Obama Nominee Says Reparations on the Table
The following video is from Fox Nation, and is a prime example of judicial activism in waiting. The video pertains to;
“In May 2008, Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu took part in a discussion of the documentary film Traces of the Trade, which explores the role of New Englanders in the slave trade.”
Wishful Thinking on Health Care
The following article is from the website, The Freeman – Ideas on Liberty. This is an insightful piece that contains valuable information. Enjoy.
Wishful Thinking on Health Care
No one knows exactly what was passed.
This is an elaboration of my remarks at the seventh annual Jolicoeur Seminar, an event put on this week by FEE and the economics department at Western New England College, Springfield, Mass.
How an issue is framed is crucial to how it is decided. Advocates of the package of health insurance regulations, taxes, and mandates known as ObamaCare managed to frame the issue as “reform versus the status quo.” But to call the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan (OPR) “reform” is to beg the question by assuming precisely what needs to be proved: namely, that the legislative package would actually reform — that is, improve — the medical system. Therefore the debate should have been not whether reform is desirable – real reform (improvement) is always desirable — but whether OPR is really reform.
A better framing of the issue would have been: real reform versus the status quo on steroids, for in the end OPR is little more than what Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal calls a “doubling down on the system’s existing perversities.” For example, under OPR everyone will be forced to become a customer of the health insurance industry that the ruling political class just spent a year demonizing, and that industry will reap billions in taxpayer subsidies. Moreover, demand for medical services will be further insulated from true costs. That is already the source of so much of what’s wrong today.
Let’s look at the newly signed law from four perspectives: moral, fiscal, economic, and political.
Morality
For a century the foundation of medicine in the United States has steadily shifted from cooperation and competition to compulsion and management through government power. In 1910 the Flexner Report, financed by the Carnegie Foundation, set in motion the process by which medical education and practice would be regulated by a physician cartel deriving its coercive power from government primarily at the state level. While the need for such management was publicly justified as a way to protect patients, what doctors told one another when no one else could hear was that their incomes not their patients were endangered by too many medical schools graduating too many doctors. Over the next 20 years, many independent medical colleges were closed. Was it mere chance that women’s and African-American medical colleges were the first to go and that, as a result, the smaller, more lucrative medical profession was firmly white and male?
Since that time, coercive administration – primarily in the form of state licensing – more and more took the place of patient-driven contract, competition, and cooperation. When fraternal organizations tried to bring affordable medical care to their middle- and low-income members through “lodge practice,” the protectionist medical cartel struck back and eventually destroyed this promising alternative to self-serving institutional medicine. During World War II the crucial, if inadvertent, step was taken toward top-down control of the payment mechanism. The tax code became the means of inducing individuals to rely on employers and insurance for medical services. Money individually and privately spent on medical care would be subject to the tax collector, while money that one’s employer used for the same purpose would not. The result, intended or not, was to accustom people to rely on big intimidating bureaucracies for the payment of medical bills. Health care appeared to be free or well below its true cost — as long as the relevant bureaucracy approved of what was bought. The entitlement/supplicant frame of mind was established, which served the cause of centralization and further control by the government-medical complex. OPR is another step, though probably not the last, in that process.
Meanwhile each state became a protectionist-regulatory insurance guild that limited entry and competition in return for compliance with mandates and price guidelines that let regulators masquerade as the people’s advocates, while saddling policy holders with expensive, unneeded coverage. Many people were priced out the market, giving politicians a cause: the uninsured.
Government then assumed direct control over a good portion of medical spending through Medicare and Medicaid, bringing us to the point where third-party payments account for more than 85 percent of all medical spending in the United States. As someone has said, the patient is only needed to sign the papers that prompt one bureaucracy to cut a check for another.
Viewed historically, then, OPR is merely an extension of the current force-based bureaucratic system. Its novel contribution is to mandate that people buy medical insurance, the first instance in which the national government will compel us to buy something from a private company. This is said to be consistent with regulation of interstate commerce, but no intelligent person honestly believes that. For one thing, interstate commerce in health insurance is forbidden by the national government.
Adding insult to injury, OPR falsely promises that we can have government-subsidized consumption of medical services, lower prices, and freedom of choice at the same time. In fact, those three things cannot coexist. Subsidies will boost consumption, which will raise prices. If government is serious about lowering prices, it will have to curtail consumption, that is, limit freedom of choice, explicitly through rationing or implicitly through price controls and standards of practice.
Fiscal Considerations
On the other hand, if the ruling elite gives up the objective of lowering prices, fiscal chaos will ensue. The medical “entitlement” called Medicare already faces a $37 trillion unfunded liability. It is a big component of the government’s budget deficit and growing debt. Imagine what will happen when the new entitlement explodes. The assertions that OPR will cut costs and lower the deficit are ludicrous, and no one really believes that. It is just a game played in Washington under rules that Congress carefully sets for its fig leaf Congressional Budget Office.
