Red State Abroad

World Traveller, Western Supremacist

My Body, My Choice…. Until the Market Tells You Otherwise

Last week, New York State legislatures, to thunderous applause, enacted a new law rolling back the state’s current limitations on abortion. Previously, women in New York could only obtain abortions after 24 weeks if the mother’s life was in danger. The new law puts no gestational age limit on a woman looking to obtain an abortion as long as it is a danger to the mother’s health. Not only does this allow for full-term babies to be aborted, but changing the legal term from “life in danger” to “danger to health” makes the law incredibly subjective. What constitutes health? Are we talking physical health, mental health, financial health? Clearly the term health, in this context, is difficult to define.

There are other nefarious elements of New York’s new abortion law that are outright absurd and diabolical. Prior to the Reproductive Health Act, only physicians could provide abortions, but the new legislation allows licensed nurse practitioners, physician assistants and licensed midwives to perform the procedure now. Many states also mandate that late-term abortions must be approved by two physicians as a safeguard for the doctor and patient; however, New York does not. It’s astounding really. Leftists will refuse to read a conservative blog because it isn’t “peer-reviewed” but they think it’s totally fine to get a late-term abortion without a second opinion, from a midwife they found on Craigslist. Furthermore, the law Gov. Cuomo signed repealed section 4164 of NY’s Public Health Law, which mandated medical care for any baby born alive during an abortion. In other words, New York abortionists will now be adding the finest in Chinese medical devices to their operating rooms… a bucket of water.

But enough of the repugnance of the new law. Whether you find it abhorrent or advantageous, immoral or moral, there will be serious market consequences to increasingly lax abortion laws. The market doesn’t discern between good or bad behavior, it simply provides goods and services to facilitate behavior. Look no further than the thriving illegal drug market where users can obtain marijuana, cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. Pornography is available on demand, prostitution is completely legal in some jurisdictions, and despite law makers best efforts, illegal weapons are not hard to come by. The free market does not discriminate against commerce the public deems good or evil, it just gives them what they want. However, sometimes a new good or service can come at a very high cost. Not necessarily to the suppliers, but to the buyers. 

The highly controversial practice of assisted suicide gained national attention in the 1990s when Dr. Jack Kevorkian aided over 40 patients in committing suicide. Since then, six states (California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington) and Washington DC have legalized assisted suicide/euthanasia. While constituents and lawmakers argued over the morality of such legislation, insurance companies were discovering a very profitable/cost saving service. In the states where assisted suicide is legal, some insurance companies have stopped offering to cover expensive treatments for terminally ill patients and instead are only offering coverage for the lethal drugs used in assisted suicide. Effectively, leaving dying patients with two options, pay out of pocket or kick the bucket. 

Those in favor of legalizing options for suicide reason that it is compassionate to spare a terminally ill person the months/years of pain and suffering before their inevitable death. But they never foresaw the profit incentive that would encourage death. Proponents for assisted suicide essentially take the “my body, my choice” route, not realizing that that position might actually reduce choice.

As with the market’s response to the cost savings element of assisted suicide, abortion will be no different. How long until the health insurance companies start covering abortions for babies with birth defects rather than the treatment for said birth defects? How long until the 20-week scan (the lengthy ultrasound that can detect fetal anomalies), is the do or die moment for the unborn? Why would insurance companies not incentivize mothers to abort babies with birth defects by simply refusing to cover treatment for the birth defects once they are born? 

Conditions that incur huge medical expenses to treat after birth and that carry low survival rates will be prime for insurance companies to prefer termination. For example, hypoplastic left heart syndrome is a rare heart condition where the left side of the fetal heart does not develop. According to the CDC, 1 out of every 4,344 babies is born with the condition. It is fatal without treatment. Infants born with the condition must undergo heart surgery within two weeks of birth, another surgery between four and six months of age, and again between 18 and 36 months. Medicine and follow up treatments are required for the rest of their life and a possible heart transplant may be necessary. That’s an enormous expense for any insurance company. Doctors already encourage mothers with this fetal anomaly to terminate. Why would an insurance company with the financial incentive not do the same?

Congenital heart defects, like hypoplastic left heart syndrome, are the most common type of birth defect. Additionally, heart defects are the leading cause of death in birth defect-related deaths. Eliminating gestational age limits for abortions puts these babies at the most risk of abortion. They will not be alone. How will insurance companies in states with no gestational term limits react when fetal testing discovers other birth defects like progeria, fragile X, spina bfida, Phenylketonuria (PKU), or any other abnormality that incurs costly medical treatment post birth?

Additionally, as medicine continues to make remarkable advances, more fetal abnormalities will become detectable at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy, making abortion more attractive to insurance providers.   

With the precedent now set in suicide coverage versus treatment coverage, we have now approached the slippery slope for the same practice to be employed in regards to abortion. Fortunately, there are some hurdles insurance providers have to overcome. In total, 29 states restrict abortion insurance coverage, 11 of which restrict coverage for private companies and providers on the health insurance exchanges. Other states only put restrictions on the exchanges or insurance for public employees. However, that leaves 21 states with no abortion restriction for insurance providers. And of course, legislation is subject to change. 

