Tag Archives: liberal

Republicans Bungle the Government Shutdown

I have heard many of my friends on the right suggest that the Tea Party has destroyed GOP credibility through the obstinacy of certain far-right senators and congressmen during the government shutdown and debt ceiling battle. Based on my own observations of the ordeal, this analysis just doesn’t sit right with me.

First, is it a certainty that the shutdown will hurt the GOP politically? Sure, as the litany of national polls seem to suggest, the public does not view the GOP favorably, and most blame Republicans for the shutdown. However, as Nate Silver pointed out in a recent article, the importance of most issues and current events quickly diminishes in the public eye:

Remember Syria? The fiscal cliff? Benghazi? The IRS scandal? The collapse of immigration reform? All of these were hyped as game-changing political moments by the news media, just as so many stories were during the election last year. In each case, the public’s interest quickly waned once the news cycle turned over to another story. Most political stories have a fairly short half-life and won’t turn out to be as consequential as they seem at the time.

Also, there is no evidence that Republicans suffered from the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns either. In fact, Republicans gained Senate seats in the 1996 election, and retained their majority in the House. This occurred even though President Clinton’s approval ratings were rising (though, as Silver points out, Clinton’s climb in approval may have been part of a long-term trend anyway).

Even if we grant, however, that Republicans will not be significantly hurt in 2014 by the most recent shutdown, the GOP moderates/establishment types may still assert that the particular position of the Tea Party during the shutdown was ultimately untenable, and that there was nothing to be gained from dragging America through a government shutdown. In answering this claim, it should be first broken down into two parts.

First, was the Tea Party’s position during the shutdown truly untenable? From a philosophical perspective, it was certainly not: Virtually all Republicans agree that Obamacare is an abomination which will deprive Americans of their freedoms and hard-earned wealth, and that it should be stopped. That said, was the position untenable from a political/electoral standpoint? The consensus among moderate/establishment Republicans appears to be that it was, but what is their evidence for that claim, besides the fact that the GOP eventually did cave and pass the Democrats’ continuing budget resolution? I have not yet come across any such evidence. It is, of course, easy to fail at something if you do not try.

I don’t own a crystal ball, but maybe the shutdown battle could have ended differently. Perhaps it would have been possible to win this fight if the Republicans were unified in an effort to block Obamacare. It is true that the media and their incessant polling put a disproportionate amount pressure on conservatives, but the media are never going to side with conservatives. If Republicans are doomed to be ruled guilty in the court of public opinion, it is better that they be so having stood on principle, because it is those conservative principles that this country so desperately needs right now. The national debt just screamed past $17 trillion, and Obamacare will only add to that while destroying jobs. America needs relief now, not later. There is no time to worry about public relations, image, and re-election.

The moderate/establishment wing of the GOP would consider this poor political strategy, but the vile, relentless attacks on Tea Party Republicans by their moderate counterparts were themselves poor political strategy for two reasons: First, they completely undermined the Tea Party’s position from the beginning by demonstrating to Obama and the Democrats that the Republican Party did not have the resolve to challenge them. It’s like playing poker and telling your opponent from the outset that you will fold regardless of how much they bet—a guaranteed losing strategy. Second, the resultant implosion of the GOP’s bargaining stance gave the impression that the Tea Party’s opposition to funding Obamacare was never a principled endeavor, because who would go to such trouble—shuttering the government and bringing the country to the edge of a so-called “default”—just to retreat and abandon their principles, unless their claims about the detriments of Obamacare and the soaring national debt were mere exaggeration to begin with? Such an impression will hamper efforts by the Tea Party, or anyone else, to implement conservative reforms well into the future.

Was the position of the Tea Party untenable? Maybe. But there is one (non-)strategy that was a guaranteed loser: the one put forth by the moderate/establishment Republicans. We don’t need a crystal ball to know that. In actuality, it was their tactics which have done most to harm GOP credibility, not the Tea Party’s.

