Obama's Anti-Roberts, by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post, May 28, 2009.
Excerpts:
"Republicans would be foolish to fight the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court because she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.
"And even though they should support her confirmation, liberals would be foolish to embrace Sotomayor as one of their own because her record is clearly that of a moderate.
"In this battle, it's important to separate Obama's reasons for choosing Sotomayor from her actual record. He was drawn to her not simply because the politics of naming the first Latina justice were irresistible, but also because he saw her as the precise opposite of Chief Justice John Roberts.
"In his September 2005 speech explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama argued that 95 percent of court cases are easily settled on the basis of the law and precedent. But in 'those 5 percent of hard cases,' Obama said, the 'legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision' and 'the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.' "
My Commentary, posted on 5/29/2009 at 9:08:42 PM
Zemack wrote:
The crucial issue here is not whether Ms. Sotomayor is a liberal, conservative, or Hispanic or a woman. The real issue is President Obama’s judicial philosophy, which is an assault on a key founding principle of the United States and the foundation of justice. On May 1, 2009, the president said:
“... [J]ustice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.
“I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
His nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, said the following in a 2001 California Berkeley School of Law
speech:
“…“[T]he aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration…
“There is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives,”
What this means is that a judge may, on any subjective whim, side-step the objective reliance on law and facts and substitute his own emotions in rendering a decision. What America since its founding has been guided by [is] the principle of “a government of laws and not of men”. President Obama’s historic precedent is to say, “not anymore”.
Never mind that “only” the most complex 5% of the cases will be affected. Once the arbitrary supplants the objective, the whole judicial system becomes an emotional crapshoot. How do the antagonists in a court case decide when to settle out of court when the only valid frame of reference, the law and the facts, can be rendered meaningless at any time by some judge’s “perspectives”? How does one prepare to enter a court of law governed by judges who can act at any time – not as an impartial arbiter of objective facts and law – but on what happens to just “feel right”? How can one ever know whether he will be a part of some imaginary 95%, or the other 5%? How can one ever know if he as an objective shot at justice? What’s the point of having courts at all, if impartiality is “just an aspiration” rather than a solemn pledge?
If Obama believes that the “disadvantaged” deserving of “empathy” would somehow benefit from the breakdown of objective law and equal, blind justice, he should think again. “A government of men” is tyranny, and the greatest victims of tyranny throughout history have always been the average citizen. America, the “government of laws”, has always been a place of achievement for the “little guy”, precisely because of the equal protection under the law that he can count on.
If Obama’s judicial philosophy takes hold, it can no more be contained to just 5% of the judiciary than cancer cells can be contained in the body. The road to tyranny begins with small first steps. President Obama has taken a scary first step down that ancient road of the rule of men rather than laws.
This issue transcends the liberal-conservative, democrat-republican divide. A judge has a legal, professional, and, especially, a moral duty to make the utmost effort to prevent personal feelings from impinging upon the rigorous adherence to facts and law…no matter how complex the case. Judge Sotomayor’s rejection of objectivity and impartiality renders her unfit for the Supreme Court. And President Obama must be sent a strong message by congress: The dignity of the judicial process must be preserved. The future of America depends on it.
When justice is transformed from an objective absolute into a ball of putty, there is no justice at all. Sonia Sotomayor should not be confirmed.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Medicare's Denial of Virtual Colonoscopies
This article in the 5/26/09 addition of the New Jersey Star Ledger raises the alarm about the rationing to come.
Denying Medicare coverage for virtual colonoscopy is wrong move
My Commentary
Posted by Zemack on 05/26/09 at 8:29PM
This is an excellent article by Mr. Bramwit. The issue, though, is much wider than the relative value of virtual colonoscopies. It is about who should be making medical decisions, the government or the patient. It is about the proper role of government and the rights of the individual.
Only in the sterile mind of a bean-counting government bureaucrat can medical advances be considered too much of a cost burden on "the system". This is what happens when people give up their freedom for the illusion of "free, guaranteed" medical care. The perverse system that awards this kind of power to a hand-full of government central planners is the collectivized utopia that forces everyone to be responsible for everyone else's healthcare, but not one's own.
Medicare is following the predicted and foreseeable trajectory; exploding costs, followed by rationing, followed by an attempt to "save" the system by expanding it. The healthcare "debate" now centers on the search for new victims to loot and enslave. Whether by covert means such as the Trojan horse of a "public option", or opening up Medicare to all who want in, or by open advocacy of single payer, the drive is on to ensnare everyone under total socialized medicine, one way or the other. The logical and inevitable end result--a healthcare dictatorship.
This Medicare decision is the tip of the iceberg and a harbinger and should be a wake-up call. When we turn over our money to government, we turn over our right to make all manner of medical decisions. When the government pays, the government sets the terms. Ultimately, the central planners will have totalitarian control over who gets what treatment when, how much superficially "private" providers will be paid, and the whole field of cutting-edge medical technology and research. The victims of the cold, heavy hand of the bean counters will suffer and die in silence, even as relatively healthy people enjoy their "free" routine medical care without regard to cost.
The socialist Left loves Rowe vs. Wade on the grounds that the decision to have an abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Fair enough, and that is something I support. But the same moral and legal logic applies across the board. All medical choices are properly a private matter between the patient and his/her doctor. No one - not the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, nor some "comparative effectiveness research" board, nor any other governmental authority - has any right to interfere with or dictate that decision.
But freedom in medicine is possible only under a system of individual rights...i.e., a free market. There is no other alternative. Only by taking personal responsibility for one's own healthcare, with one's own money, can one exercise his inalienable individual right to make one's own medical decisions. Never mind the absurd contention that the average person couldn't afford to pay for his own health insurance or healthcare. America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people's money. This is a fundamental part of the problem. Where does all of that money come from? That money comes from all of us in a myriad of ways, yet leaves us with little control over how it is spent.
Real healthcare reform starts with a re-examination of the entire network of government intrusions into the medical field that have been built up over a period of decades; from government entitlement programs, to private market insurance mandates, to the tax-distortion spawned third-party-payer system, and on and on.