Of the now eight states that allow full-term abortions on perfectly healthy babies (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont) and the District of Columbia, precisely none of these states including the District, restrict abortion coverage for private insurers, health insurance exchanges, or public health plans (with the small exception in Colorado, DC, and New Hampshire that limit only the public funding option to life endangerment, rape, or incest).

This makes the states with the most progressive abortion laws the most vulnerable by providing a loophole to insurance providers operating in these states to start refusing coverage for birth defect treatments and instead only opting to cover abortions. Furthermore, without the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, expectant mothers in these states are at the mercy of their already limited choices of insurance providers operating in their state. The combination of a completely unrestricted pro-choice movement and a severely limited insurance market within the states has the potential to terminate thousands more pregnancies in these states, and possibly not by the mother’s choice.     

The only ways to ensure that expectant mothers will not be susceptible to this perverse incentive is to either enact legislation barring all insurers from providing abortion coverage in states where no legislation exists or to completely unleash the free market, allowing citizens to purchase across state lines. 

If the latter is done, the former may not even be necessary. On a national level, support for abortion has largely remained in a deadlocked split 50/50. It’s hard to fathom insurance companies taking the risk of ostracizing half the market by employing the ‘abortion instead of treatment coverage’ approach. Then again, who could have predicted that the insurance companies would have been so brazen and cruel to refuse potentially life-saving treatment and condemn customers to death? By limiting competition within the states, insurance companies have the ability to run rough-shod over customers. If there is only one provider on the health exchange, insurance providers have no obligation or incentive to supply better coverage, they need only to look out for themselves. And particularly in New York, where a single medical professional can encourage and provide abortions with no oversight from a second party, the minimal cost of the abortion paid for by insurance companies ends up being very profitable (several thousand dollars’ worth) to the abortion provider. 

What we have here now is a dangerous precedent. The lack of insurance competition within the states provides insurance companies refuge from rival companies who will provide illness/ birth-defect treatment. The tactic has already been used against our terminally ill and could be used against the unborn. What the pro-choice movement has not realized is that it may be your body, it may be your choice, but without economic choice, pro-choice is just a fallacy.

Much Ado About Manufactured Nothings

With the shutdown still at a firm stalemate, it was an insufferably slow news cycle for the media last week. So, to cope the ‘Guardians of the Truth’ spent the week hyper-inflating completely monotonous events as if they were ground-breaking news stories. 

First on the docket was the completely non-newsworthy story that second lady, Karen Pence, would be returning to work at a Christian school she taught at years ago. The private school has the impudence to follow the strict teachings of the Lord as outlined in the Bible and as a result, requires staff, students, and parents not to engage in homosexual behavior in addition to adhering to other biblical lifestyle tenets. The fact that a Christian school would not permit homosexuality was apparently a clandestine belief to the left. Who could have foreseen this? Pro-tip for liberals, none of the Abrahamic religions permit homosexuality, including Islam. I’m still trying to figure out how leftists are going to circle that square into their intersectional assembly. 

Then Thursday evening, the ‘journalists’ at Buzzfeed published a ‘bombshell’ asserting that sources had informed them that Michael Cohen has admitted to the Special Counsel that President Trump directed him to lie to Congress regarding business dealings in Russia. The Walter Duranty wannabes claimed to have documentation from anonymous (of course) sources to prove the claim. As with every other mendacious Trump headline we’ve seen for the past two years, the claims were debunked within 24 hours, this time by Robert Mueller himself in a rare public comment on the matter. Now, admittedly, a news story like this would have made me nervous two years ago and perhaps prompted me to quietly purge any MAGA hat donned photos of myself from social media. However, given the pathetic failures of the media in recent years and their obvious contempt for Trump, this story was undoubtedly going to be false, especially since it originated from the amoebas at Buzzfeed. Anyone who took this story as earnest reporting is too far to the left on Bell Curve to be taken seriously.

Finally, the weekend social media feeds were rife with condemnation of a MAGA hat wearing teen in a stand-off with a Native American tribal member. The original clip showed nothing more than an older man hitting his drum and singing in very close proximity to a teen staring back at him. The left accused the teen of being ‘disrespectful’ with soy boys calling to scalp the young lad with the Gillette razors they just used to sever their scrotums. Elizabeth Warren immediately started tweeting outrage from her teepee. And Reza Aslan posted a photo of the teen asking ‘Is this the most punch-able face you’ve ever seen?’ For the record, no Mr. Aslan, it is not. That title belongs to David Hogg. 

Had the media put as much effort into fact-finding as they did into their indignation, they would have quickly found a two-hour livestream that proved the elderly man walked up and confronted the teen. Accusations of ‘build the wall’ chants were completely unfounded as no such chanting has been captured on video. Although there were some pleasantries exchanged between the Native American men and the teen boys when the protected class of minorities started telling the teens to go back to Europe. For a full comprehensive analysis on the incident check out Tim Poole’s coverage here

The footage, even in its original context appears more of an awkward confrontation rather than animus. The kid is just staring back at the man but leftists acted as if he had just smothered him with a small pox blanket.