Looking back, the Tea Party’s strategy was not without potential gains. At best, the Tea Party might have successfully defunded Obamacare. Even though they did not succeed in that regard, they have brought national attention to the the train-wreck that is the new health care law. Hopefully their efforts will lend courage to other like-minded Republicans to stand and fight in future battles.

Now look closer at the strategy put forth by the moderate/establishment GOP—which is not really a strategy at all, but rather a veiled retreat: They say that we should “let Obamacare implode,” that its implementation has proven so outrageously bungled that the American people will quickly comprehend the law’s shortcomings and reject it. This assertion is mere fantasy, and it carries absolutely no weight with me for two reasons. First, the leftist media in this country will never allow any narrative to develop which does not favor Obamacare, and those who are ignorant of its problems shall remain so. As we now see, the mainstream media have already started parroting the White House’s assurances about the soundness of Healthcare.gov and the Affordable Care Act as a whole.

And just what does it mean to say that the Obamacare rollout is going badly? Our best points of comparison are the other giant federal transfer programs and their rollouts (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, TANF, SCHIP, food stamps, et cetera, et cetera). Their initial implementations may have been smoother, but the programs themselves were, by their very nature, unsustainable from day one. Unfortunately, if history has shown us anything consistently, it is not that the inefficiencies of government programs create the political will for reform—in fact, just the opposite is true: Every new transfer program creates an entrenched electoral constituency made up of financial beneficiaries, making it virtually impossible to repeal or even make the most marginal reforms of those programs. Moderate/establishment Republicans should know this, so exactly what do they expect to gain by allowing Obamacare to “implode?” I thought the whole point of reforming and/or repealing these programs was to prevent this! Our main assumption has always been that the implosion of the welfare state (which is literally running on borrowed time) will spell the implosion of the United States’ fiscal integrity, the American economy, and American society generally. There is no political victory to be reaped from that, so what are the Republicans waiting for?

Advertisements

The Perils of Addressing Privilege

Gavin McInnes at Taki’s Magazine has received quite a bit of flak for his article, “Tackling Asian Privilege.” Unsurprisingly, many of the article’s detractors pegged McInnes as a racist, lambasting him for mentioning a non-white racial group using politically-incorrect terms—concerns that could be assuaged simply by, oh… reading the article, perhaps? Other critics simply failed to sense the satire of piece, with which, in writing an almost-painful (but prudent) follow-up article, McInnes proceeded to beat over their heads.

Most of us are familiar with privilege, not because we have seen or experienced it firsthand, but because the Left endlessly assures us of its existence. The term “white privilege,” per its use in the modern leftist’s lexicon, has been rendered redundant: It is generally assumed by the Left that only white people can impose or benefit from institutional racial privileges.

Of course, using the term “privilege” in this way precludes any sort of intellectually sound discussion. McInnes’ article chips away at this assumption, but more importantly, it ponders the very notion of privilege itself. As the article explains, there are a number of fronts on which the Asian-American demographic has better social standing than other American racial minority groups:

Nobody clutches their purse to their side when an Asian walks into the elevator. If an Asian applies for a job at a bank or on the police force, he or she is welcomed with open arms. When an Asian commits a crime, people are shocked. When an Asian is appointed to the head of the Department of Energy, everyone knowingly nods their head. Asian privilege pervades every part of our day-to-day life and it’s time they joined the conversation about race.

Though they comprise less than 4.8% of the American population, they make up 8.3% of all doctors. Only 2.3% of doctors are African American, yet they’re 13% of the population. Thirty percent of African American men will go to jail, but only 1.6% of prisoners are Asian. Nobody sees the problem with that?

McGill University is one of the most elite schools in North America, and to walk through their campus is to be transported into a pastoral Chinatown. This is true of all Ivy League schools. Asian Americans have the highest education level of any racial demographic and they’re also the wealthiest. While African American households earned an average of $30,939 in 2005, Asian Americans walked away with twice that.