As far as this Medicare decision goes, Mr. Bramwit is right to raise the alarm. Unfortunately, he shies away from the obvious solution to this horrendous decision. Rather than spread the unsustainable Medicare cancer with its $38 trillion unfunded liability to the entire country, it's time to challenge that sacred cow. Medicare should be phased out and abolished as a fundamental part of any healthcare reform.
For more on the decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to deny coverage for virtual colonoscopies, see The Wall Street Journal article, How Washington Rations.
Denying Medicare coverage for virtual colonoscopy is wrong move
My Commentary
Posted by Zemack on 05/26/09 at 8:29PM
This is an excellent article by Mr. Bramwit. The issue, though, is much wider than the relative value of virtual colonoscopies. It is about who should be making medical decisions, the government or the patient. It is about the proper role of government and the rights of the individual.
Only in the sterile mind of a bean-counting government bureaucrat can medical advances be considered too much of a cost burden on "the system". This is what happens when people give up their freedom for the illusion of "free, guaranteed" medical care. The perverse system that awards this kind of power to a hand-full of government central planners is the collectivized utopia that forces everyone to be responsible for everyone else's healthcare, but not one's own.
Medicare is following the predicted and foreseeable trajectory; exploding costs, followed by rationing, followed by an attempt to "save" the system by expanding it. The healthcare "debate" now centers on the search for new victims to loot and enslave. Whether by covert means such as the Trojan horse of a "public option", or opening up Medicare to all who want in, or by open advocacy of single payer, the drive is on to ensnare everyone under total socialized medicine, one way or the other. The logical and inevitable end result--a healthcare dictatorship.
This Medicare decision is the tip of the iceberg and a harbinger and should be a wake-up call. When we turn over our money to government, we turn over our right to make all manner of medical decisions. When the government pays, the government sets the terms. Ultimately, the central planners will have totalitarian control over who gets what treatment when, how much superficially "private" providers will be paid, and the whole field of cutting-edge medical technology and research. The victims of the cold, heavy hand of the bean counters will suffer and die in silence, even as relatively healthy people enjoy their "free" routine medical care without regard to cost.
The socialist Left loves Rowe vs. Wade on the grounds that the decision to have an abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Fair enough, and that is something I support. But the same moral and legal logic applies across the board. All medical choices are properly a private matter between the patient and his/her doctor. No one - not the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, nor some "comparative effectiveness research" board, nor any other governmental authority - has any right to interfere with or dictate that decision.
But freedom in medicine is possible only under a system of individual rights...i.e., a free market. There is no other alternative. Only by taking personal responsibility for one's own healthcare, with one's own money, can one exercise his inalienable individual right to make one's own medical decisions. Never mind the absurd contention that the average person couldn't afford to pay for his own health insurance or healthcare. America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people's money. This is a fundamental part of the problem. Where does all of that money come from? That money comes from all of us in a myriad of ways, yet leaves us with little control over how it is spent.
Real healthcare reform starts with a re-examination of the entire network of government intrusions into the medical field that have been built up over a period of decades; from government entitlement programs, to private market insurance mandates, to the tax-distortion spawned third-party-payer system, and on and on.
As far as this Medicare decision goes, Mr. Bramwit is right to raise the alarm. Unfortunately, he shies away from the obvious solution to this horrendous decision. Rather than spread the unsustainable Medicare cancer with its $38 trillion unfunded liability to the entire country, it's time to challenge that sacred cow. Medicare should be phased out and abolished as a fundamental part of any healthcare reform.
For more on the decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to deny coverage for virtual colonoscopies, see The Wall Street Journal article, How Washington Rations.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Mulshine on Laffer
Steve Lonegan and the 'Laffer Curve', by Paul Mulshine of the New Jersey Star-Ledger.
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 05/21/09 at 7:25PM
I think Lonegan understands better than Christie a fundamental law of nature--production comes before consumption. His flat tax proposal is a recognition of this fact (although I would like to see the income tax abolished altogether). Despite misgivings, I will be voting for Lonegan largely on the basis of his strong statement that the progressive income tax is immoral..., which it certainly is.
As far as government spending goes, the only way to cut spending is to eliminate programs and departments. Making marginal cuts while leaving existing programs in place is the Corzine approach, and is worse than futile. The basis for deciding where to make structural cuts in government begins by reaffirming the original American concept of government, which is to protect individual rights. Therefor, one must distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate spending. Paying for the law courts, police, National Guard, arguably the fire and rescue squads, etc are proper. Use of the government's tax and spend powers to transfer wealth and earnings from those who earned it to those who didn't is both immoral and unconstitutional. None other than Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar, acknowledges as much. He said that the constitution provides for no "redistributive authority", which he called a "fundamental flaw"...no surprise there (from a 2001 interview on Chicago's public radio station WBEZ FM).
So eliminating redistributive state programs (in addition to regulatory agencies) would be not only moral but would be based upon strong constitutional grounds. All redistributive tax-and-spend government programs, including the entire welfare state, are unconstitutional...period. This provides a large target for the spending ax. Here again, I think Lonegan is best positioned, philosophically, to make real spending cuts.
As far as Laffer goes, I think his fundamental justification for cutting taxes...the "Laffer Curve"...amounts to an acceptance of the belief that the wealth of the nation belongs to government. Basing tax policy on the principle of maximizing government revenues is an acceptance of that left wing/collectivist notion. I'm reminded of the old saw that "republicans are the tax collectors for the welfare state".
I agree with gabe71's third paragraph above. Taxes, such as they are necessary to fund the proper functions of government, should be structured so as to minimize damage to production and trade. Rather than Laffer Curve reasoning, I prefer Milton Friedman's idea that "if you cut taxes and government's revenues rose, you haven't cut taxes enough."
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 05/21/09 at 7:25PM
I think Lonegan understands better than Christie a fundamental law of nature--production comes before consumption. His flat tax proposal is a recognition of this fact (although I would like to see the income tax abolished altogether). Despite misgivings, I will be voting for Lonegan largely on the basis of his strong statement that the progressive income tax is immoral..., which it certainly is.