The omitted video also revealed some fine fellows known as the Black Israelites. CNN described the actions of these men as ‘preaching the Bible,’ a very generous interpretation of their scripture reading. Somehow 30+ years as a Catholic including eight years in parochial school and I must have missed the part of the Bible where it read ‘Don’t give the f*ggots any rights.’ Perhaps its in the King James version. Usually Bible thumpers yelling gay slurs is primetime gold for the mainstream media, but I guess they were just too burnt out from chastising Karen Pence earlier in the week to call out the Black Hebrew bigotry.

The media loves to refer to certain news stories as manufactured… until they arrive at your border pummeling rocks at your citizens demanding entry. But this week proved to be nothing more than the very manufactured scandals they admonish. Let’s hope that this week brings some real meat to the news desks. Maybe, in fact assuredly, Alexandria Occasional-Cortex will say something stupid we can discuss. Maybe another dozen Democrats will announce a run for the presidency. But as for the moment, the government is still shut down, Trump is still your president and Hillary Clinton is not. 

Praise the Lord.

Leftist Economics Leads To Leftist Outrage

A few weeks ago, I was scrolling my Facebook feed and came across a video taken outside of an Australian supermarket. The video featured about half a dozen Asian customers purchasing baby formula, two tins at a time, and stacking them neatly in a large pile outside of the market. Then, like a revolving door, they would return to the store to purchase two more. The pile amassed must have been at least 50+ tins of baby formula. 

Confused by the relevancy of the post, I looked to the comments to find animus condemnation from other mothers. Accusations of extortion, unethical behavior, law breaking, outright rage, and even racism towards Asians.

For the past several years, Australia has been experiencing a shortage in baby formula. To cope with dwindling stocks, supermarkets have implemented a two tin per customer policy. However, this shortage isn’t a result of a baby boom down under. It’s a result of a lack of reliable formula in a country in the opposite hemisphere, China. Hence, the reason you find Chinese people buying all of the formula. They are sending it home. 

By the time the formula reaches China, the retail price increases three-fold, but that doesn’t deter the Chinese from buying it. Demand remains steady in a country that births about 17 million babies a year. In the eyes of many viewers, they saw people preying on the misfortune of others through price gouging. For those of us that understand economics, we saw the market working efficiently. 

Price gouging is often touted as an ‘exploitation’ of desperate consumers. Governments try to crack down on the practice by enforcing price caps on products. In the United States, thirty-five states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to keep prices down, even during emergencies. However, these well-intended laws have a negative effect on consumers, leaving shelves empty and people still in desperate need. 

By artificially keeping prices low, customers are encouraged to buy as much as possible, often more than they need. Higher prices encourage conservation. If the first customer in the store during a hurricane purchases the entire water supply, that leaves nothing left for anyone else. Higher prices force consumers to be more mindful of their purchase and the price hike signals to suppliers to increase production ASAP. 

Price gouging isn’t some nefarious behavior meant to line the pockets of manufacturers. It is nothing more than the market reality that when supply is low, the demand increases and prices go up. Conversely, when supply is high, demand decreases and prices go down. No natural disaster or regional economic problem will change the basic laws of supply and demand.

But why exactly is there a shortage of formula in a country like China that has a robust, self-reliant economy? The problem isn’t a general lack of formula, it is a lack of reliableformula. In 2008, six babies in China tragically died due to melamine-laced baby formula and another 54,000 babies were hospitalized. Four years prior, 12 infants died from a watered-down milk scandal. In short, the Chinese, rightfully, have no faith in the Chinese-made brands and refuse to buy them. There is even skepticism among western brands in China due to the enormous counterfeit market. The Chinese haven’t just mastered replica designer bags, they can fake the baby formula too.

The contaminated formula scandal led to a slew of criminal prosecutions, imprisonment, resignations and even two executions. But why would formula developers put melamine, a compound used to make plastics, into baby formula?  The reasoning goes back to the highly praised but incredibly dangerous practice of price capping.

Until recently, the Chinese government extensively employed the use of price caps for a wide range of commodities and services, including baby formula. This was meant to make items affordable to China’s largely poor population. Unable to use quality ingredients to create baby formula and subsequently charge a fair market yet competitive price for the formula, makers turned to a cheaper and in this case, deadly option. 

As usual, the government’s regulatory means to keep costs down for consumers eventually produced health problems for those same consumers and was the catalyst for the price gouging that exists today.  

Only in 2015 did the Chinese government rescind the price control policyfor about 80% of the products including the formula. But the damage has been done and the effects are long lastingas market confidence has yet to recover for Chinese manufactured baby formula.

What the Chinese were and still are experiencing is a paradox of leftist fiscal policy. Government malfeasance that was disguised as ‘helpful’ through price caps which has led to today’s inflated value due to the ‘harmful and extortionate’ price gouging that is keeping Chinese babies healthy and alive.

Worse still is that common opinion among western governments and their constituents is that the former policy is beneficial while the latter is harmful, when nothing could be further from the truth. Had the Chinese government left the market alone, developers would have been incentivized to create the very best quality formula at the best possible price. The 18 poisoned infants would have been spared and the Australian market would be stable today. But as usual, the state insisted on ‘helping’ consumers. 

What’s that saying about the road to hell again?  