The narrative which the left has been perpetuating for the last fifty years—that whites are invariably the beneficiaries of institutional privilege, and that racial minorities are incapable of the same—fit well enough to a society where white people really were the dominant socioeconomic group. As certain racial minorities begin to prosper, however, and even prosper at faster rates than whites, that narrative begins to break down. Asian-American households now make, on average, $10,000 more than white households. Relative to their percentage of the total population, Asian-Americans are over-represented among doctors, while whites are under-represented. A greater proportion of whites are in prison than Asian-Americans. Incidentally, Asian-Americans have done quite well for themselves.

Incidental success has traditionally been the sole piece of evidence to support the existence of racial privileges, and when only whites were successful, this thinking fit the leftist paradigm well. However, the success of a racial minority presents the Left with a dilemma: Either they must concede that other factors besides privilege contribute to the success of certain groups, or they must admit to having employed a double standard in whom they designate as privileged.

This is not to say that privilege does not exist—on the contrary, society is rife with it. However, McInnes is right to question the common notions of privilege which permeate our political discourse, and which frame the discussion as one solely based on racial antipathy.

Herman Cain: Brave or Bigoted?

Herman Cain has been taking a lot of heat for his comments on FOX News Sunday about communities banning mosques (the entire interview can be found here):

Cain: “Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.”

and later…

Wallace: “So you’re saying, any community, if they wanted to ban a mosque…”

Cain: “Yes, they have a right to do that.”

Predictably, these comments sparked outrage among Muslims and leftists generally. U.S. Representative Keith Ellison called Cain a “religious bigot” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) demanded that Cain “apologize.” But are these reactions warranted? What exactly about Cain’s comments is controversial?

According to the dictionary, a bigot is “a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.” Cain’s description of Islam, that it is a blend of church and state, is accurate: In addition to its creeds and personal moral codes, Islam includes a system of government and law, called Sharia, which is binding upon all people. Because Sharia emanates from the Quran (the holy word of God), it can be the only legitimate law in the world, and it is incumbent upon Muslims to spread Sharia globally. Islam and Sharia are inextricably linked, which is one of the reasons people are averse to the presence of a mosque in their community.

Cain’s characterization of the situation in Tennessee is no less accurate. The people of Murfreesboro, like the people in communities across the country, are fearful of the implementation of Sharia in American courts. This fear is not baseless, as such a phenomenon has occurred many times already in the United States.

Finally, because Sharia is an integral component of Islam, Cain is justified in his assertion that the mosque is similarly integral in the promulgation of Sharia Law, even its more violent aspects, within a non-Muslim community.

For the purposes of labeling someone as a bigot, it is possible to disagree over what constitutes an “unfair” dislike of “other people, ideas, etc.,” but given Cain’s impeccable knowledge of Islam, I can only assume that the left’s smearing of him as a bigot has less to do with the veracity of his comments than it does with a sheer disapproval of his opinions, and the unabashed nature with which he expresses them.

Cain’s comments shed light on a larger issue as well: The First Amendment has, with increasing frequency, become an excuse for people to affront the laws of their community, state, or country. “Freedom of religion” has hijacked the hiring, firing, and general operations of private businesses, and it has even been used as a vessel to silence so called “hate speech” (though ironically, always in the name of tolerance). A line must be drawn between spirituality, which is merely a contemplation of the supernatural world, and actions which infringe upon the rights of others. Religion offers no more prerogative for unbridled action in the public square than the nonexistent “right to privacy” offers in one’s own home. That is the price of self-government and life in a civil society.

These days, one need only uphold the values and achievements of western civilization to earn the title of “bigot” from the Left. However, if it is bigotry to oppose a religion which demands the subversion of communities which do not comport with it; if it is bigotry to oppose a religion which treats women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals, and many others as (at best) second-class citizens; if it is bigotry to oppose a religion which has neither a concept of equality under the laws, nor freedom from a theocratic state, then consider me a bigot. Is this an unfair characterization of Islam? Or has the Left simply bastardized the English language, using it as a weapon against those bold enough to espouse opposing views? If Herman Cain has shown us anything, it’s not that he’s a bigot, but that bigotry is the new bravery.