As far as government spending goes, the only way to cut spending is to eliminate programs and departments. Making marginal cuts while leaving existing programs in place is the Corzine approach, and is worse than futile. The basis for deciding where to make structural cuts in government begins by reaffirming the original American concept of government, which is to protect individual rights. Therefor, one must distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate spending. Paying for the law courts, police, National Guard, arguably the fire and rescue squads, etc are proper. Use of the government's tax and spend powers to transfer wealth and earnings from those who earned it to those who didn't is both immoral and unconstitutional. None other than Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar, acknowledges as much. He said that the constitution provides for no "redistributive authority", which he called a "fundamental flaw"...no surprise there (from a 2001 interview on Chicago's public radio station WBEZ FM).
So eliminating redistributive state programs (in addition to regulatory agencies) would be not only moral but would be based upon strong constitutional grounds. All redistributive tax-and-spend government programs, including the entire welfare state, are unconstitutional...period. This provides a large target for the spending ax. Here again, I think Lonegan is best positioned, philosophically, to make real spending cuts.
As far as Laffer goes, I think his fundamental justification for cutting taxes...the "Laffer Curve"...amounts to an acceptance of the belief that the wealth of the nation belongs to government. Basing tax policy on the principle of maximizing government revenues is an acceptance of that left wing/collectivist notion. I'm reminded of the old saw that "republicans are the tax collectors for the welfare state".
I agree with gabe71's third paragraph above. Taxes, such as they are necessary to fund the proper functions of government, should be structured so as to minimize damage to production and trade. Rather than Laffer Curve reasoning, I prefer Milton Friedman's idea that "if you cut taxes and government's revenues rose, you haven't cut taxes enough."
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
On Obama's Christian Strategy
Conciliatory Fighting Words, by E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post, writing on President Obama's recent commencement address at Notre Dame University
My Commentary:
Zemack wrote:
President Obama’s political strategy is clear, a philosophical masterstroke, and devastating for capitalism and freedom. His grand strategy for remaking America into a nation ruled by the collective should be obvious to anyone who understands the power of ideas and of morality.
But to advocate socialism openly and honestly is and always has been a loser in America. After the tyranny, wars, and unprecedented mass murder wrought by the socialist regimes of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Red China, and the many smaller variants of the 20th century, socialism is dead as an intellectual force. Notice how Obama and the American Left run from the socialist label as from the plague, despite the obvious socialist (albeit through the fascist back door) underpinnings of their agenda. How, then, to pursue a socialist agenda in America?
Enter what one might call Obama’s “Christian Strategy”. The President, a philosophically astute man (unlike most of his GOP rivals), is and has been attempting to forge an alliance with Christianity based upon a common moral foundation…altruism. Unlike socialism, religion is a live and growing force in America, and Christianity is the dominant religion. Since socialism and Christianity share the same ethical premise…that the good consists of living for others or putting others above self…Obama’s brilliant strategy is to hitch his socialist agenda to Judeo-Christian ethics.
America was founded on the opposite ethical principle, though those principles were never explicitly defined until the 20th century. The Founding Fathers created a nation based upon the supreme value of the individual possessing the unalienable rights to his own life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. They rejected the tribal view that man must live for others (i.e., the collective). But it was philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand who comprehensively defined the philosophical underpinnings for the American Revolution. Through her classic novels The Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged…and through her philosophy of Objectivism…she presents the moral case for the American Revolution and capitalism.
It is only Ayn Rand who provides the vital intellectual ammunition to counter the accelerating collectivist trend in America, and thus save our individual freedom, because she can defend the individual’s right to exist for his own sake…and prove it. She offers the anti-dote to the doctrine that “we are all our brother’s keepers”, the moral root of Obama’s policies and the root of all variants of socialism. If Obama is to be stopped, Capitalism must be discovered. For Capitalism to be discovered, our Founding principles must be rediscovered and fully understood. For our Founding principles to be fully understood, Ayn Rand and Objectivism must be discovered and embraced.
The President is right that we are at “a rare inflection point in history”. He intends to steer America away from its Founding ideals by hitching his car to the engine of Christianity. It remains to be seen how successful he will be. But Obama understands fully that morality is the key to the direction America will take. It’s time that Capitalism’s defenders understood that, too.
My Commentary:
Zemack wrote:
President Obama’s political strategy is clear, a philosophical masterstroke, and devastating for capitalism and freedom. His grand strategy for remaking America into a nation ruled by the collective should be obvious to anyone who understands the power of ideas and of morality.
But to advocate socialism openly and honestly is and always has been a loser in America. After the tyranny, wars, and unprecedented mass murder wrought by the socialist regimes of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Red China, and the many smaller variants of the 20th century, socialism is dead as an intellectual force. Notice how Obama and the American Left run from the socialist label as from the plague, despite the obvious socialist (albeit through the fascist back door) underpinnings of their agenda. How, then, to pursue a socialist agenda in America?
Enter what one might call Obama’s “Christian Strategy”. The President, a philosophically astute man (unlike most of his GOP rivals), is and has been attempting to forge an alliance with Christianity based upon a common moral foundation…altruism. Unlike socialism, religion is a live and growing force in America, and Christianity is the dominant religion. Since socialism and Christianity share the same ethical premise…that the good consists of living for others or putting others above self…Obama’s brilliant strategy is to hitch his socialist agenda to Judeo-Christian ethics.
America was founded on the opposite ethical principle, though those principles were never explicitly defined until the 20th century. The Founding Fathers created a nation based upon the supreme value of the individual possessing the unalienable rights to his own life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. They rejected the tribal view that man must live for others (i.e., the collective). But it was philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand who comprehensively defined the philosophical underpinnings for the American Revolution. Through her classic novels The Fountainhead and especially Atlas Shrugged…and through her philosophy of Objectivism…she presents the moral case for the American Revolution and capitalism.
It is only Ayn Rand who provides the vital intellectual ammunition to counter the accelerating collectivist trend in America, and thus save our individual freedom, because she can defend the individual’s right to exist for his own sake…and prove it. She offers the anti-dote to the doctrine that “we are all our brother’s keepers”, the moral root of Obama’s policies and the root of all variants of socialism. If Obama is to be stopped, Capitalism must be discovered. For Capitalism to be discovered, our Founding principles must be rediscovered and fully understood. For our Founding principles to be fully understood, Ayn Rand and Objectivism must be discovered and embraced.