Why China’s “Social Credit” Scheme Will Create More Corruption, Not a Better Citizenry

(As published on FEE.ORG)

News of China’s social credit system has been making waves across media outlets for months. Some publications are going soft on the massive surveillance state, saying it is not as bad as it seems (it is), while others are referring to it as something straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four (again, it is). With pilot programs operating in certain municipalities, the system is already affecting citizens’ lives by limiting their ability to travel or send their children to universities

“Four million people have been blocked from buying high-speed train tickets over low social credit,” VICE News reported earlier this year, “and more than 11 million from buying flights.”  

Government documents detailing the social credit system say the program will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

The final version of the social credit system is expected to be fully implemented by 2020, but Beijing is being vague regarding the confirmed list of offenses and how the program will work. Here are some of the actions the Chinese government deems “bad behaviors” that warrant punishment:

  • Bad driving or traffic offenses
  • Jaywalking
  • Smoking on trains
  • Not cleaning up after your dog
  • Not having your dog on a leash
  • Not paying debts
  • Not paying taxes
  • Playing too many video games
  • Watching pornography
  • Making frivolous purchases
  • Consuming too much alcohol or junk food
  • Criticizing the government
  • Criticizing the social credit system
  • Visiting unauthorized websites
  • Being friends with or messaging others with low scores or those who commit the above offenses

Some transgressions may be worthy of punishment, like not paying debts, taxes, or traffic citations. However, one can already identify some issues with alleged wrongdoings, such as what defines fake news or a “frivolous” purchase or “too much” gaming. 

Even on the surface, not cleaning up after your dog seems well-intentioned. But for those unaware, it is still common for people to urinate and defecate in public in certain areas of China. (As someone who has lived in China for nearly the last year and a half, I’m all too aware of this fact.)

Perhaps Beijing should get the people to stop pooping outside before they worry about the dogs.

One reason to doubt the efficiency of the behavioral ranking system is the rampant corruption and use of bribes in China. After collecting and analyzing corporate data, Charney Research published a paper in 2015 that found 35 percent of companies in China pay bribes or give gifts in order to operate. One CFO went so far as to describe the practice as “an unspoken rule.” Bribes are particularly common in public hospitals, where doctors and nurses are severely underpaid. Patients try to persuade staff with a hongbao (red envelope filled with cash) for special or preferential treatment, which even the bribe can’t guarantee. 

This year, the local Shanghai government introduced a slew of new traffic laws and fines for offenses like smoking while driving, not wearing seatbelts, cell phone use while driving, and unlicensed driving. While I can appreciate the measures to improve safety for the average rider like myself, and this is purely anecdotal, no behavioral changes in taxi drivers are evident as bribes to traffic cops are still prevalent.

Even the simple act of delivering packages can foster bribes. I recently had a care package sent from the US. The sender paid all necessary customs fees based on the content and weight of the package, but upon arrival to Shanghai customs, the package was impounded. It seems the sender had not paid enough to ensure delivery to a residential address. Indeed, the sender was informed that delivery to residential addresses in China cost more than double the original shipping cost. Upon investigation with Chinese colleagues, I found out that this was nothing more than, you guessed it, a bribe. 

There is no reason to believe that the social credit system will suddenly transform the pervasive practice that is common business procedure in all industries in China.

One of the stated goals of the new social credit system is actually to cut down on the corruption and use of bribes in China. But in the grand tradition of government intervention, state programs have proven a reliable means of perpetuating the very problem they intend to eradicate. (See also: the wars on poverty, drugs, and terror.)

In the Chaoyang district of Beijing, there are allegedly 120,000 spies, each paid 300 yuan a month. Already they are at work tattling on their fellow citizens for bad behavior (or rather, behavior deemed bad). If you aren’t familiar with the currency, that’s a whopping $43 USD a month. Not exactly a Christopher Steele-sized salary.

What this means is that it won’t be very expensive to red envelope your way to behave however you would like. The wealthy will simply pay off the informants, who have every incentive to demand payment for silence. The poor, on the other hand, will just have to behave.

Additionally, as Rachel Botsman of Wired UK points out, the birth of reputation black markets selling under-the-counter ways to raise your credit score is inevitable. In the same way that Facebook likes and Twitter followers can be bought, individuals will pay to manipulate their score.

If the government truly wants to create an equal and anti-corrupt society, they should just let the free market reign. Make no mistake, the market is already hard at work circumventing the social credit legislation in China. While the program threatens to downgrade users for visiting certain websites or messaging friends with low scores, the use of VPN apps in China to bypass the Great Firewall is widespread. In fact, not having a VPN is like missing a vital appendage; you just need one to survive in China.

The VPNs allow you to visit any restricted websites, use banned apps, and shield your online activity from the government’s prying eyes. So instead of messaging your low credit score friend on the Chinese friendly WeChat app, you can just message them on the unauthorized WhatsApp or Facebook apps. 

And while the big government gurus at Apple happily conceded to the Chinese government’s Orwellian demand to remove all VPNs from the Chinese app store, you can still purchase them on other platforms. In fact, for a few hundred dollars, you can purchase a modem at one of the technology markets in China that has a VPN pre-installed on it so that every device in your home can access the web totally unrestricted and privately.

