These are the three unalienable rights which this country and its government have been founded and built upon.  An individual should be guaranteed the freedom to act however they choose as long as it does not infringe on another’s freedom. This is the fundamental concept of rights.

At the heart of the Healthcare issue appears to be confusion around the rights of individuals and the extend of government protection regarding these rights.

Health care is a service provided by doctors, nurses, etc. to any individual for a price.

On the most fundamental level, guaranteeing any individual a right to receive a service infringes on the right of another person who provides the service.

Declaring every individual has a right to access and receive health care, universal coverage, also declares every individual in the healthcare industry, doctors, nurses, etc are required and forced to provide their service.  To assert health care rights for the individual seeking the service, asserts individuals providing the health care service have no rights. Another approach is to subjugate individual rights, doctors, nurses, etc., for the “greater good” of society.  For idea, the “greater good” of society, leads down the road to communism where the individual exists for the sole purpose of the community.

In all cases, claiming the right to receive healthcare service violates the right of the healthcare service provider. To take away the rights of health care providers, doctors, nurses, etc. enslaves them to the party removing their rights, in this case, the government.

To access and receive health care is not a right, but a desire, want, need or demand.  It is a form of enslavement to remove the rights of a group of people.  A right to health care is not just or morally right and is inconsistent with the principles this country was founded upon.

Quotes:

In the House of Representatives on Sept 23rd 2009, Ron Paul states, “1.)  No one has a right to medical care.  If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property.  This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.”

Ron Paul states in an NPR interview, “I do not believe peoples’ needs or desires or wants or demands are rights. ”

Source Links:

Declaration of Independence – http://joeyconway.com/f9xdw4

 Mises – Involuntary Medical Servitude – http://joeyconway.com/63hqxd 

NPR – Ron Paul: Leave Government Out of Insurnace Plan – http://joeyconway.com/r37f5a

House.gov – Ron Paul – More Government Won’t Help – http://joeyconway.com/e53542

Tweet

 The Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge ruled against the central bank saying the central bank “improperly withheld agency records” by “conducting an inadequate search” after Bloomberg News reporters filed a request under the information act.  The Judge gave the Fed 5 days to locate the documents and turn them over.

All the Federal Reserve’s actions have been taken, in their opinion, in the public’s interest.  If the Fed’s actions are the public’s interest and the public’s money is being used, the public is entitled to know.  Perhaps, if the Fed had known last year, using the public’s money in the public’s “best interest” would compromise their secracy, they might have been more stingent with their lending standards or more transparent about their process.

Bloomberg Article: http://joeyconway.com/3t9zev

Tweet

 There are two types of Liquidity Swaps the Federal Reserve by way of the Federal Open Market Committee has established: Dollar Liquidity Swap Lines and Foreign-Currency Liquidity Swap Lines.

Dollar Liquidity Swap Lines

A few months after the credit crunch first began, December 12^th 2007, the Federal Reserve established agreements with 14 other central banks to provide them with US dollars in exchange for the equivalent amount of their currency for a period of time ranging from overnight to 3 months.  The equivalent amount of their currency is determined by the Foreign Exchange (FX) rate at that point in time and when the swap reaches maturity (overnight to 3 months), the currencies are exchanged at the original FX rate.  Another words, if any of the markets regulated by the other 14 central banks needed US dollars, their central banks would be able to obtain them directly from the Federal Reserve at a fixed rate and for a fixed period.  The Federal Reserve charges a “market-based rate” to the foreign central bank in exchange for this product.  The goal is to assist the other 14 central banks in providing US dollar liquidity to their respective markets.  The 14 other central banks with access to US dollars through this program are: the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Banco Central do Brasil, the Bank of Canada, Danmarks Nationalbank, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Korea, the Banco de Mexico, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Norges Bank, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Sveriges Riksbank, and the Swiss National Bank.  The FOMC has set this program to expire on February 1^st 2010.  The current amounts of dollars drawn by other banks from the Federal Reserve are reported on their weekly Thursday 4:30pm EST published balance sheet.

Foreign-Currency Liquidity Swap Lines

A year and 5 months after the Dollar Liquidity Swap program, April 6^th 2009, the Federal Reserve announced foreign currency liquidity swaps with 4 other central banks.  Essentially, this allows the Federal Reserve to exchange US dollars for foreign currency at a fixed amount for a fixed period.  In a way, this is exactly opposite the original dollar liquidity swap program.  The goal is to provide the Federal Reserve with sufficient liquidity in the foreign currency for U.S. institutions and markets.  The 4 central banks in this program are: the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank.  These swap lines will extend until February 1 2010.

Federal Reserve Liquidity Program Detials: http://joeyconway.com/5pvp5v

Federal Reserve US Dollary Liquidity Swap FAQ: http://joeyconway.com/m2kxpy

Tweet

Situation: The Federal Reserve is one of Wall Street’s biggest customers.  There are many markets but for the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) market, the Fed purchases more bonds in this market than any other party.  In fact, as of last Thursday, the Fed claimed to hold $542 billion on its balance sheet in MBS.

Regarding the Federal Reserve’s role as a player in the markets, from the FT article, “A former official of the US Treasury and the Fed said the situation had reached the point that “everyone games them (the Fed). Their transparency hurts them. Everyone picks their pocket.”

Now in response to this, from the FT article, Senator ”Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, said the potential profiteering may be part of the price for stabilising the financial system. “You can’t rescue the credit system without benefiting some of the people in it.”

Now to help clarify the justification Barney Frank provides, from the FT article, “…another official familiar with the matter said the central bank “has heard that dealers load up on securities to sell to the Fed. There is concern, but policy goals override other considerations.”

At the very least, we are told, policy goals override any other considerations implying we shouldn’t be concerned if one group of people benefit at the expense of another.  We are told, one group of people may benefit  (profiteering) from the federal government’s intervention, but it is justified because the end goal is to stabalize the financial system. 

Can the financial system be stabalizied without profiteering?

Financial Times Article: http://joeyconway.com/s5nd6c

Tweet