A Leftist Misconception: Income Inequality

One of the most important issues to Americans is the economy. The state of the economy is something all Americans have a stake in, and there are a number of indicators we use to know how it’s fairing. GDP, unemployment rates, income, interest rates, and stock market returns are probably the most well-known indicators used by economists today. But there’s one lesser known indicator that leftists prefer to use for measuring the health of the economy: income inequality. While the previously mentioned indicators all measure efficiency in the economy, income inequality measures its equity. In other words, it’s a measure of one person or group’s economic welfare in relation to another. Leftists believe that the income divide between the rich and the poor in America has been widening. This is the misconception.

The main reason for the propagation of this misconception is a misreading of data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The Current Population Survey, the Bureau’s monthly survey of demographic information on roughly 50,000 people, has facilitated the collection of labor statistics for over 50 years. In the year 2000, the Census Bureau published a report summarizing the survey’s findings on income statistics over that time period, with special attention given to the disparity between the concentrations of household income within certain arbitrary statistical ranges. In order to quantify disparity, the report used the Gini Coefficient: a point on a 0 to 1 scale, where at 0 income is equally shared among all people, and at 1 all income resides with one person. According to the report, the Gini coefficient has been increasing steadily from 1968 to 1998, meaning that America has been becoming more unequal. Leftists like to take these data at face value because it justifies their egalitarian tendencies.

Unfortunately, there are some problems with measuring inequality this way. The first is the use of household incomes instead of individual incomes. The average household size for all Americans, according to Current Population Survey, has been steadily decreasing since before 1968, and that downward trajectory continues to this day. As we would expect, this has allowed the concentration of income in each quintile of households to change despite contradictory changes in median individual income over the same time period. Unfortunately, individual incomes cannot be effectively used to calculate the Gini Coefficient because of factors like unearned income, the earned income tax credit, government in-kind transfers, and countless other variables which can only be measured individually.

The main problem with the Gini Coefficient, however, is that it relies on measuring the concentration of incomes within statistical ranges. When you do this, income stops being a characteristic of a person, and starts being a characteristic of a given statistical range. Statistical ranges such as quintiles only outline boundaries, however, which are superimposed onto an income scale to capture multiple units of data. Looking only at these boundaries instead of looking at the people within them is going to give us a distorted view of the economy. The simple reason for this is that the statistical ranges of income on which the Gini Coefficient relies do not change: the bottom income quintile will always be the bottom income quintile, no matter how much income the people within that quintile individually earn over time.

This fact approaches the heart of the problem. What if a person within one income quintile begins to make so much money that he/she moves to a higher quintile? Likewise, what if a person takes such a sharp pay cut that he/she moves to a lower one?

The Gini Coefficient cannot measure these occurrences. In other words, the Gini Coefficient cannot measure income mobility.  We should all be concerned with the phenomenon of income mobility (the ease with which one can change their own income) because it is the free-market remedy for inequality, and it is one of our most important traditional values as Americans. It can be contrasted with redistribution, which is the leftist remedy for inequality.

We’ve now established that the Gini coefficient is inadequate for ascertaining the state of income mobility, so we need another measurement to use in its stead. What happens when we abandon the Gini Coefficient’s reliance on measuring household income concentrations within quintiles, and focus instead on the changes in individual incomes over time? Do we still see the growing disparity between the rich and poor in this country like the Census would suggest is occurring? No! In fact, the opposite has been occurring! In 2007, the U.S. Department of the Treasury published a report of trends in income mobility in the decade of 1996 to 2005. Using data from a sample of tax returns for over one-hundred and sixty thousand primary and secondary taxpayers, the Treasury finds that

There is considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy over the 1996 through 2005 period. More than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 1996 and 2005. About half (58 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another measure) of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005.