Furthermore, it isn’t only VPN use that will salvage social credit status. Using cash for purchases the government considers unwise and relying on private ride-sharing apps will allow users to avoid bureaucratic judgment and punishments for behavior.

For those unfazed by this creepy government overreach because they think “that would never happen here,” beware, because it already is. Tech giants are already punishing people for their ‘wrong think’ by banning users from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, website hosting services, and payment processors. Invariably, these users tend to be conservative/libertarian, free-market advocates, though progressives critical of establishment politics have also experienced bans. And proving that their ideological confidence in the market is correct, it is the free market that swoops in to rescue their public standing with new platforms. Those banned from Patreon will use PayPal, controversial Tweeters are now on Gab, and when the overlords at YouTube find your Super Chat content offensive, you can instead post it on Stream Labs.

Whether it’s China’s social credit system or Silicon Valley’s, free markets find a way.

Yes, Let General Motors Fail

Hot off the presses yesterday was the news of General Motors 14,000 employee layoffs expected before the Christmas holiday. President Trump responded with an angry tweet threatening to cut off subsidies to GM in retribution for the redundancy while liberals on social media responded with “Muh… It’s Trump’s fault.”

While the retaliatory subsidy threat wasn’t warranted by the President, he is right on the mark when he says the subsidies must go. (Even when he is wrong, he is a right.) General Motors has been in decline for decades and we must let it fail.

It is not the job of the American tax payer to subsidize failing companies. If we wanted to keep General Motors in business, we would just buy their cars, but we don’t. Instead, drivers opt for the competitively priced, better quality Toyota and Honda brands.

Imagine if Starbucks sold garbage instant coffee rather than the premium brewed beverages we enjoy today. It probably would not be as successful. Now imagine that in order to keep Starbucks in business, rather than force them to make a better product, the US government mandated that every American purchase an over-priced instant latte every morning despite not wanting to drink it. Even a liberal wouldn’t agree to an arrangement that stupid, but that’s in essence how subsidies work.

Wrapped up in pretty bow addressed to “Too big to fail,” the Bush and Obama administrations agreed to subsidize GM’s declining business, to the tune of $50.2 billion dollars of tax payers’ money. Yet here we are, after another decade of poor performance, GM is struggling. The bottom line is General Motors is not offering quality products and no amount of assistance from tax payers will make that happen. It’s time for them to sink or swim.

Mainstream media and politicians of both parties go into an absolute hyperbolic frenzy at the mere mention of eliminating government intervention for deteriorating corporate businesses. They all assume that cutting off the government teat automatically equals bankruptcy but that isn’t always the case. Here are few examples:

Apple – It’s hard to believe that the tech giant that occupies nearly every American household was nearly never-to-be. In 1997, Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy until it was saved by a $150 million-dollar investment. That capital was not supplied by central planners but instead their own competitor, Microsoft.

Marvel Entertainment – Many young people today probably have no clue that their favorite super-heroes originate from comic books (or even what a comic book is), which was Marvel’s sole business before declaring bankruptcy in 1996. Once the bottom fell out, the company was forced to change its business model shifting from comic books to movies and merchandise.

IBM – The IT company has remained a reliable fixture in the American economy for over 100 years. In the 80s and early 90s IBM struggled as new tech companies swarmed the market driving up competition. In 1993, IBM posted an $8 billion loss, the largest corporate drop in US history at the time. After hiring a new CEO and laying off 60,000 employees, the company was able to regain its footing and is still a stock market favorite today.

One only need to look at these veterans of failure to learn that the mistakes of free enterprise can often be turned into giant successes. We are doing a disservice to the management and employees of General Motors by denying them the opportunity to turn into something even greater than before.

If General Motors can’t turn things around, employees will simply have to get new jobs, start their own businesses, or improve their skill set to compete in the market. These market forces have been working for 2000 years of commerce. They’re not going to suddenly fail now.

The values of the American free market enterprise are grit, determination, and risk taking. Let’s see if General Motors still has them.

The New York Times And Chinese Lies

 

Earlier this month, the factually illiterate morons at the New York Times released the above 10-minute video about the perils of the Chinese health care system. In a failed attempt to blame capitalism for these problems, the New York Times instead dutifully encapsulated the widespread dysfunction that ALWAYS results from government run medicine. As a resident of China and recipient of outstanding private health care here, it was obvious that the NYT deliberately snubbed featuring any private facility while shamelessly and falsely labelling the catastrophic care at public hospitals as capitalist enterprises.

The propaganda piece begins with a man making his own drugs for his elderly, cancer-stricken mother. This is a common practice among poor Chinese who cannot afford the high prices of approved drugs. The approved pharmaceuticals available are invariably foreign made drugs, manufactured mainly by western, capitalist nations. While China actually produces the world’s second-largest prescription drug market, the quality of the drugs is very poor. Chinese doctors actually advise against taking Chinese prescriptions due to lack of transparency of ingredients. I’ve even had a Chinese pediatrician tell me not to give my children a simple cough syrup developed in China. So, while the New York Times contends that capitalism is killing the Chinese, the Chinese are almost exclusively relying on western medicine, created by those evil capitalists to survive.