The President is right that we are at “a rare inflection point in history”. He intends to steer America away from its Founding ideals by hitching his car to the engine of Christianity. It remains to be seen how successful he will be. But Obama understands fully that morality is the key to the direction America will take. It’s time that Capitalism’s defenders understood that, too.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
"Empathy" and Obama's Judicial Philosophy--Star-Ledger Reader Forum
The following letter was published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger on 5/15/09. My comments follow, and you can read my blog post at Principled Perspectives for more.
Empathy is needed
I was nauseated reading Kevin O'Brien's recent op-ed article ("You won't find 'empathy' in the Constitution," May 8).
O'Brien objects to President Obama's stated desire to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter with an individual who feels empathy with suffering Americans. O'Brien feels empathy has no place in government, and that " equal protection under the law, which is a bedrock of American jurisprudence," precludes officials from entertaining feelings of empathy. O'Brien opines that "empathy assumes partiality." Was the Bush administration showing partiality toward Halliburton when it awarded the contractor -- which was formerly headed by former vice president Dick Cheney -- so many lucrative no-bid contracts? Did Valerie Plame enjoy equal protection under the law when Scooter Libby was pardoned by President George W. Bush after publicly exposing the undercover CIA agent? Did the wealthier elements of American society enjoy empathetic treatment by the Republicans when their taxes were slashed, and America rolled up a humongous deficit as Bush attempted to conquer the world?
Every administration is characterized by empathetic feelings toward one segment of society or another.
It just so happens that after eight years of Republican empathy for the elite, America now has a president who feels empathy toward the larger mass of humanity that doesn't enjoy the wealth the richest one percent of society possesses.
Bill Gottdenker, Mountainside
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 05/16/09 at 8:04PM
Bill Gottdenker needs to refresh his understanding of history. One of history's greatest achievement's is the founding of a nation...the United States of America...on the principle of "a government of laws, and not of men". That principle is, sadly, being steadily eroded as government increases its power and control.
The erosion of that American principle has, indeed, resulted in a mixed economy in which "Every administration is characterized by empathetic feelings toward one segment of society or another." We have become a nation of warring special interest pressure groups fighting (non-violently, so far) for the levers of government power, in order to gain through force some economic advantage that it cannot get voluntarily in the private market...each at the expense of others. This non-violent "civil war" is what happens when the objective rule of law breaks down, and the arbitrary whims of government officials and politicians...a "government of men"...takes over.
Now President Obama wants to undermine and corrupt our courts by inserting the arbitrary emotional whims...the "empathy"...of judges as a substitute for facts, logic, and objective law. This is a highly dangerous development and a major threat to justice. Mr. Gottdenker seems to believe that "the larger mass of humanity" would somehow benefit from the breakdown of objective law and equal, blind justice. But "a government of men" is tyranny, and the greatest victims of tyranny throughout history have always been the average citizen. America, the "government of laws", has always been a place of achievement for the "little guy", precisely because of the equal protection under the law that he can count on.
No, it hasn't been perfect or always consistently practiced. Nevertheless, a government of laws and not of men is an indespensable protector of "the larger mass of humanity". Inverting that principle leads to the rule of brutality, and Obama has taken us a major step down that dark road.
Empathy is needed
I was nauseated reading Kevin O'Brien's recent op-ed article ("You won't find 'empathy' in the Constitution," May 8).
O'Brien objects to President Obama's stated desire to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter with an individual who feels empathy with suffering Americans. O'Brien feels empathy has no place in government, and that " equal protection under the law, which is a bedrock of American jurisprudence," precludes officials from entertaining feelings of empathy. O'Brien opines that "empathy assumes partiality." Was the Bush administration showing partiality toward Halliburton when it awarded the contractor -- which was formerly headed by former vice president Dick Cheney -- so many lucrative no-bid contracts? Did Valerie Plame enjoy equal protection under the law when Scooter Libby was pardoned by President George W. Bush after publicly exposing the undercover CIA agent? Did the wealthier elements of American society enjoy empathetic treatment by the Republicans when their taxes were slashed, and America rolled up a humongous deficit as Bush attempted to conquer the world?
Every administration is characterized by empathetic feelings toward one segment of society or another.
It just so happens that after eight years of Republican empathy for the elite, America now has a president who feels empathy toward the larger mass of humanity that doesn't enjoy the wealth the richest one percent of society possesses.
Bill Gottdenker, Mountainside
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 05/16/09 at 8:04PM
Bill Gottdenker needs to refresh his understanding of history. One of history's greatest achievement's is the founding of a nation...the United States of America...on the principle of "a government of laws, and not of men". That principle is, sadly, being steadily eroded as government increases its power and control.
The erosion of that American principle has, indeed, resulted in a mixed economy in which "Every administration is characterized by empathetic feelings toward one segment of society or another." We have become a nation of warring special interest pressure groups fighting (non-violently, so far) for the levers of government power, in order to gain through force some economic advantage that it cannot get voluntarily in the private market...each at the expense of others. This non-violent "civil war" is what happens when the objective rule of law breaks down, and the arbitrary whims of government officials and politicians...a "government of men"...takes over.
Now President Obama wants to undermine and corrupt our courts by inserting the arbitrary emotional whims...the "empathy"...of judges as a substitute for facts, logic, and objective law. This is a highly dangerous development and a major threat to justice. Mr. Gottdenker seems to believe that "the larger mass of humanity" would somehow benefit from the breakdown of objective law and equal, blind justice. But "a government of men" is tyranny, and the greatest victims of tyranny throughout history have always been the average citizen. America, the "government of laws", has always been a place of achievement for the "little guy", precisely because of the equal protection under the law that he can count on.
No, it hasn't been perfect or always consistently practiced. Nevertheless, a government of laws and not of men is an indespensable protector of "the larger mass of humanity". Inverting that principle leads to the rule of brutality, and Obama has taken us a major step down that dark road.
"National Healthcare"--Star-Ledger Reader's Forum
National health insurance
I have been reading about the various approaches being looked at in Congress to address the creation of a national health insurance plan that would assure coverage to all Americans. I endorse and support that effort.