As a result, government borrowing will increase, if lenders aren’t scared off; interest rates will rise, squelching economic activity; more new taxes will be thought up, discouraging investment; and the money supply will expand, shrinking our purchasing power.
Economic Considerations
OPR will directly subvert what is left of the insurance market and indirectly subvert what is left of the medical market. Insurance is about pooling risk in the face of an uncertain future. But OPR requires that insurance companies cover people without taking risk or even certainty (preexisting conditions) into consideration. There are no grounds for calling this insurance. Rather, it is welfare mixed with prepayment for future services. (Not that the insurers are complaining; it’s a price they’ll gladly pay for the captive customers that the mandate will deliver.)
While OPR’s advocates extolled the virtues of competition for the last year, they were being either dishonest or ignorant. Competition does not mean a few licensed companies providing identical government-defined products to government-coerced “customers’ according to government-defined pricing rules. It means open-entry trial and error by sellers attempting to satisfy buyers who are free to say no thanks. OPR gives us anything but that.
Politicians and bureaucrats cannot possibly know what they would need to know to manage the insurance and medical industries. Yet they convinced themselves and enough others to get OPR passed.
Political Considerations
Finally, OPR puts another nail in the coffin of government transparency. Regardless of how much or little government (if any) people want, they should at least be able to see and understand what it is up to and how much it costs them personally. In every way OPR flouts this principle. The law’s 2,700 pages of impenetrable “English” was read in its entirety by few if anyone. But that only begins to describe the offense. The law leaves much to be defined in the future by government departments, boards, and commissions. Hundreds of rules and regulations have yet to be written – and who do you think will be right there offering counsel as the new insurance rules are formulated? The same insurance companies whom last week were said to be the devil incarnate. (And Organized Medicine and Big Pharma too.) That’s how the Washington game is played. And we’re the losers.
Moreover, huge costs that could have more honestly been placed on-budget for all to see will instead be hidden in various ways. People will have no idea what this “reformed” system really costs them.
The upshot is this: Today no one knows what the members of Congress passed and Obama signed, including them. Self-government? Representation? Democracy? What a laugh.
At best, this was a triumph of wishful thinking over sound thought.
Billboard on I-70 in Missouri
Governor Jim Gibbons Presses AG To Sue Over Health Care
I wanted to provide an update on my state’s (Nevada) decision, or lack thereof, to sue the federal government over the constitutionality of Obama’s heath care overhaul. Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons is pressing Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto, to initiate legal proceedings against the federal government. He sent a letter to the Attorney General, and this letter can be viewed below. I have a feeling that the AG does not want to engage the federal government, not because the lawsuit is frivolous, but because she is a Democrat. She has not responded to my letter, and I doubt she will. Perhaps Harry Reid got to her.
Letter from Congressman Dean Heller & FOIA Response letter
I wanted to provide three letters I received, two from Congressman Dean Heller (Nevada), and one from the DEA regarding my initial Freedom of Information Act Request letter (sent late last year) . I have yet to receive a reply from the DEA, so I will be sending another letter this week requesting an update. Glean what you will from these letters.
A Short Letter to the Nevada State Attorney General
Several states are engaging in legal proceedings against the federal government to question the constitutionality of the health care bill. Thus, I decided to write Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto, to request her position on this issue. Below is that letter:
Ω
Dear Madam,
I am writing you this letter to hopefully solicit some elucidation over the possible legal actions available to our home state. The context of said legal action mirrors the litigation presently in action by the following states; Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana. With respect to specificity, the framework of these legal proceedings pertains to the unconstitutionality of the health care overhaul. As Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning recently stated,
“This is the first time in American history where American citizens will be forced to buy a particular good or service.”
I would like to know if you are also considering such litigation to question the governmental mandate to purchase health insurance. If you are disinclined to engage in legal action, may I ask for clarification with regard to your decision? Thank you for taking the time to read my email request.
Most Respectfully,
Thomas Proulx
Ω
On a side note, an article from the Nevada Appeal cited Governor Jim Gibbon’s desire to challenge the constitutionality of Obama’s health care.
“Gov. Jim Gibbons said Nevada would challenge the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care legislation passed by Congress and on Monday urged Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to join him in the effort.”
“This bill is an effort by Democrats to ram government run health care down our throats,” Gibbons said.
“Masto said her office has been monitoring the legislation and has been in contact with other state attorneys general but that any lawsuit are premature until the bill is signed by the president, which could come as early as Tuesday.”
“Gibbons spokesman Dan Burns said if Masto declines, the administration was prepared to act on its own.”
