really have is a right to join a waiting list.

Please note – this is so important: Basic economics tells us that when something is free or of a price that’s so low it is well under market value, it will create a demand; A demand that typically cannot be covered. The only way to decrease demand would be to raise prices but – with Universal Health Care – where the government is the only legal provider – that can’t be done.

So, the average citizen simply has to leave his or her health (thus, their very fate) up to the system; a system run by bureaucrats without a vested interest in making sure the individual is happy. After all, in a “socialistic” system, by its very nature, the individual is not as important as the collective.

This system has caused a backlog in Canadian healthcare that has been nearly catastrophic, such as  was nearly the case with Mr. Lindsay McCreith, This should not happen in a country as great and civilized as Canada, nor should it happen anywhere else. Let’s not allow this to happen in the U.S.

—–

*Before any of my many Canadian friends email me that I’m picking on Canada, please know that, personally, I love Canada, enjoy visiting on business and constantly brag to my American friends how wonderfully hospitable you all are (and how delicious Tim Horton’s coffee is). :-) I’m also not trying to tell you how to run your country. I would never do that. I’m only pointing out something I feel very strongly about in that I don’t want my beloved country, The U.S.A., going the Single-Payer route as you have north of the border.

And, if you do write, please don’t point out how inefficient our “free-market” healthcare system is. Before you do that, please read the previous four parts of this series and see that I clearly make the case that we have not had a free-market health-care system here in the U.S. for over 50 years.

Socialism is never the answer. Liberty is the answer.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 4)

Over the first three parts of this series, we’ve seen that:

• 1. Our once magnificent healthcare system is broken.
• 2. Government is the one that broke it (and, amazingly enough, is being asked by the multitude to fix it).
• 3. Universal Health Care is much costlier and results in many people not getting the important care they need, when they need it. It also, in many instances, denies the individual the all-important right to make the choices and decisions they feel are in the best interests of themselves and their loved ones; instead putting those decisions into the hands of a bureaucrat. 

The problem is, although Universal Health Care is not nearly as effective as a Free-Market system, we need to go back to point number one and agree that our present system is broken and change is needed. Then we need to be extremely clear about something. As mentioned in the first article of this “series within a series”…

The current U.S. Healthcare System is NOT Market-Based!

Fortunately, the solution is actually quite simple. Get the government out of our healthcare system and let the free marketplace, private charity and loving-kindness do what it once did; provide us with a healthcare system that really works.

A couple of goodies include the fact that with a free-market health care system, prices for health care would be much, much lower than they are now. So more people could naturally afford adequate health care. The government has messed up the natural market (including supply and demand) so badly that costs have rises sky high.

So, first, lower prices solves a lot of problems. Then, it’s taking away government’s power to give the insurance companies control over the drug marketplace. Again, with alternative medicines able to do their work, the drug companies would have to come way down on prices. Then, with decreases in needless regulations, there would be more doctors and other health practitioners, creating competition and lower prices, with service much better than it is now. And, for those relative few percentage-wise who still can’t afford it, sliding scales and charities would cover the rest (as it used to, and quite well).

Yes, it sounds simple . . . because it is! Get government OUT of healthcare in every way but the protection of force and fraud (their two legitimate functions when it comes to business) and then just watch what happens. Our health care system will once again be the envy of the world and – more importantly – it will again work for all of us, including the children the elderly and the less fortunate.

Please, please don’t buy into this government and politically-based nonsense of Universal Healthcare. And, don’t buy into those such as Michael Moore; as well-intentioned as he probably is and the politicians, as well-intended as they might possibly be. Or, to the masses, as well-intentioned as they absolutely are.

This is simply too, too important to not think through in depth and detail. Please don’t let emotions make this decision for you.

Instead, check your premises.

*Note. Although this article was inended to complete the series on Healthcare, I added one more, which you can find here.