The federal government already has contracts with almost all of the insurance companies in the United States and the premiums for federal employees are lower than most companies are charged, and definitely lower than what individuals can get.
Why not simply open the federal plan to all businesses and individuals in the country? That would create a rate-base of 300 million and that rate-base would drive down costs.
The federal government can also open up existing federal programs like Medicare to all citizens as a backstop and a way of insuring that private companies do not take unfair advantage of consumers. We will also have to make provision for the indigents, because having people who are not insured is more expensive than covering them.
We can even have graduated levels of assistance for the working poor.
I want to see the current federal insurance system opened to all Americans using an actuarial rate base of all the people in the nation. This will keep the private companies alive as well as assure medical insurance and the health care for everyone.
This can be a win-win.
George N. Wells, Dover
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 05/16/09 at 2:42PM
The basic premise underlying the idea of "universal health care" is the un-American idea that the individual has no rights and is to be subordinated to the group, as represented by the state. It is the deadly ideology of collectivism. I submit into evidence the letter by George N. Wells.
He declares that Congress should set up "a national health insurance plan that would assure coverage to all Americans."
The means by which human needs (and desires) are to be met do not just occur free in nature. They must be created by productive people. There are basically only two ways to acquire the product of another man's labor--by voluntary means such as trade or private charity, or seize it by force. The first is the civilized method; the second is the criminal method. Therefor, the only way that government can guarantee any man-made product such as healthcare is to declare that the people's earnings and the productive labor of the providers belong to "society", and then exercise the totalitarian powers to loot and enslave. There is no other way. When government pays, government sets the terms...on who the money comes from, on who will get what treatment when, prices and salaries, medical technology and innovation, etc.
Mr. Wells declares that "we" should provide for "the indigents" and "the working poor". This is a tacit admission that Mr. Wells believes that the earnings and wealth of others is his to dispose of...the disposition to be carried out by the majority mob's political surrogates. The fact that universal health schemes may be administered by quasi-private companies controlled by the government is nothing more than socialism through the fascist back door.
I support the alternative, free market capitalism. This is the moral system based upon American principles...the principles of individual rights protected by a government limited to that purpose. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action, coupled with the sole obligation to respect the same rights of others...a respect distinctly missing from socialized medicine's proponents. Rights are not an automatic claim on the earnings, property, or wealth produced by others.
In a free market, all associations are voluntary. Consumers, providers, insurers, and patients are left free to contract voluntarily with each other to mutual advantage. Each individual is free to decide for himself when, whom, and in what capacity to help others...free from the predatory, phony do-gooders seeking to practice "charity" with other people's tax money.
Government interference is the source of the problems confronting American healthcare. America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people's money. This is a fundamental part of the problem.
The only just and moral course to take on healthcare reform is to rid medicine of government interference. End all government insurance mandates, barriers to inter-state competition, and the third-party-payer system; phase out existing "public" plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and let people take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, as is their unalienable right under American principles. Leave healthcare dollars in the hands of the people that earned it through some vehicle like HSAs, leave providers and insurers free to compete directly for those consumer dollars, and restrict the government to its proper role of protector of the individual rights of all (which includes anti-fraud laws and enforcement of contracts). The natural incentives inherent in a free market provide the proper, moral dynamics for affordable, widely available quality healthcare.
Mr. Wells endorses and supports tyranny, whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not. I support capitalism and individual rights.
I have been reading about the various approaches being looked at in Congress to address the creation of a national health insurance plan that would assure coverage to all Americans. I endorse and support that effort.
The federal government already has contracts with almost all of the insurance companies in the United States and the premiums for federal employees are lower than most companies are charged, and definitely lower than what individuals can get.
Why not simply open the federal plan to all businesses and individuals in the country? That would create a rate-base of 300 million and that rate-base would drive down costs.
The federal government can also open up existing federal programs like Medicare to all citizens as a backstop and a way of insuring that private companies do not take unfair advantage of consumers. We will also have to make provision for the indigents, because having people who are not insured is more expensive than covering them.
We can even have graduated levels of assistance for the working poor.
I want to see the current federal insurance system opened to all Americans using an actuarial rate base of all the people in the nation. This will keep the private companies alive as well as assure medical insurance and the health care for everyone.
This can be a win-win.
George N. Wells, Dover
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 05/16/09 at 2:42PM
The basic premise underlying the idea of "universal health care" is the un-American idea that the individual has no rights and is to be subordinated to the group, as represented by the state. It is the deadly ideology of collectivism. I submit into evidence the letter by George N. Wells.
He declares that Congress should set up "a national health insurance plan that would assure coverage to all Americans."
The means by which human needs (and desires) are to be met do not just occur free in nature. They must be created by productive people. There are basically only two ways to acquire the product of another man's labor--by voluntary means such as trade or private charity, or seize it by force. The first is the civilized method; the second is the criminal method. Therefor, the only way that government can guarantee any man-made product such as healthcare is to declare that the people's earnings and the productive labor of the providers belong to "society", and then exercise the totalitarian powers to loot and enslave. There is no other way. When government pays, government sets the terms...on who the money comes from, on who will get what treatment when, prices and salaries, medical technology and innovation, etc.
Mr. Wells declares that "we" should provide for "the indigents" and "the working poor". This is a tacit admission that Mr. Wells believes that the earnings and wealth of others is his to dispose of...the disposition to be carried out by the majority mob's political surrogates. The fact that universal health schemes may be administered by quasi-private companies controlled by the government is nothing more than socialism through the fascist back door.
I support the alternative, free market capitalism. This is the moral system based upon American principles...the principles of individual rights protected by a government limited to that purpose. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action, coupled with the sole obligation to respect the same rights of others...a respect distinctly missing from socialized medicine's proponents. Rights are not an automatic claim on the earnings, property, or wealth produced by others.
In a free market, all associations are voluntary. Consumers, providers, insurers, and patients are left free to contract voluntarily with each other to mutual advantage. Each individual is free to decide for himself when, whom, and in what capacity to help others...free from the predatory, phony do-gooders seeking to practice "charity" with other people's tax money.
Government interference is the source of the problems confronting American healthcare. America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people's money. This is a fundamental part of the problem.
