We Stand FIRM

Quick Links: Minnesota, Virginia, Catron

2010-02-08T00:05:00.005-07:00

Great story about a Minnesota concierge physician who makes house calls.

Virginia state senate says "no" to mandatory insurance. With bipartisan support.

"Who Killed ObamaCare?" According to David Catron, it wasn't "Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party movement, insurance lobbyists or even Scott Brown." Find out here.

Hsieh OpEd in Boulder Daily Camera: Polis And Public Option

2010-02-05T00:05:00.003-07:00

The February 4, 2010 Boulder Daily Camera has published my latest OpEd, "Polis and Health Care Reform".

My theme is that Boulder's congressman Jared Polis (a very liberal Democrat) should drop has latest proposal for a "public option" and instead support free market health care reforms -- because it would be both good policy and good politics.

Here is the introduction:

Boulder's Congressman Jared Polis recently made national headlines when he and fellow first-term Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) teamed up to petition the U.S. Senate to include the so-called "public option" in its next version of health care legislation.

Polis' move was an attempt to break the political stalemate between the House and the Senate following Republican Scott Brown's upset election victory in Massachusetts. After Brown's election deprived Senate Democrats of the 60-vote supermajority necessary to pass the current version of ObamaCare, the House and Senate have struggled to bridge the differences between their respective versions of health legislation. In particular, one key difference has been the government-run "public plan" to compete with private insurance plans, which House liberals (including Polis) supported but which the Senate rejected.

Unfortunately, Polis' "public plan" is both bad policy and bad politics...

(Read the full text of "Polis and Health Care Reform".)

In particular, I mention the fact that Polis' views are out of step with what Americans want. Hence, he could alienate many independent voters here in Colorado.

Could a version of the Massachusetts election upset also happen here in liberal Boulder, Colorado?

Interview With Jared Rhoads

2010-02-04T00:05:00.002-07:00

The Reality Talk blog has a nice interview with Jared Rhoads of the Lucidicus Project.

States Seeking To Ban Mandatory Health Insurance

2010-02-03T00:05:00.004-07:00

The Associated Press reports that more states are trying to opt out of any kind of federal mandatory health insurance measures.

From their article, "States seeking to ban mandatory health insurance":

...[C]onservative lawmakers in about half the states are forging ahead with constitutional amendments to ban government health insurance mandates.

The proposals would assert a state-based right for people to pay medical bills from their own pocketbooks and prohibit penalties against those who refuse to carry health insurance.

In many states, the proposals began as a backlash to Democratic health care plans pending in Congress. But instead of backing away after a Massachusetts election gave Senate Republicans the filibuster power to halt the health care legislation, many state lawmakers are ramping up their efforts with new enthusiasm....

Lawmakers in 34 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit group that promotes limited government that is helping coordinate the efforts. Many of those proposals are targeted for the November ballot, assuring that health care remains a hot topic as hundreds of federal and state lawmakers face re-election.

I'm very pleased that Colorado is one of those states!

Americans' desire for freedom is still strong.

Canadian Premier Comes to the US For Care

2010-02-02T00:15:00.002-07:00

CBC News reports that "Danny Williams going to U.S. for heart surgery":

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is set to undergo heart surgery this week in the United States.

CBC News confirmed Monday that Williams, 59, left the province earlier in the day and will have surgery later in the week.

The premier's office provided few details, beyond confirming that he would have heart surgery and saying that it was not necessarily a routine procedure.

Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale is scheduled to hold a news conference Tuesday morning.

Glenn Reynolds quotes one commenter who notes:

Seems to me that when our Premier goes to the US for heart surgery, the analogy that comes to mind would be if the President of General Motors said 'Our GM cars are fantastic, but myself -- I own a Ford.'

ObamaCare Supporters Not Giving Up

2010-02-02T00:05:00.004-07:00

According to the January 30, 2010 Los Angeles Times, the Democrats are going to put the health care issue on the back burner for now, then bring it up later once the political heat is off.

