Last night I watched Fritz Lang's 1927 classic "Metropolis". Made in Germany shortly before the Great Depression, and anticipating the ascendency of the National Socialists, the film painted a stark picture of a dehumanized working class being manipulated and exploited by wealthy industrialists. This, of course, was a common theme presented by progressives over the decades preceeding the film's release.
Fast forward 22 years to the release of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four". In this classic novel, published following the close of the Second World War and anticipating the Cold War, the dehumanized working class are manipulated and exploited by intellectual elites. Orwell's work, like other fiction and scholarly works of the time, was in response to the rise of such repressive socialist regimes as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
I mention these two works to illustrate how similar are the tactics used by those who would seek to control us. In each case, individuals advance to positions of power behind claims of intellectual and moral superiority. Though they are ultimately indistinguishible from one another, each group rails against the excesses of the other. Each marches behind false prophets claiming to know more than we do about how we must live our lives. Each gathers the forces of media to ensure a clear, united message assuring us that our obedience is a small price to pay for their magnanimity.
While it's easy for us, today, to identify the forces of progressivism which threaten our freedom, we must not allow the opposite forces to gain the same power we've ceded to those currently in power. If we do, we can be sure that the outcome will be the same: the loss of liberty.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
That Ain't Right
I wish I had been surprised by this article: Fast Internet access becomes a legal right in Finland. Having grown up in a time before the PC, I marvel at even the idea of making high speed internet access a “right”. Of course, the people of Finland are free to pass any legislation they deem appropriate. This is, however, a prime example of the direction many governments, including in the U.S., have been moving: declare something a right and then force the citizens to fund it.
Where does this end? Well, if you agree with Hayek as I do, it ends in totalitarian regimes forcing individuals to labor, at the regime’s direction and discretion, to fund the ever growing cost of all the discovered “rights”. After all, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. This is why it remains vital that we stand up to such activities wherever free people wish to remain so.
Where does this end? Well, if you agree with Hayek as I do, it ends in totalitarian regimes forcing individuals to labor, at the regime’s direction and discretion, to fund the ever growing cost of all the discovered “rights”. After all, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. This is why it remains vital that we stand up to such activities wherever free people wish to remain so.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Salt of the earth
Following in New York city's footsteps, the Ministry of Information has begun assailing the use of salt by the American public: Study: Americans eat too much salt. Naturally, Americans are too stupid to know what to eat, much less how the food they eat impacts their health. To the rescue comes Big Brother to save us from our stupidity. Of course, to grease the wheels of the impending social interference, we are to be subjected to the unending justification of the loss of our freedom prior to the saving actions of Big Brother. I don't see my local government attempting such an encroachment on my rights, but I don't doubt the testicular fortitude of the federal government to exercise the demons of sodium from my diet. Thank goodness for the Ministry of Information and their objective dissemination of the talking points of social engineering. How else would I know that I am about to have another right trod upon?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Opportunity to Reflect
This being Memorial Day in the U.S., I thought it appropriate to address the complexity of the acts meant to be highlighted on this day. In short, it is a day for remembering those who have fallen in the liberation and defense of this nation.
Liberation is an easy thing to justify as it specifically deals with the acquisition of freedom. That is, in my opinion, the only reason for which any of us should ever take up arms: our own freedom. While people around the world have too often taken up arms to acquire their freedom only to have one despot replaced by another, this country enjoyed the fruits of an enlightened few who put forth a system under which freedom could be retained, at least for a short time. These founders even had the foresight to guard against the slow decay of freedoms they saw as inevitable.
Defense is a different subject entirely. The term itself opens the discussion to subjectivity. Against what have we defended ourselves? After all, other than 1812, Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001, there have not been any direct attacks on U.S. soil. Yet we have engaged, almost continuously, in some conflict or other.
Now I am not arguing against engagement without direct provocation. We all know that Nazi Germany would have continued its pursuit of global domination had the U.S. and other remotely interested countries not joined the fight, almost preemptively, against them. Sadly, it is arguments such as this that are leveraged to justify other engagements. According to many at the time, Vietnam became a mission for the same reasons that WWII required our involvement in the European theater: the spread of communism. However, the domino theory ignored the very fact that the communist system against which we were to take up arms had little hope of sustaining itself. So many Americans died defending a system of democracy and capitalism against an idea that has no potential in reality. While we should memorialize their individual sacrifices, we should also take this opportunity to understand the pointlessness of the overall action.