In addition to reporting on income mobility, the report offers some insight on the overall strength of the economy. Also, the poor benefited more from income mobility than did the rich:

Median incomes of taxpayers in the sample increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. Further, the median incomes of those initially in the lowest income groups increased more in percentage terms than the median incomes of those in the higher income groups. The median inflation-adjusted incomes of the taxpayers who were in the very highest income groups in 1996 declined by 2005.

The composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005.

The report also comments that

The degree of relative income mobility among income groups over the 1996 to 2005 period is very similar to that over the prior decade (1987 to 1996). To the extent that increasing income inequality widened income gaps, this was offset by increased absolute income mobility so that relative income mobility has neither increased nor decreased over the past 20 years.

Referenced in the study is a litany of prior research on income mobility dating back to the 1960s, all of which indicates that there was a large amount of mobility within past decades as well, especially in the decade of 1979-1988, where by one measurement, “86 percent of taxpayers in the lowest income quintile in 1979 had moved to a higher quintile by 1988 and 15 percent of them had moved all the way to the top quintile.”

Leftists and others looking at the Current Population Survey might suggest that more government regulation and more progressive tax policies are needed to improve equity in the economy, but if we’ve learned anything here, it’s that liberty and opportunity are the greatest equalizers. If we wish to promote equality of opportunity, we should ensure a free market economy, of which economic freedom and mobility is a central component. We should accordingly dismiss the policies that, in an effort to achieve equality of outcomes, must necessarily destroy that freedom and mobility.

A Piece on Health Care “Reform”

Here we have the champion issue of the Democrat Party, the Holy Grail of leftism, President Obama’s “Waterloo;” it is the quintessential form of federal government control over the lives of Americans in a modern world. This issue has recently been the centerpiece of mainstream, left-wing reporting, and every day we hear the latest propaganda supporting the so-called “healthcare reform” proposals circulating within congress. This is a large topic, so I will break the left’s arguments down in to its components of philosophy, and statistical rationale.

The ideological foundation for this debate is the question “Is health care a right?” The Democrat Party’s proposals rely on an affirmative answer, but in taking a closer look beyond its emotional appeal, we find that the question must first be broken down into two more basic questions: (1) What is health care? (2) What is a right?

Most people seem to have a good concept of what health care is. When patients are administered medicine, they are receiving a tangible good. When a patient visits a doctor or nurse, they are receiving the tangible services of those professionals. Regardless of what the particular good or service is, health care is something that professionals in the field own and provide at a cost to themselves.

Defining a right is a little bit trickier. The conservative perspective holds that a right is a product of natural law; natural law is based on morality, and morality is based on human nature. Still, the concept of rights seem nebulous and intangible, so it’s best to start with its most basic characteristics. Most people would agree that in order for something to be a right, it must be inalienable from an individual, undeniable to them by both other individuals and by government. If rights are inalienable from individuals, then the rights of one individual necessarily cannot contradict the rights of another. Given these stipulations, let us consider the example of health care.

If health care is declared a right, then the rights of those without health care must necessarily contradict the rights of those with health care. If I walk into a hospital and demand treatment, claiming it as my right, I am actually claiming as my right the service of whoever provides the treatment–if they are unable to refuse, it would render the health care provider a slave. Because this would contradict the rights of the health care provider, health care cannot be a right. The same is true for all other goods and services, such as food, clothing, and housing. These things are produced by individuals at a cost to themselves.

Rights are not something that can be granted or confiscated by government, but goods and services are. In its endeavor to provide health care for all, government has fostered a sense of entitlement in people that causes them to view goods and services as a right. The irony is that the government’s reforms aren’t even focused on health care, but rather health insurance coverage. Health insurance coverage is a promise, and nothing more. Promises are something the government has an abundance of.