Here's an except from "Democrats quietly working to resuscitate healthcare overhaul":

President Obama's campaign to overhaul the nation's healthcare system is officially on the back burner as Democrats turn to the task of stimulating job growth, but behind the scenes party leaders have nearly settled on a strategy to salvage the massive legislation.

They are meeting almost daily to plot legislative moves while gently persuading skittish rank-and-file lawmakers to back a sweeping bill.

This effort is deliberately being undertaken quietly as Democrats work to focus attention on more-popular initiatives to bring down unemployment, which the president said was a priority in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.

Many have concluded that the only hope for resuscitating the healthcare legislation is to push the issue off the front page and give lawmakers time to work out a new compromise and shift public perception of the bill.

(Read the full text of "Democrats quietly working to resuscitate healthcare overhaul".)

And of course, these negotiations will be taking place "behind closed doors" -- precisely the tactics politicians employ when they are afraid of voter disapproval.

Hence, supporters of freedom and individual rights will have to maintain steady vigilance. We may have won this particular skirmish. But the war is a long ways from over...

(Via Hot Air.)

Gorman and Schwartz on Health Choice

2010-02-01T00:05:00.002-07:00

The January 29, 2010 Aurora Sentinel published this OpEd from Linda Gorman and Brian Schwartz explaining, "Why we're 'crazy' about health care choice".

Here's an excerpt:

...Along with stopping mandatory insurance purchase, the Right to Health Care Choice allows people to buy more affordable policies sold in other states. Thirty states have less expensive small-group premiums than Colorado. If governments did not shield insurers from interstate competition, “12 million previously uninsured” Americans would have coverage according to University of Minnesota economists.

You have the right to buy the best available insurance policy for you and your family. You also have the right to donate to charities of your choice. The Health Care Choice Initiative would protect you from politicians who want to deprive you of choice and increase your insurance premiums and taxes.

Thank you, Linda and Brian!

Did We Avoid ObamaCare Because of MLK Day?

2010-01-31T00:15:00.001-07:00

If this report from the January 30, 2010 edition of The Hill is correct, we may have narrowly averted ObamaCare due to Martin Luther King Day:

Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said negotiators from the White House, Senate and House reached a final deal on healthcare reform days before Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.

...Harkin said "we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn't get it back." He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15.

Harkin made clear that negotiators had reached a final deal on the entire bill, not just the excise plans, which had been reported the previous day, Jan. 14.

Because of the Monday January 18 was Martin Luther King Day (i.e., a federal holiday), the CBO didn't have a chance to score the bill.

Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts special election for Senate the next day (Tuesday January 19) then torpedoed the deal.

I knew this country narrowly averted disaster that week. But I had no idea how close of a call it was...

(Via RedState.)

"Reconciliation" Update

2010-01-30T00:05:00.002-07:00

The political battle in Washington DC continues to rage over the controversial "budget reconciliation" tactic that the Democrats are threatening to use to pass ObamaCare.

According to this story, "Hatch Vows 'Outright War' if Democrats Use Reconciliation on Health Reform".

And The New Republic explains the painful procedural intricacies if we start down this road in, "Uh Oh -- What If Reconciliation Isn't Quick?".

The ObamaCare supporters in Congress could spare the country -- and themselves -- a lot of pain if they just drop this idea.

Crawford Letter Opposing Reconciliation Trick

2010-01-29T09:30:00.004-07:00

As mentioned earlier, ObamaCare may not be quite dead yet.

If this report from HotAir.com is accurate, the Democrats will use the "budget reconciliation" technique to ram ObamaCare through Congress.

Basically, the House has to first approve the Senate bill without changes. Then they would use the "budget reconcilation" technique to make changes in a pre-arranged deal to satisfy the various special interest groups. This only requires 51 votes in the Senate, not 60. This tactic is necessitated by the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts which deprived them of their prior 60-vote supermajority.