The video then showcases the ungodly long line outside of the Shanghai Cancer Center at Fudong University. This is where the most egregious of lies is being spewed by the biased newspaper. The Shanghai Cancer Center is a PUBLIC hospital, not a private one. The activities you see; the long lines, scalpers, bribes paid, physical fights with hospital staff, are all exclusively happening in the PUBLIC, communist, government run hospitals. This does not happen at the private hospitals.

The problems faced at the public hospitals in China are a direct result of the tenets of communism: excessive regulation, the destruction of the profit incentive, and widespread poverty.

Along with income from the municipal medical schemes that citizens must pay into, the state hospitals depend on drug sales and tests for their revenues. This makes hospitals fertile ground for bribes from pharmaceutical companies, unnecessary drug prescriptions and excessive testing. The excessive testing is not only a giant waste of money, but in hospitals where doctors get less than three minutes with patients, it is a massive waste of time that the public sector doesn’t have. The government also heavily regulates reproduction programs due to the two-child policy, forcing hospitals to obtain a license from China’s Ministry of Health to perform fertility testing and treatments. Almost all of the licenses are only authorized for the state-run hospitals. Simply offloading the initial fertility testing to the private sector would take enormous pressure off the public system.

Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry operates under contradictory procedures. In the 1980s, the government began divesting in public hospitals and relocated those funds to subsidize prescription drugs for the poor. Simultaneously however, the government put price controls on the drugs making it impossible to turn a profit selling them at the hospital and destroying the profit incentive for developers. The government also invests in the R&D for pharmaceuticals and under President Xi Jinping this amount has increased from about 2% of global sales to 5%. This still doesn’t compare to the nearly 20% other countries invest. With the paltry investment and price caps, the industry is at a stalemate producing garbage drugs and unable to yield returns.

But the crux of the calamitous public health care in China is too many poor people. While eastern, urban China has embraced capitalism and the market economy, western, rural China is still largely agrarian. According to data from the World Bank, urban residents have on average an extra $4500 of disposable income per year while the rural residents have on average less than $1400 (about $4 per day). There are also different medical schemes for residents based on whether they are rural or urban, with the latter having more advantages than the former. Urban employers and employees both pay into the medical coverage giving the urban employee more resources to cover healthcare. Additionally, private companies in the East often provide private health insurance to their employees. Conversely, rural residents rely entirely on local government funding in regions where there is little tax revenue. Bleak resources naturally create doctor shortages. So, if you’re diagnosed with lung cancer and there is no pulmonologist in your province, there is nothing you can do about it.

Finally, there is one more disparaging factor affecting Chinese medical care: the antiquated caste system known as Hukou. Hukou is a system that registers families or individuals based on the province in which they live. Medical and educational services are funded and managed solely by local provincial governments, not the federal government. Residents are only entitled to these services within the province they are registered. If families or individuals move, they are not eligible for the same services in their new area. Thus, Hukou severely discourages mobility. It is a system that condemns the poor to serfdom. If you are born poor in Western China, you will never be rich in Eastern China. They are the peasants and we are the lords. That long line of poor people outside the Shanghai Cancer Center featured in the NYT video have all come from poorer regions and are paying out of pocket for care. *Take note liberals, this is what real systematic oppression looks like. *

I know first-hand just how outstanding the care at private facilities in China are. Wait times are practically non-existent. You don’t have to bribe anyone to be seen. I have been to the E.R. no less than six times here in Shanghai at two different hospitals. I have been registered immediately and sent to a consultation room within 10 minutes of arrival.

Last year I had my appendix removed here. I accidentally walked into the public hospital directly across from the private hospital where I had intended to go to. The emergency room was filled with at least 100 Chinese patients. Upon seeing my western face, the hospital staff directed me to the private hospital across the street, Shanghai United. I arrived to friendly staff, fluent in English. The ER doctor was American and I had an ultra sound and CT scan performed within the first two hours. Within 10 hours, my appendix was removed and I was enjoying my morphine high.

Even the public emergency transport services are completely unreliable in China. Public ambulances simply don’t show up or are too busy. Thankfully the malevolent free market services like taxis and ride sharing apps will take you.

The kind of exceptional care that myself and the wealthy Chinese receive is a pipe dream for the rest of China. The solution isn’t to dismiss the unbridled capitalism that has made the east wealthy and healthy. It is to expand the market economy into the west to give the serfs the same economic opportunities we have in the east. As long as Hukou remains a standard practice, the plebs cannot move to economically prosperous regions, it must come to them. The average IQ in China is around 105. How many smart people are stuck on a farm in the west that could be helping develop new drugs if the government would simply let people make money off of making drugs? Furthermore, as more Chinese become wealthy in the east and use private hospitals, they are helping transfer patients out of the public system and ease the burden.

Capitalism has provided value in a medical system where no value previously existed. The NYT continues to push this illusion that public medical care is magically free in China or any other country plagued with socialized medicine for that matter.

The fact that the New York Times refused to visit even one private hospital, mention the higher cancer survival rates of the eastern, wealthy patients getting private care, or any of the issues I have outlined in this article leads me to believe that they are either intellectually lazy, brazen communist sympathizers, or functionally retarded.