Today we find ourselves in a similar position. While our dispute with The Taliban and their protection of Al Qaeda warranted a response, the continued nation building exercises hardly garner the same justifications. Had Iraq indeed proven to be a source of weapons, our involvement there would have had some substance, particularly in light of the goals of entities such as Al Qaeda. However, using the spread of democracy and the freeing of a nation is hardly the same as claiming defense. As each American who dies in these conflicts earns the remembrance designated for this day, we who remain must make a better effort to ensure that future sacrifices are made only in the name of defending the liberty to which we so tenuously cling.
Liberation is an easy thing to justify as it specifically deals with the acquisition of freedom. That is, in my opinion, the only reason for which any of us should ever take up arms: our own freedom. While people around the world have too often taken up arms to acquire their freedom only to have one despot replaced by another, this country enjoyed the fruits of an enlightened few who put forth a system under which freedom could be retained, at least for a short time. These founders even had the foresight to guard against the slow decay of freedoms they saw as inevitable.
Defense is a different subject entirely. The term itself opens the discussion to subjectivity. Against what have we defended ourselves? After all, other than 1812, Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001, there have not been any direct attacks on U.S. soil. Yet we have engaged, almost continuously, in some conflict or other.
Now I am not arguing against engagement without direct provocation. We all know that Nazi Germany would have continued its pursuit of global domination had the U.S. and other remotely interested countries not joined the fight, almost preemptively, against them. Sadly, it is arguments such as this that are leveraged to justify other engagements. According to many at the time, Vietnam became a mission for the same reasons that WWII required our involvement in the European theater: the spread of communism. However, the domino theory ignored the very fact that the communist system against which we were to take up arms had little hope of sustaining itself. So many Americans died defending a system of democracy and capitalism against an idea that has no potential in reality. While we should memorialize their individual sacrifices, we should also take this opportunity to understand the pointlessness of the overall action.
Today we find ourselves in a similar position. While our dispute with The Taliban and their protection of Al Qaeda warranted a response, the continued nation building exercises hardly garner the same justifications. Had Iraq indeed proven to be a source of weapons, our involvement there would have had some substance, particularly in light of the goals of entities such as Al Qaeda. However, using the spread of democracy and the freeing of a nation is hardly the same as claiming defense. As each American who dies in these conflicts earns the remembrance designated for this day, we who remain must make a better effort to ensure that future sacrifices are made only in the name of defending the liberty to which we so tenuously cling.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Don't Let Them Eat Cake
“Any time you want to institute a behavior change, policy changes are really quite effective,” said Lisako McKyer, a professor at Texas A&M in response to a decision by the San Antonio city manager to ban sugared sodas, among other things, in city facilities (San Antonio city manager wages war on sugar). Why stop there, I would ask. If behavior change is your goal, why allow anyone entering or utilizing these government facilities to be overweight? For that matter, we should start requiring all users of public facilities to perform some feat of strength before being granted access. After all, improved public health is our goal.
In fact, there’s no reason to stop there. Each person needing to wade through some bureaucratic red tape should first be required to prove a minimum number of community service hours. Depending on the complexity of the need, they should also be forced to perform some function specific to offsetting their carbon output. Better yet, require them to surrender their time in a state sanctioned charitable endeavor.
As long as we have the power of the government, and its implied force, there’s no limit to the number of behavior changes we can achieve.
In fact, there’s no reason to stop there. Each person needing to wade through some bureaucratic red tape should first be required to prove a minimum number of community service hours. Depending on the complexity of the need, they should also be forced to perform some function specific to offsetting their carbon output. Better yet, require them to surrender their time in a state sanctioned charitable endeavor.
As long as we have the power of the government, and its implied force, there’s no limit to the number of behavior changes we can achieve.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Ignorance is Strength
It comes as no surprise that the current incarnation of big brother, having ridden the wave of technology into the White House, is now descrying the evils of those same media and the information they provide: Obama bemoans 'diversions' of IPod, Xbox era.
When I heard the line "information becomes a distraction" I could think only of the title of this post which, of course, shares the same origin with the term "thought criminal". To be fair, Mr. Obama's quote is partly an attack on entertainment diversions of the Xbox and PlayStation variety:
Had he limited his comments to entertainment, he might have had a valid point. Instead, he pointed out that we are bombarded with content that is often not true. Of course, being a man of unquestioned integrity and considerable intellect, he would be happy to perform his big brotherly duties by shielding us from those things which he believes not to be true. He proves once again that the First Amendment to the Constitution was written for a specific reason: to ensure our ability to speak out against those who would exceed their constitutional mandate. What's next on his hit parade, "Freedom is slavery"?
When I heard the line "information becomes a distraction" I could think only of the title of this post which, of course, shares the same origin with the term "thought criminal". To be fair, Mr. Obama's quote is partly an attack on entertainment diversions of the Xbox and PlayStation variety:
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.
Had he limited his comments to entertainment, he might have had a valid point. Instead, he pointed out that we are bombarded with content that is often not true. Of course, being a man of unquestioned integrity and considerable intellect, he would be happy to perform his big brotherly duties by shielding us from those things which he believes not to be true. He proves once again that the First Amendment to the Constitution was written for a specific reason: to ensure our ability to speak out against those who would exceed their constitutional mandate. What's next on his hit parade, "Freedom is slavery"?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Between a rock and a hard place
I received a notice from the Libertarian Party yesterday that Neal Boortz has been dropped as a speaker at this year’s convention. Having never been a member of the party, nor a participant in such activities, I’m not sure how often something like this happens. I do know that Mr. Boortz is likely the most visible libertarian in this country, if not the world. I have listened to his radio talk show for several years and, while I don’t agree with him on all things, I find him to be generally reasonable and straightforward.
The rift, it appears, is due to the fact that Mr. Boortz has decided not to condone third party activity during the coming election. While it would seem to fly in the face of his own interests, particularly where they relate to the advancement of libertarianism, his decision is not one with which he alone wrestles. After the last election, I promised myself that I would never again vote for a democrat or republican. I, like most others, see the choice perpetually to be between two evils.
This being said, I did inform my current “representative”, David Price, that his vote on Cap and Trade had forever lost my support for any future office he sought. I had voted for the man since the late eighties, believing him to be a fairly reasonable democrat, and only recently paid closer attention to his actual voting record. I further informed him that when he voted for the health care power grab, he inspired me to do something that I had never done before: to actively support whatever opposition could be mounted to his continued public “service”, be they libertarian or otherwise.
Like Mr. Boortz, I find myself unwilling to accept the persistence of the current cast of buffoons, believing instead that the only hope for the continued survival of our republic is to swing congress back to the right, at least until we can awaken more people to their own as yet undiscovered affinity to libertarianism. In the case of Mr. Price, I’ve been fortunate to have found a republican who, at least on the surface, doesn’t appear to be driven by the need to force his moral code on the rest of us. Had there been a libertarian running for that office, my decision would not have been as easy. As Mr. Boortz contends, third party candidates are more likely to siphon away support of the opposition rather than the incumbent. I believe that, in the coming election, defeat of the incumbency is more important than advancement of that which will ultimately bring freedom and prosperity back to this nation.
The rift, it appears, is due to the fact that Mr. Boortz has decided not to condone third party activity during the coming election. While it would seem to fly in the face of his own interests, particularly where they relate to the advancement of libertarianism, his decision is not one with which he alone wrestles. After the last election, I promised myself that I would never again vote for a democrat or republican. I, like most others, see the choice perpetually to be between two evils.
This being said, I did inform my current “representative”, David Price, that his vote on Cap and Trade had forever lost my support for any future office he sought. I had voted for the man since the late eighties, believing him to be a fairly reasonable democrat, and only recently paid closer attention to his actual voting record. I further informed him that when he voted for the health care power grab, he inspired me to do something that I had never done before: to actively support whatever opposition could be mounted to his continued public “service”, be they libertarian or otherwise.
Like Mr. Boortz, I find myself unwilling to accept the persistence of the current cast of buffoons, believing instead that the only hope for the continued survival of our republic is to swing congress back to the right, at least until we can awaken more people to their own as yet undiscovered affinity to libertarianism. In the case of Mr. Price, I’ve been fortunate to have found a republican who, at least on the surface, doesn’t appear to be driven by the need to force his moral code on the rest of us. Had there been a libertarian running for that office, my decision would not have been as easy. As Mr. Boortz contends, third party candidates are more likely to siphon away support of the opposition rather than the incumbent. I believe that, in the coming election, defeat of the incumbency is more important than advancement of that which will ultimately bring freedom and prosperity back to this nation.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Shouting fire in a fire
Over this past weekend, I attended a few documentary screenings at the Full Frame Film Festival in Durham, N.C., the first of which was entitled “Shouting Fire”. As the film dealt with the topic of free speech, I was very interested to see its treatment of the subject. The film was made by Liz Garbus, the daughter of longtime free speech advocate Martin Garbus. I found the film to be a bit more liberal than I had hoped, particularly since, in my opinion, the assault on free speech comes from both sides of the political spectrum. If anything, I might concede that liberals tend to be stronger direct advocates of free speech than are conservatives, though their negative impact on this particular first amendment issue comes in more subtle ways such as through political correctness and advocacy of the “fairness doctrine”. In general, people are in support of free speech unless it runs counter to their own beliefs regardless of their political affiliation.
Following the presentation, the film maker and her father remained to answer questions. One of these came from someone obviously liberal, as was likely the makeup of the majority in the audience. His question concerned a segment of the film which dealt with an Arab woman who was publicly mistreated by the New York Post in order to advance a populist concern about her involvement in a public school. To paraphrase, he asked why it was wrong to abridge the freedom of speech of a media outlet run by a group of greedy individuals bent on pushing their agenda. My response would have been that such an abridgment would violate the constitution. Mr. Garbus’s response, instead, was to express concern that such an abridgment would likely lead to additional curtailments of speech, potentially leading to an impact on the freedoms of the individual. I suppose his approach provided more of a justification of the amendment rather than an obstacle to discussion. Perhaps there’s something to be learned from that.
Following the presentation, the film maker and her father remained to answer questions. One of these came from someone obviously liberal, as was likely the makeup of the majority in the audience. His question concerned a segment of the film which dealt with an Arab woman who was publicly mistreated by the New York Post in order to advance a populist concern about her involvement in a public school. To paraphrase, he asked why it was wrong to abridge the freedom of speech of a media outlet run by a group of greedy individuals bent on pushing their agenda. My response would have been that such an abridgment would violate the constitution. Mr. Garbus’s response, instead, was to express concern that such an abridgment would likely lead to additional curtailments of speech, potentially leading to an impact on the freedoms of the individual. I suppose his approach provided more of a justification of the amendment rather than an obstacle to discussion. Perhaps there’s something to be learned from that.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Super Humanus Vis
There was a time when I wrote an equally obscure blog entitled "Bulimic Rabbit Herders and The Men Who Love Them." This other vehicle was a means for me to voice my concerns about the myriad issues which, ironically, persist today. Finding fault with much of what I saw around me, I wondered if there were a way to improve upon the system under which we in the United States live. After much contemplation, I realized that we were an incredibly fortunate nation to have had the insightful fathers who founded our republic.
While these brilliant people were provided few examples of freedom in their time, they crafted a system which emphasized individual liberty without ignoring the often corrosive influence of human nature. The challenge presented to the founders was to establish a system under which a central government could operate without impinging on the rights of the citizens.
Considering the constitution as the most basic tool of this system, we witness a document which establishes a refined bicameral legislative structure balanced by both judiciary and executive powers, wresting centralized power from each component to balance it within the whole. The genius of this system is it's emphasis on limitations. Knowing that their system must inherently be populated and maintained by humans, the founders hoped these restrictions would stifle the influence of human nature.
For it is our nature, as with all things, to seek the path of least resistance. Our species, while possessing intellectual potential never seen before on this planet, is no less tied to its base instincts than any other creature that lives and breeds. We are lured and intoxicated by power for it is through power that we find security. Through security we find the path of least resistance. The founders, understanding this, ensured that this drive for power was limited by legal mechanisms established in the constitution.
Tanstaafl.
While these brilliant people were provided few examples of freedom in their time, they crafted a system which emphasized individual liberty without ignoring the often corrosive influence of human nature. The challenge presented to the founders was to establish a system under which a central government could operate without impinging on the rights of the citizens.
Considering the constitution as the most basic tool of this system, we witness a document which establishes a refined bicameral legislative structure balanced by both judiciary and executive powers, wresting centralized power from each component to balance it within the whole. The genius of this system is it's emphasis on limitations. Knowing that their system must inherently be populated and maintained by humans, the founders hoped these restrictions would stifle the influence of human nature.