The good news is that several Democrat Senators have already expressed opposition to using this method. (Whether they actually vote against it is a separate issue). So the Democrats may only have just barely over 50 votes they can count on. Which means if 1 or 2 more Democratic senators decide to oppose this tactic, then it will fail.

Hence, the important people to contact would be your two Senators, especially if they are Democrats:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Here's an example of a great letter that David Crawford sent to his Senators from Washington state (reposted with his permission):

Senator XXX,

I have heard news that there is a plan to pass the Senate version of the health care bill with modifications made through "budget reconciliation", which requires fewer votes.

None of this seems to be confirmed, so I don't know what is true, but if there *is* such a plan, it seems to be a total subversion of the legislative process! Please do not support efforts that are obviously intended to force a major new set of laws and regulations on a people who are trying to make it clear that they don't want it.

The Massachusetts election was the latest of many efforts of voters to communicate that we do *not* support this massive intrusion into our health care. I believe the Senate bill was passed too early, without a real understanding of your constituents concerns.

We all want better health care, but the proposed changes may have a devastating effect on the existing system, especially at a time when the economy is still very unstable. Please listen to what your constituents are trying to tell you and vote NO on any "budget reconciliation" efforts to get ObamaCare into law.

Thank you,
David Crawford

If you agree with those views, please speak out!

Not Dead Yet?

2010-01-29T00:15:00.001-07:00

The back-and-forth in Washington DC is getting tiresome.

But apparently, ObamaCare may not be dead yet.

It all depends on how desperate the Congressional Democrats are to pass something, even if the American people don't want it.

I don't think this is the last we're going to hear of this...

Massachusetts' Other GOP Winner

2010-01-29T00:05:00.002-07:00

Amidst the euphoria by anti-ObamaCare activist over the Scott Brown election victory, Kimberley Strassel warns that some of the underlying principles behind ObamaCare may have gotten a political boost.

Here's an excerpt from her January 22, 2010 Wall Street Journal piece, "Massachusetts' Other GOP Winner":

...Mr. Brown brazenly turned his Senate bid into a referendum on President Obama's health plan, and voters rewarded him with a job. Yet ObamaCare's model was the health reform inflicted on Massachusetts by a certain Republican governor in 2006, otherwise known as RomneyCare.

That precursor shares many elements of Washington's legislation, from an individual mandate, to employer taxes, to subsidized middle-class insurance. The program has bombed, creating giant costs while realizing minimal benefits. A big reason only 25% of Massachusetts voters strongly approve of ObamaCare is because of this experience.

The state plan has become a millstone for Mr. Romney, yet he has refused to disavow it. Had he campaigned with Mr. Brown he'd have undoubtedly been asked about it, and undoubtedly given an answer as unsatisfying as those to date.

...Mr. Romney has never backed away from his individual mandate, which requires people to buy insurance or pay a fine. Yet Republicans and independents despise the mandate, with many believing it is downright unconstitutional.

Mr. Romney's subsidized coverage is meanwhile doing what entitlements do: crowding out private insurers, compounding the cost explosion, walking the state toward rationing. So long as the former governor clings to these central points of his health plan, he's on the wrong side of free-market policy and public opinion.

That might be why in December Mr. Romney shifted again, saying his program differed significantly from ObamaCare in that it "solved" the "problem" at the state level, and featured no public option. But the public option argument has gone poof. And while GOP primary voters care about federalism, most will be hard pressed to parse the difference between a failed state program and a failed federal one.

Similarly, Republican Senator Orin Hatch of Utah (and co-authors Blackwell and Klukowski) wrote the following in his January 2, 2010 Wall Street Journal piece "Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional":

The federal government may exercise only the powers granted to it or denied to the states. The states may do everything else. This is why, for example, states may have authority to require individuals to purchase health insurance but the federal government does not. It is also the reason states may require that individuals purchase car insurance before choosing to drive a car, but the federal government may not require all individuals to purchase health insurance.

In other words, they object only to the fact that the federal government would require mandatory health insurance, rather than state governments.

Unless Brown, Romney, and the Republicans disavow the principle of mandatory insurance, we may see it in a new form in a few years.

I would like to think that the Republicans would recognize the importance of arguing these issues in principle. But I won't hold my breath waiting...

Obama Not Giving Up Yet

2010-01-28T00:05:00.002-07:00

From the President's January 27, 2010 State of the Union address:

...By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.

As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

I'll offer my $0.02.

At the economic level, if our President wants to lower costs, he should try free market reforms.

At the philosophical level, he needs to re-examine the "morality of need" that says that one person's need gives him a moral claim on the goods and labor produced by another. This IBD editorial by Brook and Watkins is a good place to start.

Barro on "Scaled Back" ObamaCare

2010-01-27T00:05:00.002-07:00

In the January 26, 2010 RealClearMarkets.com, Josh Barro has written up his own analysis on why "A 'Scaled Back' Health Bill Won't Work".

Here is an excerpt:

In 1993, New York adopted two of the most popular parts of the health care reform bill that recently passed the Senate: "guaranteed issue," or a rule that insurers must sell to anyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions; and "community rating," which prevents insurers from setting premiums based on characteristics like age and sex. (New York's reform is more radical than proposed federal reforms, as it allows no variance at all on age; the Senate bill would cap the amount of age-based difference).

New York did not require anybody to buy health insurance, nor did it give out subsidies to help people pay for it (though it did expand government-provided insurance at vast taxpayer expense.)

These reforms were supposed to make it possible for more people to get insurance coverage. Instead, what they did was drive premiums through the roof. Now, the cheapest insurance plan for a family in New York City costs $26,040, compared to a national average of around $13,000.

Unsurprisingly, few New Yorkers find these prices affordable, and the share of New Yorkers with individually-purchased coverage has fallen by 96%, to about 2 in 1000. Functionally, New York barely even has an individual insurance market anymore. As a result, New York's rate of uninsurance is in the middle of the pack nationally, even though the state ranks 4th in the share of residents on Medicaid.

New York experienced what is known as an "insurance death-spiral." Under community rating and guaranteed issue, healthy people found insurance premiums to be a bad deal and they dropped out. This increased the average risk among insureds, so premiums rose once more, again driving the healthier and poorer participants to drop. The process repeated itself until almost nobody found it worthwhile to buy their own insurance.

(Read the full text of "A 'Scaled Back' Health Bill Won't Work".)

In other words, instead of duplicating the failed Massachusetts experiment at the national level, the Congress is now proposing to duplicate the failed New York policies at the national level.

Perhaps we should try free market reforms instead!

ObamaCare Finally Dead?

2010-01-26T16:15:00.002-07:00

The January 26, 2010 New York Times reports that some centrist Senate Democrats have nixed the idea of sneaking ObamaCare through Congress using the 51-vote "budget reconciliation" technique.

From the article, "Democrats Put Stop on Health Overhaul":

With no clear path forward on major health care legislation, Democratic leaders in Congress effectively slammed the brakes on President Obama's top domestic priority on Tuesday, saying that they no longer felt pressure to move quickly on a health bill after eight months of setting deadlines and missing them...

...[T]wo centrist Democratic senators who are up for re-election this year, Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas and Evan Bayh of Indiana, said that they would resist efforts to muscle through a health care bill using a parliamentary tactic called budget reconciliation, which seemed to be the simplest way to advance the measure.

The White House has said in recent days that it would support that approach.

Some Democrats said that they did not expect any action on health care legislation until late February at earliest, perhaps after Congress returns from a weeklong recess. But the Democrats stand to lose momentum, and every day closer to the November election that the issue remains unresolved may reduce the chances of passing a far-reaching bill.

The gear-shift by Democrats underscored how the health care effort had been derailed by the Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election last week, which effectively denied Democrats the 60th vote they need to be sure of overcoming a Republican filibuster in the Senate...

This makes it increasingly likely that the Congress will attempt some "scaled-back" version at the national level. Plus we'll likely see the political battle shift back to the state level.

Stay tuned...

ObamaCare Not Dead Yet?

2010-01-26T00:15:00.002-07:00

I don't know how reliable this story is, but Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are reporting that Pelosi and Reid might still have one final trick up their sleeves to pass ObamaCare:

...Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

First, the House will pass the Senate's Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

How will Pelosi's deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don't like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don't get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the "rich"?

That's where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members -- but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate's Democratic caucus that they will make "fixes" to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama's John Hancock.

But you may ask what about the fact that, without Republican Scott Brown and independent Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, Reid simply doesn't have the 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster that typically can stop major legislation?

According to my source, Reid will provide to Pelosi a letter signed by 52 Democratic senators indicating they will pass the major changes, or "fixes," the House Democrats are demanding. Again, these fixes will be approved by the Senate only after Obama signs the Senate bill into law.

Reid also has agreed to bypass Senate cloture and filibuster rules and claim that these modifications fall under "reconciliation" and don't require 60 Senate votes.

To pass the fixes, he won't need one Republican; he won't even need Joe Lieberman or wavering Democrats such as Jim Webb of Virginia.

His 52 pledged senators give him a simple majority to pass any changes they want, which will later be rubberstamped by Pelosi's House and signed by Obama.

This plan, of course, is a total subversion of the legislative process...

As I said, I don't know how reliable this report is. But we shouldn't let our guard down yet...

Faux Health Reform

2010-01-26T00:05:00.002-07:00

The Washington Times is the latest paper to chime in against the proposed scaled back "insurance reforms" in its January 25, 2010 OpEd, "Faux health reform".

One excerpt:

President Obama and some other Democrats are putting out sounders about scaled-down health regulations. Striking his new populist pose, Mr. Obama told ABC News, "We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people." The problem with the president's anti-business stance is that if enacted into law, it will destroy private health insurance.

You don't have to take our word for it. Liberals like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman are warning about the president's suggestion. Regarding the regulation to forbid insurance companies from taking into account preexisting health conditions, Mr. Krugman wrote, "healthy people [will] choose to go uninsured until they get sick, leading to a poor risk pool, leading to high premiums, leading even more healthy people dropping out." In other words, proposed regulations would produce more uninsured Americans and higher insurance costs.

To illustrate how bad this idea is, imagine if motorists could buy automobile insurance right after an accident and then were allowed to drop it once the car was fixed. Without revenue from regular premiums, insurance companies couldn't cover all the claims and would go under...

One question -- is that a bug or a feature? In other words, are there some politicians who want to pass this kind of measure knowing that the economic logic will eventually drive private insurance companies out of business? Then they could claim that "the free market has failed" and propose a governnent-run "single-payer" system as the solution.

More California Dreaming

2010-01-25T00:05:00.002-07:00

Now that a comprehensive national-level ObamaCare plan of "universal health care" is unlikely to happen, individual state governments will likely start working on their plans. Of course, the fact that they've failed in the past won't stop the true believers.

From California, we see the first stirrings.

The January 21, 2010 New York Times reports, "California Democrats Revive Universal Health Plan" -- with the explicit goal of imposing a "single payer" system on the state.

Apparently, they've learned nothing from the experience of other countries.

Along similar lines, the Associated Press reported on January 19, 2010 of new state rules that would create a "right to be seen by a doctor" for patients in HMOs (Health Maintenance Organizations).

From "California to Set Time Limit to See Doctors" (mirrored here):

California is poised to become the first state to set time limits for doctors to see patients, the Department of Managed Health Care said.

Regulations to be announced Wednesday require family practitioners in health maintenance organizations to see patients seeking an appointment within 10 business days. The deadline for specialists is 15 days.

Of course, if the government could conjure up immediate medical care by fiat, why not do the same for food, water, and housing?

Eventually, reality will catch up with even the most wooly-headed wishful thinking. But for now, California politicians keep dreaming...

IBD: Why 'Scaled-Down' Health Reform Won’t Work

2010-01-22T00:15:00.004-07:00

Given that there's little political will in Congress to pass the blockbuster ObamaCare bill, the most likely next tactic will be attempting to pass the various provisions in a piecemeal or scaled-down fashion.

One proposed scaled-back version is a law requiring insurers to accept patients regardless of pre-existing conditions.

But the January 20, 2010 Investor's Business Daily explains why this won't work:

...[F]orcing insurers to accept all comers without an individual mandate could destroy the economics of the industry. The young and healthy could simply choose not to get coverage until they get sick. States with guaranteed coverage but no mandates are among those with the highest premiums in the nation.

If there's an individual mandate, the government would likely feel compelled to provide major subsidies to help lower- and middle-class Americans afford care. And financing such a bill would require big spending and/or tax hikes. And that would bring Democrats back to where they were before Tuesday.

Amanda Teresi explains the key issue as follows:

It would be the equivalent of not having any car insurance, hitting a tree, and then calling Geico and saying you want to sign up. It doesn't make sense.

Instead of more government controls over insurance, we need a free market. Insurers should be able to offer policies on terms based on their own best judgement and prospective customers should be free to purchase (or not purchase) those policies based on their own best judgment.

Furthermore, if patients were unhappy with current insurance offerings, a free market would permit them to form their own risk pool and essentially self-insure. It is only onerous government regulations that prevent willing individuals from voluntarily forming their own insurance companies as they see fit. Instead, they have to abide by all the regulations and restrictions of their state insurance commissioner.

A fully free market would protect individuals' ability to purchase insurance, whereas imposing still more restrictions on whom insurers must cover and what benefits they must offer would actually destroy it.

For more information on this, please see my article from the Fall 2009 issue of The Objective Standard:

"How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability"

Armentrout's Letter

2010-01-22T00:05:00.004-07:00

In the wake of the Massachusetts special election, Bryan Armentrout sent the following letter to his elected officials (reposted here with his permission):

I oppose any effort by the government to control my healthcare and I hope that the developments in Massachusetts will serve as a clear wake up call at your office. No one wants this legislation and the elections and polls strongly support this assertion.

I urge you to reverse your support and publically oppose healthcare legislation in any form.

If you continue your support for nationalized healthcare, I will actively work to remove you from office during the next election cycle.

Thank you for your time.

Bryan Armentrout

Thank you for speaking out, Bryan!

If you wish to tell your elected officials what you think, you can find their contact information here:

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Hsieh PJM OpEd: "A Declaration of Independents"

2010-01-21T13:25:00.000-07:00

The January 21, 2010 PajamasMedia has just published my latest OpEd, "Brown's Victory: The Declaration of Independents".

My theme is that the recent election in Massachusetts (as well as the earlier November 2009 elections in NY, NJ, and VA) show that independent voters want limited government. Specifically, they want "the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms."

Here's the opening:

In the aftermath of Scott Brown's stunning upset election victory in Massachusetts, pundits will be debating the meaning and political implications for weeks to come. However, one fact is incontrovertibly clear. The race hinged on the independent voters.

In Massachusetts, 50% of the registered voters are independent, as opposed to 37% Democratic and 12% Republican. In this week's election, independents voted overwhelmingly for Brown, giving him a 52-to-47% victory -- in a state where Barack Obama easily won 62% of the vote in 2008. This enormous swing shows that the independents represent a powerful political force that neither party can take for granted.

Independents are also the driving force behind the tea party rallies. Many tea party supporters have been quite explicit in warning that their opposition to the policies of our current Democratic president and Congress should not be mistaken as automatic support for the Republicans.

So what do the independents want? In a word, limited government...

(Read the full text of "Brown's Victory: The Declaration of Independents".)

Coloradans Speak Out Against ObamaCare

2010-01-21T00:05:00.005-07:00

Ari Armstrong attended the "Defend Colorado From ObamaCare" rally on January 19, 2010.

Here's a short speech by Dr. Sanat Dixit, a neurosurgeon:

And another video:

Ari has posted more videos here.

The People's Press Collective has more video and pictures.

Hennenfent's Reforms

2010-01-20T22:30:00.000-07:00

Dr. Bradley Hennenfent offers his own suggestions on health care reforms that don't require a complete government takeover of medicine.

In general, I very much like his emphasis on allowing physicians and other practitioners to engage with patients using social media, without fear of legal repercussions. I know many physicians are reluctant even to use e-mail, precisely because of legal concerns.

Price transparency would also be a tremendous benefit if also coupled with genuine free-market reforms such as those proposed by John Mackey.

I would like to emphasize that in a free market, one would not need to mandate price transparency, as this would follow as a natural consequence of providers and patients each seeking their rational self-interest. Conversely, price transparency without a free market (for instance, in the type of heavily-regulated insurance market that Obama wants) would be meaningless.

As one small point of dissent, I think it's important not to conflate political power of governments with the economic power of corporations.

As Ayn Rand once noted:

A disastrous intellectual package-deal, put over on us by the theoreticians of statism, is the equation of economic power with political power. You have heard it expressed in such bromides as: "A hungry man is not free," or "It makes no difference to a worker whether he takes orders from a businessman or from a bureaucrat." Most people accept these equivocations—and yet they know that the poorest laborer in America is freer and more secure than the richest commissar in Soviet Russia. What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.

The difference between political power and any other kind of social "power," between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

I fully support limiting the power of government to its proper function of protecting individual rights. Otherwise, Dr. Hennefent is correct -- we would end up with rationing and "death panels".

In contrast, any economic power of insurers in a free market would be controlled by the voluntary actions of patients and providers who would be free to deal with (or not deal with) insurers based on their own rational self-interest. The government should only intervene if the insurance companies are guilty of commiting fraud or initiating force.

Today's Massachusetts Video

2010-01-20T00:15:00.000-07:00

On a lighter note, my wife sent me this hilarious YouTube video:

"Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat"

Massachusetts Miracle

2010-01-20T00:05:00.005-07:00

Now that Scott Brown has been elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, pundits will be discussing the reasons and the significance for weeks to come.

However, the fallout for the health care debate has already begun as Democrats in Congress are starting to shy away from ObamaCare. Even Barney Frank has expressed his doubts about its eventual passage.

Although we're still a long ways away from genuine free market reforms, last night's election may have halted the momentum towards a seemingly-inevitable government takeover of medicine. Perhaps now, some genuine free market reforms can be part of the health care debate.

I would like to highlight the fact that the Massachusetts election confirms what Duke University professor John Lewis observed in his superb article in the Fall 2009 issue of The Objective Standard entitled, "Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda":

...This is the clarity that Obama has brought to the American political scene. To see a president’s clear and principled commitment to an ideology -- any ideology -- is precisely what America has needed for decades. This sight has helped many people understand the issues at a more fundamental level than they ever have.

Obama and his congressional allies have unwittingly launched a grass-roots movement that is actively questioning the role of government in our lives. Although a large portion of the protesters remains confused about the principles at stake, an increasing number are gaining clarity. They are coming to see the Democratic proposals for health-care "reform," for instance, not as a matter of new programs backed by good intentions, but as an attack on individual rights and an effort to impose a dictatorship -- as signs at tea parties attest. And many are beginning to see that the Republicans as well have been guilty of such attacks.

...Many Americans are now able to see Obama's plans as an assault on the founding principles of this nation. In addition, many Americans realize that time is running out -- that the future is here, today. These two factors are energizing otherwise nonpolitical Americans to literally rally around the flag, to confront their elected representatives, and to turn against the administration in droves.

Last night, the people of Massachusetts spoke loud and clear to express their rejection of ObamaCare and the underlying ideology.

Brown may not be a perfect candidate, but his election will buy supporters of free markets and individual some valuable time to promote our ideas.

Thank you, Massachusetts!

Update: Barney Frank has apparently gone back on his earlier statements.