Prosperity and health for all Chinese citizens is not the goal for propagandists at the New York Times. These commissars see the high quality, almost decadent, private medical care awarded to the wealthy and say “No one should be treated this well.” Whereas capitalists see such care and say, “Everyone should be treated this well.”

A Tale Of Two Countries

 Kavanaugh Crying
Last week marked a pivotal point in American politics. The Left’s failing effort to nail Judge Brett Kavanaugh on intentionally vague and deliberately unprovable rape accusations made it clear that there is no deceitful tactic they won’t use to resist Republicans. Whatever conniving means they can use, they will. Your family, your job, your children, and your character are all collateral damage in their fight for power.

This is a historic new low. Certainly, never in my lifetime have I witnessed something this cunning and that opinion seems to be shared among older conservatives as well. Even among liberals, there is the perception that this has now gone way too far. Just to recap (and to cause a brain aneurism for the leftists reading this) there is ZERO evidence of any wrong-doing on behalf of Kavanaugh. ZERO. No physical evidence, no location, no date, and not a single corroborating witness named by Dr. Ford.

We are now at the point of what I fear is an irreparable divide in America.  The left and the right share absolutely no values. How can we even share a country?

One half of the country looks to the constitution as a guiding principle for governance. The other views it as an obstacle to more state power.

One half believes in the value of free speech. The other half considers ‘hate speech’ literal violence… but sees no problem with setting campuses on fire and beating people with bike locks.

One side wants the right to defend themselves from the Nikolas Cruzes of the world. The other gets PTSD from the site of an AR-15.

One side wants to uphold one of the defining characteristics of Western Civilization: that the burden of proof be levied with the accuser and that you are innocent until proven guilty. The other side celebrates an accusation destroying everything you have worked for your entire life.

It is the Rules For Rationales vs. the Rules For Radicals.

As my decade+ tenure abroad may be coming to an end, I now must consider where I will live in America and where I can go where people hold my values. This is proving to be a daunting task as half the country not only disagrees with my values but detests them.

How can I live in a community that will automatically deem my husband a victim based on his excessive melanin? How can I send my kids to schools where educators will teach them that their slight pigmentation is more valuable than their skill set? For the left, my children and husband are automatically apart of the victim hierarchy while I must remain on the peripheral as a white ally. And what will become of my family when an irate Marxist gets an inkling of the conservative values we live by?

We are up against an entity that believes obese women are now beautiful, that multi-millionaire athletes are victims, and that gender is a malleable characteristic.  When our fellow citizens are murdered by illegals, we want to protect other Americans. Instead the left rushes to protect the law-breakers.

We cannot agree on foundational principles because the left has no principles. The operate by any means necessary. The freedoms that we hold dear they wish to transfer to the state. They disdain the values for which our ancestors died.

When the Republicans stopped Merrick Garland from becoming a Supreme Court Justice they simply refused to hold the vote. They didn’t accuse him of being a gang rapist. Kavanaugh has been nominated for a lifetime appointment, but the crimes he is falsely accused of are worthy of lifetime imprisonment.

The slander of Judge Kavanaugh is proof that there is no middle ground. The left is completely devoid of morality. They hate America and will do anything to destroy it.

There are men and women in America salivating over the demise of the entire Kavanaugh family. They have never stopped to think “What if someone were to do this to me?” Would the ‘Believe All Women’ crowd uphold that standard when it was imposed on them or their husband or son. I doubt it. But perhaps that’s exactly what these people deserve; to lose the presumption of innocence and the necessity for evidence. They will never appreciate the values of American jurisprudence until they lose them.

 

The Left’s Perpetual State Of Political Blue Balls

For leftists, the demise of Trump is just as arousing as meeting a hot communist who loves socialized medicine, has a hammer and sickle tattoo and is actually willing to sleep with them. Unfortunately, both scenarios are just as improbable. Every week a ‘CNN Breaking News’ story develops and the left climaxes for days on end confident that this, THIS, will finally bring down the mango moron (their words, not mine). Alas, whatever dysentery the media is peddling, the dismantling of the Trump presidency never comes to fruition, and the resistance is left with the aforementioned blue balls.

This must be tough for liberals. It’s as if every week they meet a smart, kind, funny, beautiful woman, only to take her home and find out she’s a dude.

Which by the way, should not stop you from sleeping with her/him/ze/zir/they. It’s 2018 and some women have penises you transphobic bigot!

The upcoming publication of Bob Woodward’s new book was the first ‘Got him… Oh wait never mind’ moment of last week. The book is apparently riddled with accusations of a chaotic, dysfunctional White House, along with scathing insults directed at the president from four-star generals Mattis and Kelly. While the MSM is taking this book as gospel, both decorated generals refuted the quotes attributed to them, calling the excerpts outright fiction. This is reminiscent of the widely praised but similarly plagued with falsehoods, Fire and Fury.

To be fair, some of Woodward’s characterizations of the Trump White House appear spot on. It is undoubtedly chaotic, but we didn’t need Woodward to tell us that. It is evident based on the high turnover of staff. But why should we care if it is chaotic when this administration produces positive results? I’d much rather have a chaotic success than an organized failure.