The only just and moral course to take on healthcare reform is to rid medicine of government interference. End all government insurance mandates, barriers to inter-state competition, and the third-party-payer system; phase out existing "public" plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and let people take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, as is their unalienable right under American principles. Leave healthcare dollars in the hands of the people that earned it through some vehicle like HSAs, leave providers and insurers free to compete directly for those consumer dollars, and restrict the government to its proper role of protector of the individual rights of all (which includes anti-fraud laws and enforcement of contracts). The natural incentives inherent in a free market provide the proper, moral dynamics for affordable, widely available quality healthcare.
Mr. Wells endorses and supports tyranny, whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not. I support capitalism and individual rights.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
"Healthcare Ailing"--Star-Ledger Reader Forum
5/14/09
Health care ailing
I awoke recently to a report stating Big Health was going to save the country $2 trillion over the next decade ("Health care industry gets behind Obama's plan," May 11). What a coincidence. Just as the Obama administration begins to tackle heath care reform, a colossal savings has been discovered.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, medical inflation was running around 10 percent annually. Bill Clinton was elected and immediately proposed health care reform. Surprise! Medical inflation plummeted, only to rebounded just as soon as reform efforts were killed.
Should the government have propped up buggy-whip manufacturers when they became obsolete? Of course not. Although the current patchwork quilt that makes up health care financing in this country is likewise obsolete, competition in this sector still has "efficient" insurers with overheads around 15 percent.
Medicare's overhead is 1 percent. It is time for the nation to catch up with the rest of the civilized world.
John O'Connor, Cedar Grove
Insurance reform needed
I would like to add my voice to those who think that a single-payer insurance plan is the way to go. It's not free health care, but a less expensive, more efficiently run and fairer system.
The current system has failed us, that much is obvious. I'm sorry that the insurance companies are afraid of losing their stranglehold on our health care, but the over 40-million of us who are uninsured and risk bankruptcy are not so sympathetic.
David Easton, Maplewood
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 05/14/09 at 8:43PM
John O'Connor comes close to naming the problem with regard to healthcare financing, then misses the obvious conclusion...end government's massive interference. Leaving aside Obama's $2 trillion extortion scheme against the industry, today's "patchwork quilt" is solely the work of government, which Mr. O'Connor now wants to reward with totalitarian control.
To start with, as Jeffcon points out, the idea that government-run programs like Medicare offer low administrative costs is a mirage. For example, the administrative costs for Medicare are huge, but are simply shifted onto the private sector, such as doctor's offices, hospitals, and employers (in the form of tax collection costs). In addition, the government's own tax collection costs are ignored.
The second thing to grasp is that the government-imposed third-party-payer system, thousands of government insurance mandates, and state-imposed restraints of trade that bar inter-state competition impose huge, unnecessary administrative costs while simultaneously driving up the cost of insurance. America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people's money. This is a fundamental part of the problem. That money comes from all of us in a myriad of ways, yet leaves us with little control over how it is spent. David Easton doesn't have insurance, but (assuming he is a working taxpayer) pays plenty in healthcare costs...only his money goes to pay for other people's healthcare.
Today's insurance industry is actually a quasi-private, government created and protected cartel, and is not indicative of a free market. The seeming "stranglehold on our health care" held by the insurers is really an extension of government coercion. The single-payer "solution" would consolidate power under a centralized bureaucratic elite armed with the government's legal monopoly on physical force. It would have total, life and death control over providers, patients, treatments, prices, medical technology, etc. To put it in Mr. Easton's language, the government would have a stranglehold on our health care...a real stranglehold called a dictatorship.
Any honest and objective healthcare reform debate must begin with an examination of how we got to this point to begin with. The problems in American healthcare have grown in lock step with the growth of government intervention. The solution is to discover capitalism. The only just and moral course to take on healthcare reform is to rid healthcare of government interference. End all government insurance mandates, barriers to inter-state competition, and the third-party-payer system; phase out existing "public" plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and let people take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, as is their unalienable right under American principles. Leave healthcare dollars in the hands of the people that earned it through some vehicle like HSAs, leave providers and insurers free to compete directly for those consumer dollars, and restrict the government to its proper role of protector of the individual rights of all (which includes anti-fraud laws and enforcement of contracts). The natural incentives inherent in a free market provide the proper, moral dynamics for affordable, widely available quality healthcare.
Today's problems in medicine represent a failure, not of freedom, but of statist government intervention. The choice we face is not between a government-run healthcare dictatorship and the status quo, as Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Easton would have us believe. The choice we face is between being held in a stranglehold by government central planners, or taking control of our own healthcare in a truly free market.
Health care ailing
I awoke recently to a report stating Big Health was going to save the country $2 trillion over the next decade ("Health care industry gets behind Obama's plan," May 11). What a coincidence. Just as the Obama administration begins to tackle heath care reform, a colossal savings has been discovered.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, medical inflation was running around 10 percent annually. Bill Clinton was elected and immediately proposed health care reform. Surprise! Medical inflation plummeted, only to rebounded just as soon as reform efforts were killed.
Should the government have propped up buggy-whip manufacturers when they became obsolete? Of course not. Although the current patchwork quilt that makes up health care financing in this country is likewise obsolete, competition in this sector still has "efficient" insurers with overheads around 15 percent.
Medicare's overhead is 1 percent. It is time for the nation to catch up with the rest of the civilized world.
John O'Connor, Cedar Grove
Insurance reform needed
I would like to add my voice to those who think that a single-payer insurance plan is the way to go. It's not free health care, but a less expensive, more efficiently run and fairer system.
The current system has failed us, that much is obvious. I'm sorry that the insurance companies are afraid of losing their stranglehold on our health care, but the over 40-million of us who are uninsured and risk bankruptcy are not so sympathetic.
David Easton, Maplewood
My Commentary:
Posted by Zemack on 05/14/09 at 8:43PM
John O'Connor comes close to naming the problem with regard to healthcare financing, then misses the obvious conclusion...end government's massive interference. Leaving aside Obama's $2 trillion extortion scheme against the industry, today's "patchwork quilt" is solely the work of government, which Mr. O'Connor now wants to reward with totalitarian control.