It’s nice to see that my home state still has a spine. If you live in Nevada and would like to write our Attorney General, click here to go to her site.
Updates
Today we have a new interview up on the main site. This week we have Mr. Steve Yeater, Republican candidate for the Capital District seat of Nevada. Below is a small excerpt from the interview;
“When you are dealing with government officials, especially federal officials, you have to send a message; there will be consequences for your actions if you continue to ignore the will of the people, and the results will be detrimental to your career. Additionally, we should not only pass term limits, but eliminate their perks such as retirement packages and passing laws they don’t have to follow etc..”
This week we will also be adding a candidates page on the main site, this will spotlight the upcoming 2010 elections for my home state of Nevada. It will contain those candidates that believe in liberty, as well as those that choose to burden the people and shackle their individual liberty – like Harry Reid. We will let you know when it is up and running.
On Wednesday there will be a new discussion on abortion and the death penalty. I will have my position, and Greg R. Lawson, from Greg R. Lawson’s Blog, will provide his. Our first discussion on foreign policy can be found here.
Also on Wednesday I will provide two letters that were sent to me by Congressman Dean Heller, the only representative I can count on to protect our liberties. Sad isn’t it? One person.
The Reagan / Obama Debate
I heard the following audio on the Mark Levin Show, it is quite telling.
ID Card for Workers Is at Center of Immigration Plan
I have never been a fan of Lindsey Graham, in fact I think he is a RINO that endorses big government intervention. Ever since Mr. Graham made the statement that Libertarians have no place within the Republican party, and that, “We are not not going to build a party around libertarian ideas..,” I found it difficult to take his mental faculties seriously. His “Cap and Trade” coalition with John Kerry provided further evidence that he is the one that has betrayed the values of republicanism. The proceeding article only cements my position that Mr. Graham has outlived his usefulness to the people of South Carolina, and our Republic as a whole.
The following article was written by Laura Meckler at the Wall Street Journal.
Ω
Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.
Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.
The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.
The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.
“It’s the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. “If you say they can’t get a job when they come here, you’ll stop it.”
The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.
“It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people’s privacy,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”
Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. “We’ve all got Social Security cards,” he said. “They’re just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That’s all I’m saying.”
U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.
Last year, White House aides said they expected to push immigration legislation in 2010. But with health care and unemployment dominating his attention, the president has given little indication the issue is a priority.
Rather, Mr. Obama has said he wanted to see bipartisan support in Congress first. So far, Mr. Graham is the only Republican to voice interest publicly, and he wants at least one other GOP co-sponsor to launch the effort.
An immigration overhaul has long proven a complicated political task. The Latino community is pressing for action and will be angry if it is put off again. But many Americans oppose any measure that resembles amnesty for people who came here illegally.
Under the legislation envisioned by Messrs. Graham and Schumer, the estimated 10.8 million people living illegally in the U.S. would be offered a path to citizenship, though they would have to register, pay taxes, pay a fine and wait in line. A guest-worker program would let a set number of new foreigners come to the U.S. legally to work.
Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.
Mr. Schumer first suggested a biometric-based employer-verification system last summer. Since then, the idea has gained currency and is now a centerpiece of the legislation being developed, aides said.
A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.
The card requirement also would be phased in among employers, beginning with industries that typically rely on illegal-immigrant labor.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t have a position on the proposal, but it is concerned that employers would find it expensive and complicated to properly check the biometrics.
Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.
—Alistair MacDonald contributed to this article.
Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
Freeing Louisiana Florists: Licensing Law is Blooming Nonsense – Case Launch Press Conference
Licensing certain occupations does make sense to a certain degree, but ask yourself, should a florist require one?
Ω
Should the government have the power to say who may or may not become a florist? Or do Americans have the right to pursue the occupation of their choice free from such excessive and arbitrary government roadblocks? To arrange and sell flowers in Louisiana, aspiring florists must first obtain a government-issued license by passing a subjective examination that is judged by their future competition—florists who hold a government-issued license.
Louisiana is the only state in the nation that requires would-be entrepreneurs to pass a licensing exam before they can create and sell floral arrangements. If Louisiana can license florists, there is no limit to what it can license or to the burdens it can impose on honest, productive livelihoods
On March 4, 2010, the Institute for Justice filed a civil rights lawsuit, Chauvin v. Strain, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the Commissioners of the Louisiana Horticulture Commission seeking to have Louisianas anti-entrepreneur, anti-competitive, and anti-consumer florist licensing scheme declared unconstitutional. Among our sacred rights as American citizens is the ability to earn a living in the occupation of our choice free from arbitrary or unreasonable government interference. By presuming to determine who is good enough to work in a harmless occupation like floristry, Louisiana violates that right.