The next spate of the week came in the form of the NYT op-ed, allegedly written by an anonymous ‘Senior Level White House Official.’ First, let’s address the purported job title of the writer. The term ‘Senior Level Official’ is a title thrown around inside the White House just as frequent as the accusation of being a Nazi. (Insert eyeroll.) The media will have you believe this person is possibly a cabinet member when indubitably, they are a tertiary staffer shuffling an endless supply of diet coke into the Oval Office.

The op-ed was not dissimilar to Woodward’s accounts of a manic leader, unable to stay on task, and absent of political principles. However, this resister deviates from the typical criticism and offers some well-deserved compliments for the administration’s policy changes. Unfortunately, these tributes are self-aggrandizing as the writer reports the accomplishments are despite Trump, not because of him. This is utterly preposterous. After slandering the president’s proposals by telling us for months that the markets would crash, people would die from the tax cuts, die from net neutrality, die from the US exit from the Paris Climate Accords, the resistance is now attempting to take credit for Trump’s success. Spare me. The op-ed not only proves that the deep state is real, it’s also apparently very shallow.

Lastly, the week was rife with spectacular performances by the cosplayers of the Democratic Party. The Kavanaugh hearings were complete with irrational outbursts, people in full Handmaid’s Tale costumes, and pompous Democratic leaders asking questions of a man much smarter than them.

The biggest gaffe came in the form of Senator Booker’s alpha-male facade of breaking Senate rules for the ‘sake of the truth’. Booker threatened to release classified emails ostensibly proving Kavanaugh was in favor of racial profiling. The reality was the emails were approved for release and proved in fact, Kavanaugh was against racial profiling.

Booker called it his ‘I am Spartacus’ moment. First of all, that’s cultural appropriation. Second of all, Booker probably hasn’t read the story of Spartacus. In the end, Spartacus is murdered and remaining members of his army are crucified.

While the events of last week left liberals hopeful that they could take down Trump or at least Kavanaugh, it was another string of misfires. Sadly, these failures have only amplified the hysterical rhetoric and violent tendencies of the left. They have become such dangerous idiots that I’m actually hoping for a small blue wave in November. We need something to placate the incels and hold off their inevitable psychopathic virgin, Elliot Rodger style attempted massacre.

For the deplorables, it was a pretty good week as President Trump remains the ultimate cock-block between the left and their Marxist, socialist, genderless utopia.

Nothing Is Sacred Anymore

President Trump’s worst characteristic is his spitefulness for those he doesn’t like. While most of us cringe as his unartful statements leave his lips and tweets hit the feed, the media talking heads chastise him. Unfortunately, those who castigate him for this vice, put it on full display this weekend.

For the rest of America, a funeral is a time to celebrate a person’s life, remember their endearing qualities, share memories, and be thankful for your time with the deceased. What we learned this weekend is that even while standing in the house of the Lord, virtue signaling your political opinion is more important than mourning the dead. Nothing is sacred anymore.

The necessity to interject politics into every aspect of American life is a cancer on our culture. Constant criticism of our political opponents was once a benign practice confined to our news media and Facebook debates. This disease has now metastasized to every corner of our life. It’s injected into television, sports, chicken sandwiches, quaint little restaurants in Virginia, and now the simple act of burying our dead. Rather than cherishing the final moments of our time with our kin, we look for opportunities to ‘own’ our enemies.

Despite his best effort to exclude Donald Trump from his memorial, John McCain’s funeral was very much about Trump. We listened as leaders criticized our destructive political climate while simultaneously participating in it. We heard blanketed insults towards our president when the focus should have solely been on the patriot in the casket. What aired on September 1st, was not a respectful memorial, it was a roast masquerading as a funeral complete with Royal Wedding style media coverage. President Trump truly is a remarkable deal-maker. He has purchased equity inside the frontal lobe of every resister without even spending a dime.

Additionally, the sudden adoration for McCain gave the service an air of forgery. Candidate McCain was a decent man when running for president in 2008, but you wouldn’t have known that if you were a democrat then. Back then he was the usual republican racist, sexist, bigot, etc. according to the left. The ‘maverick’ they loathed is now the ‘maverick’ revered.

Before penning my judgements on the ceremony, I re-evaluated my stance. Maybe I was being dramatic in my assessment? But my original interpretation was proven correct by The New Yorker in a piece titled, John McCain’s Funeral Was the Biggest Resistance Meeting Yet. Not only were the elites using the death of McCain to attack Trump, they were proud of themselves for doing it. They are completely unashamed of their attempt to use a funeral to sway political opinion. Our culture has now descended into the bowels of political ire at the expense of our burials, something we once held sacrosanct.

I keep naively thinking that this hyperbolic state of outrage will eventually fall into remission. That perhaps some rational discourse, positive economic data, and a reduction in foreign intervention might quell the fears of the left. That maybe, just maybe, the president’s pettiness might be countered with the advice from Michelle Obama, “When they go low, we go high.”

But it appears that this cancer has festered for far too long and is now terminal.

The president’s statements about McCain’s POW status were abominable and the flag snafu after his passing was petty and mean-spirited. But rather than respectfully mourning John McCain, it appears the resistance saw it as an opportunity to one-up this poor behavior.

It’s as if Trump said “No-one disrespects McCain as well as I do. No-one.”

The resistance: “Hold my beer.”

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén