ISSUES TO WATCH:

- George Bush has announced a sweeping plan to "protect America" against the possibility that avian flu could become a pandemic. On Tuesday, November 1, President Bush called for 7.1 billion Dollars to be spent on pandemic prevention, including 1.2 billion tax Dollars used to have upwards of 20 million vaccinations on hand for the federal government to dole out to the citizens of the US. Since Mr. Bush swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, it would be an interesting exercise for him to, sometime, cite that article of the document that gives him, or Congress, the power to seize tax money and spend it in this way.

It might also be interesting for pop-media "reporters" to actually question whether or not this is necessary on a federal level. Last year, the FDA and other federal agencies were forced to defend themselves when it appeared there was not going to be enough flu vaccine to be utilized by those who wanted or needed it.The European company Chiron was cited for having created a tainted batch of vaccine, adding to the troubles.

Yet, despite the fact that the government has already shown itself incapable of providing help in this area, despite the fact that other government agencies are continually shown to be inefficient and politically manipulated, people like George Bush still push for it to handle matters directly tied to our individual well-being. In fact, Bush is not alone... Read on...

- NH Senator Judd "Powerball" Gregg announces his own plan for federally provided vaccines. (see details). With the announcement of his plan, has Judd Gregg finally thrown away any remnant of his "conservative" credentials? One of the key matters to explore here is the fact that the federal government restricts the number of companies that can create flu vaccines, even as it tells the public that only the government can handle this problem, and the free market is incapable of doing the job. What rationale do they offer for such claims? Bureaucrats at the FDA and FEMA tell us that influenza strains appear so rapidly on an annual basis, that the market place would not be able to respond with enough speed to get the vaccines into doctor's offices. This is ironic, since the politicians and officials making these claims work for the largest, slowest, most inefficient system in the US. While the federal government passes the buck over being too slow in its response to the natural disasters in the Gulf Coast region (federal aid that is unconstitutional, by the way, please see this piece for a nice historic reminder of this fact), we are told by politicians that they are the best to handle a flu pandemic.
Since, so the story goes, the market would not be able to have enough cash on hand to wait for the flu strain to appear and then get a vaccine out on the shelves, the government ought to pre-emptively take people's tax money and hold it for just that purpose. The government will then be able to hire companies like Chiron to make tainted flu vaccines, and then call for rationing of the clean versions of the vaccines when the bureaucrats suspect they have not called for enough.

It is easy to see how these politicians miss the beauty of the market. They are too often trying to find ways to justify their own positions. However, if one were to take even a cursory glance, he could see abundant examples of market preparation for natural disasters that could risk human lives.

Home insurance is a perfect example. One never knows when a fire could occur, or when a tornado might hit, yet the responsible person decides to give payments to an insurance company in order to hedge against that future liability.

In the same fashion, people who believed influenza strains were a threat would also invest in hedges against the flu. Companies involved with such "flu insurance" would then have the capability to utilize large reserves of funds in order to produce vaccines for those who had the foresight (like those who had the foresight to get homeowners' insurance) to buy into the program.

It is important to note that some people might make the decision that, for them, the risk of contracting the flu, or dying from it if it is contracted, is so small, it is not worth the investment for insurance. This is their decision, and it is not our place to supercede through the force of government.

Another facet to observe is the fact that, for those would wanted such insurance or protection, and could not receive it, there would be may charities that would fill the gap, and the appearance of these charities would represent true caring, not the facade of government-forced "national unity" we are told represents charity in the US today.