To start with, as Jeffcon points out, the idea that government-run programs like Medicare offer low administrative costs is a mirage. For example, the administrative costs for Medicare are huge, but are simply shifted onto the private sector, such as doctor's offices, hospitals, and employers (in the form of tax collection costs). In addition, the government's own tax collection costs are ignored.
The second thing to grasp is that the government-imposed third-party-payer system, thousands of government insurance mandates, and state-imposed restraints of trade that bar inter-state competition impose huge, unnecessary administrative costs while simultaneously driving up the cost of insurance. America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people's money. This is a fundamental part of the problem. That money comes from all of us in a myriad of ways, yet leaves us with little control over how it is spent. David Easton doesn't have insurance, but (assuming he is a working taxpayer) pays plenty in healthcare costs...only his money goes to pay for other people's healthcare.
Today's insurance industry is actually a quasi-private, government created and protected cartel, and is not indicative of a free market. The seeming "stranglehold on our health care" held by the insurers is really an extension of government coercion. The single-payer "solution" would consolidate power under a centralized bureaucratic elite armed with the government's legal monopoly on physical force. It would have total, life and death control over providers, patients, treatments, prices, medical technology, etc. To put it in Mr. Easton's language, the government would have a stranglehold on our health care...a real stranglehold called a dictatorship.
Any honest and objective healthcare reform debate must begin with an examination of how we got to this point to begin with. The problems in American healthcare have grown in lock step with the growth of government intervention. The solution is to discover capitalism. The only just and moral course to take on healthcare reform is to rid healthcare of government interference. End all government insurance mandates, barriers to inter-state competition, and the third-party-payer system; phase out existing "public" plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and let people take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, as is their unalienable right under American principles. Leave healthcare dollars in the hands of the people that earned it through some vehicle like HSAs, leave providers and insurers free to compete directly for those consumer dollars, and restrict the government to its proper role of protector of the individual rights of all (which includes anti-fraud laws and enforcement of contracts). The natural incentives inherent in a free market provide the proper, moral dynamics for affordable, widely available quality healthcare.
Today's problems in medicine represent a failure, not of freedom, but of statist government intervention. The choice we face is not between a government-run healthcare dictatorship and the status quo, as Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Easton would have us believe. The choice we face is between being held in a stranglehold by government central planners, or taking control of our own healthcare in a truly free market.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
On Healthcare Rationing
The Denver Post
Re: Obama's Grand Strategy, April 26 Charles Krauthammer column.
As a public health nurse for some 25 years, I disagree with Charles Krauthammer’s idea that health care would be rationed under single-payer insurance system. It is already rationed by cost.
Only the wealthy and the federal legislature can afford health care (paid for by taxes). None of the poor and few of the middle class can afford health insurance, so they either do without or use public facilities. To tie health insurance to employment was a mistake and is now a direct cause of business and industry failures.
Most of us are aware of health care rationing. No money, no care. Health care for profit was not a good idea. Basic health care and certainly preventive services are a right, as they prevent the spread of disease and monitor epidemics for the whole population.
Our current non-system has priced itself out of existence and no amount of the same old cries of reducing costs by making providers more competitive is getting more tiresome to the public-at-large.
Beth Hohle, Denver
This letter was published in the May 3 edition.
My Commentary:
Ms. Hohle is relying on Orwellian language distortion to advocate for single-payer tyranny.
Rationing is defined as “to distribute, in times of scarcity”. This implies a central authority with the power “to distribute”–for example, the government under single payer. There is no such thing as “rationing by cost”, since there is no central authority to do the rationing. There are only producers of healthcare trading their work for the earnings of others willing and able to pay for it, by voluntary agreement to mutual advantage…just as in all other economic sectors. What Ms. Hohle objects to is justice…the natural fact that in a moral society, when you want or need something produced by others, you can acquire it only by voluntary means. You pay for it or you depend upon private charity and generosity. Morally, being unable to pay for your healthcare…while unfortunate…gives you no right to seize it forcibly by theft or through political surrogates you elect.
She’s right, though, that “To tie health insurance to employment was a mistake”. The third-party-payer system, imposed by government through tax code distortions, is a major reason why “Our current non-system has priced itself out of existence”. In fact the current crisis, if you want to call it that, is a consequence of the massive buildup of government interventions in the medical industry over the past 75 years or so. Government insurance mandates and the state-imposed trade barriers that prevent a competitive national market are also key reasons for the high cost of private health insurance.
So the claim that “None of the poor and few of the middle class can afford health insurance” doesn’t stand up to the facts. They are paying plenty in healthcare costs…only not their own. The person who can’t afford his own coverage is forced to pay, through his taxes, the healthcare expenditures of: the elderly (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), other peoples’ children (SCHIP), other uninsured people (“charitable” aid to hospitals to cover “free” emergency room care, including for illegal aliens, under the federal law EMTALA), etc., etc., etc. In addition, there are research grants to universities and colleges. And don’t forget foreign aid healthcare spending, including former President Bush’s $50 billion Aids relief package to Africa. Undoubtedly, there is more.
America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people’s money. If healthcare is unaffordable, how is it that we can foot that large of a bill? This is a fundamental part of the problem. That money comes from all of us in a myriad of ways, yet leaves us with little control over how it is spent. Leave that money in the hands of the people that earned it through some vehicle like HSAs, end government insurance mandates and the third-party-payer system, phase out existing “public” plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and let people take personal responsibility for their own healthcare.
I’m always amazed at how flippantly and thoughtlessly people like Ms. Hohle are willing to throw away their freedom and the earnings and freedom of others in exchange for the “free lunch” of a “single-payer” healthcare dictatorship. Ms. Hohle brushes off “the same old cries of reducing costs by making providers more competitive”. But competition based upon the ability of consumers, providers, insurers and patients to act upon their own rational judgement and contract voluntarily with each other is called freedom. Does Ms. Hohle mean to discard “the same old cries” of a nation founded upon the concept of unalienable individual rights?
For more in depth analysis on the causes and solutions to the problems of American healthcare, read the following articles in The Objective Standard;
Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”
Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
The current semi-socialized system needs major reform. The only just and moral course to take on healthcare reform is to rid the industry of government interference, and establish a free market. Calls for freedom-crushing, ration-based central government healthcare planning as a cure for what government itself caused to begin with “is getting more tiresome to the public-at-large”, of which I am a charter member.
Comment by Mike Zemack — May 3, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Other's Commentary:
The private insurance companies are scared of competing with the government. I thought they were all about free markets.
Comment by Dave Clark — May 4, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
My Response to Dave Clark
“The private insurance companies are scared of competing with the government. I thought they were all about free markets.”–Dave Clark
A free market is based upon the recognition of individual rights, in which physical force is banished; i.e., all associations are voluntary.
A “public health insurance option”, as it is deceptively called, is backed by the legal force of government, which can subsidize it through taxes, while setting legal restrictions and conditions on its private “competitors” through its tax and regulatory authority…etc. A private company has no coercive power, and must rely upon the voluntary private market…which the very existence of a government “insurer” distorts and undermines…while all along being subject to the coercive edicts of politicians bent on protecting their “public option”.
To pretend that there can exist “competition” between a government-run “insurer” and a private one is to say there is no difference between an armed mugger and his victims.
Comment by Mike Zemack — May 5, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Re: Obama's Grand Strategy, April 26 Charles Krauthammer column.
As a public health nurse for some 25 years, I disagree with Charles Krauthammer’s idea that health care would be rationed under single-payer insurance system. It is already rationed by cost.
Only the wealthy and the federal legislature can afford health care (paid for by taxes). None of the poor and few of the middle class can afford health insurance, so they either do without or use public facilities. To tie health insurance to employment was a mistake and is now a direct cause of business and industry failures.
Most of us are aware of health care rationing. No money, no care. Health care for profit was not a good idea. Basic health care and certainly preventive services are a right, as they prevent the spread of disease and monitor epidemics for the whole population.
Our current non-system has priced itself out of existence and no amount of the same old cries of reducing costs by making providers more competitive is getting more tiresome to the public-at-large.
Beth Hohle, Denver
This letter was published in the May 3 edition.
My Commentary:
Ms. Hohle is relying on Orwellian language distortion to advocate for single-payer tyranny.
Rationing is defined as “to distribute, in times of scarcity”. This implies a central authority with the power “to distribute”–for example, the government under single payer. There is no such thing as “rationing by cost”, since there is no central authority to do the rationing. There are only producers of healthcare trading their work for the earnings of others willing and able to pay for it, by voluntary agreement to mutual advantage…just as in all other economic sectors. What Ms. Hohle objects to is justice…the natural fact that in a moral society, when you want or need something produced by others, you can acquire it only by voluntary means. You pay for it or you depend upon private charity and generosity. Morally, being unable to pay for your healthcare…while unfortunate…gives you no right to seize it forcibly by theft or through political surrogates you elect.
She’s right, though, that “To tie health insurance to employment was a mistake”. The third-party-payer system, imposed by government through tax code distortions, is a major reason why “Our current non-system has priced itself out of existence”. In fact the current crisis, if you want to call it that, is a consequence of the massive buildup of government interventions in the medical industry over the past 75 years or so. Government insurance mandates and the state-imposed trade barriers that prevent a competitive national market are also key reasons for the high cost of private health insurance.
So the claim that “None of the poor and few of the middle class can afford health insurance” doesn’t stand up to the facts. They are paying plenty in healthcare costs…only not their own. The person who can’t afford his own coverage is forced to pay, through his taxes, the healthcare expenditures of: the elderly (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), other peoples’ children (SCHIP), other uninsured people (“charitable” aid to hospitals to cover “free” emergency room care, including for illegal aliens, under the federal law EMTALA), etc., etc., etc. In addition, there are research grants to universities and colleges. And don’t forget foreign aid healthcare spending, including former President Bush’s $50 billion Aids relief package to Africa. Undoubtedly, there is more.
America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people’s money. If healthcare is unaffordable, how is it that we can foot that large of a bill? This is a fundamental part of the problem. That money comes from all of us in a myriad of ways, yet leaves us with little control over how it is spent. Leave that money in the hands of the people that earned it through some vehicle like HSAs, end government insurance mandates and the third-party-payer system, phase out existing “public” plans like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and let people take personal responsibility for their own healthcare.
I’m always amazed at how flippantly and thoughtlessly people like Ms. Hohle are willing to throw away their freedom and the earnings and freedom of others in exchange for the “free lunch” of a “single-payer” healthcare dictatorship. Ms. Hohle brushes off “the same old cries of reducing costs by making providers more competitive”. But competition based upon the ability of consumers, providers, insurers and patients to act upon their own rational judgement and contract voluntarily with each other is called freedom. Does Ms. Hohle mean to discard “the same old cries” of a nation founded upon the concept of unalienable individual rights?
For more in depth analysis on the causes and solutions to the problems of American healthcare, read the following articles in The Objective Standard;
Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”
Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
The current semi-socialized system needs major reform. The only just and moral course to take on healthcare reform is to rid the industry of government interference, and establish a free market. Calls for freedom-crushing, ration-based central government healthcare planning as a cure for what government itself caused to begin with “is getting more tiresome to the public-at-large”, of which I am a charter member.
Comment by Mike Zemack — May 3, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Other's Commentary:
The private insurance companies are scared of competing with the government. I thought they were all about free markets.
Comment by Dave Clark — May 4, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
My Response to Dave Clark
“The private insurance companies are scared of competing with the government. I thought they were all about free markets.”–Dave Clark
A free market is based upon the recognition of individual rights, in which physical force is banished; i.e., all associations are voluntary.
A “public health insurance option”, as it is deceptively called, is backed by the legal force of government, which can subsidize it through taxes, while setting legal restrictions and conditions on its private “competitors” through its tax and regulatory authority…etc. A private company has no coercive power, and must rely upon the voluntary private market…which the very existence of a government “insurer” distorts and undermines…while all along being subject to the coercive edicts of politicians bent on protecting their “public option”.
To pretend that there can exist “competition” between a government-run “insurer” and a private one is to say there is no difference between an armed mugger and his victims.
Comment by Mike Zemack — May 5, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)