For it is our nature, as with all things, to seek the path of least resistance. Our species, while possessing intellectual potential never seen before on this planet, is no less tied to its base instincts than any other creature that lives and breeds. We are lured and intoxicated by power for it is through power that we find security. Through security we find the path of least resistance. The founders, understanding this, ensured that this drive for power was limited by legal mechanisms established in the constitution.
Tanstaafl.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Gray matters
I find it troubling that we as a society so easily fall into the trap of declaring issues in absolute terms. For example, and drawing again on my recent excursion to D.C., I kept thinking to myself that I support immigration reform, just not reform identical to that being called for in the rallies on the lawn. There are similar questions of choice specific to terminating pregnancy and the recognition of same-sex couples.
I am pro-choice. I don't mean that in the liberal "I believe in the rights of the individual except when it comes to owning property or guns" sense. Nor do I mean it in the conservative "I believe in the rights of the individual except when they want to take drugs or have abortions" sense. I mean it in the absolute sense. This being said, one of my many oppositions to the health care abortion passed this week was the issue of taxpayer funded pregnancy termination. Yes, people should have the right to choose to have an abortion if they so desire. No, they should not have the ability to demand that someone else pay for it.
However, many on the left tried to make this a black and white issue of choice. Abortions, like health care in general, are not a right. Nor are they things for which one person can steal from another to pay for the activity of a third. I was disappointed that the final vote hinged on abortion, not because it rightly pointed out the immoral act of taking tax payer money to fund this activity, but because it served to fuel those who wish to force their ethical code on the rest of us by banning abortion.
Gay marriage is similarly gray to me. Marriage is a religious ritual and, as such, is protected from federal intervention by the first amendment. I'm not a Christian, nor do I espouse any beliefs adhered by the world's organized religious groups, but I do recognize the need to protect religious activity from government control.
At the same time, I believe that two people wishing to join together through a social contract should be recognized equal to any other couple, regardless of their gender or sexual practices. The only way that I see this as possible, while enforcing the constitutional protection enjoyed by religion, is to separate the religious act from the social contract. This is not to say that we should simply allow for civil unions as well as marriage, but we should make all such contracts into civil unions and leave the marriage act as a separate religious rite void of social or legal implications. Then, each union can be granted the same recognition without violating the constitution.
I am pro-choice. I don't mean that in the liberal "I believe in the rights of the individual except when it comes to owning property or guns" sense. Nor do I mean it in the conservative "I believe in the rights of the individual except when they want to take drugs or have abortions" sense. I mean it in the absolute sense. This being said, one of my many oppositions to the health care abortion passed this week was the issue of taxpayer funded pregnancy termination. Yes, people should have the right to choose to have an abortion if they so desire. No, they should not have the ability to demand that someone else pay for it.
However, many on the left tried to make this a black and white issue of choice. Abortions, like health care in general, are not a right. Nor are they things for which one person can steal from another to pay for the activity of a third. I was disappointed that the final vote hinged on abortion, not because it rightly pointed out the immoral act of taking tax payer money to fund this activity, but because it served to fuel those who wish to force their ethical code on the rest of us by banning abortion.
Gay marriage is similarly gray to me. Marriage is a religious ritual and, as such, is protected from federal intervention by the first amendment. I'm not a Christian, nor do I espouse any beliefs adhered by the world's organized religious groups, but I do recognize the need to protect religious activity from government control.
At the same time, I believe that two people wishing to join together through a social contract should be recognized equal to any other couple, regardless of their gender or sexual practices. The only way that I see this as possible, while enforcing the constitutional protection enjoyed by religion, is to separate the religious act from the social contract. This is not to say that we should simply allow for civil unions as well as marriage, but we should make all such contracts into civil unions and leave the marriage act as a separate religious rite void of social or legal implications. Then, each union can be granted the same recognition without violating the constitution.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
As Goes Health Care
I begin this blog on a sad day for freedom in this country. Having just returned from our nation's capital, a place where I found a modest assembly of people at least moderately versed in the U.S. Constitution rallying against the attempted takeover of health care by our elected representation, I've come home to hear of the "momentous" beginning of socialized medicine in the land where liberty is thought to be an unalienable right.
While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.
Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.
Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.
Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.
Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.
These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:
Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.
Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.
Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.
Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.
These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.
While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.
Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.
Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.
Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.
Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.
These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:
Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.
Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.
Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.
Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.
These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