I also want to address the left’s use of the word “reform.” Its adoption for this context is no accident, though the way they use it is dishonest. There are two types of large scale change: Reform and Revolution. Edmund Burke, known as the founder of modern conservatism, knew from his observations on the French Revolution and the surrounding time periods what the characteristics and effects are of each. Change through reform is a healthy practice to amend and refine current systems which are believed to be effective, but inefficient. Change through revolution (also referred to sometimes as change through innovation) radically alters a system to the point of being unrecognizable (or does away with a system altogether), based either on the assumption that the current system is horribly inadequate, or that the new system will be so wonderful that continuation of the current system in any way is unacceptable. The two types of change are mutually exclusive, with reformation producing results opposite to those of revolution, which often have unintended consequences, and as Burke put, “A spirit of reformation is never more consistent with itself than when it refuses to be rendered the means of destruction.” The healthcare proposals originating in the U.S. House and Senate are not reform. They are a complete short circuit and doing-away-with of the current healthcare system of America, including its positive aspects. It is revolution, and if implemented, will be disastrous.

The Problem According to the Left

Dearth of Insurance Coverage

By now, there’s no doubt you’ve heard the figure thrown around by Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and several media pundits that there are at least 47 million uninsured Americans in this country. According to them, there is a crisis in the United States of such magnitude that you wouldn’t be able to walk down the street without seeing uninsured Americans sprawled out on the sidewalk, or spilling out of emergency rooms. They would have you believe that unless a great, new, federal government insurance agency is created, there will be a profusion of sickness, injury, and death in America for which we would all share blame.

The first problem with this is that I don’t see uninsured Americans sprawled out on the street. I assume this is because I live a very sheltered life, but still, one must be at least a little bit skeptical. 47 million Americans is over 15 percent of the current United States population, so one would think that this crisis would have been all over the news for years up to this point. 47 million uninsured Americans don’t just appear over night, but I seem to recall only hearing about this figure during the 2008 election as one of the Democrat Party’s talking points, so where did this figure come from? It turns out, the figure originates from the 2006 U.S. Census Report. As with most statistics, these require more than a face-value appraisal. In his book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, Mark Levin digs deep into the report and points out a few problems with the Democrats’ conclusions:

“In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it. Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months. The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate.”

The existence of 10-15 million truly uninsured people is no small problem, but when we honestly consider all the facets of the data, we must seriously question the exigency of overhauling our entire health care system. The coverage of non-citizens and people who, for whatever reason, abstain from purchasing health insurance, all in hopes of helping a small percentage of truly disadvantaged Americans, is not wise, and we must give fair examination to less drastic policy alternatives.

The Insurance Companies

How did this problem start? If and when one accepts the “47-million-uninsured-Americans” figure as accurate (ignoring the facts mentioned earlier), one must wonder where all these uninsured Americans came from and how they got to be in their current situation. The talking heads on the left, including politicians such as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, seem to have decided upon private insurance companies as the culprit. They constantly re-iterate the horror stories of how people cannot acquire health insurance through their employer, or how skyrocketing health insurance premiums are preventing individuals and employers from purchasing a policy or prescription drugs, or how they are denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, etc. The fact is that some of these stories have some elements of truth to them, and there are a few cases in which people more or less fall “victim” to these situations. The health insurance system in this country is far from perfect, and it could stand to be reformed in many ways.

However, this leaves out an important aspect of the debate, and fails to explain the behavior of the insurance companies other than through words like, greed, malevolence, and selfishness. The purpose of health insurance is not to act as a buffer zone for the entirety of a population. As much as it pains some people to hear, it was never designed to provide for all people and cover all medical conditions. The way all insurance works is that the participants pool against risk–in this case, the risk of sickness or injury. When an individual requires treatment for some affliction, the insurance company is required by contract to pay out the premiums it collects according to a payment schedule. We are most familiar with such schedules through car and home insurance. When accidents occur, certain damages are covered, whereas others are not. Even compensation for similar damages may vary depending on other circumstances, such as who was at fault.

There is a big difference with health insurance, however, in that participants are not always pooling against risk. Since the advent of health insurance, the coverage of most insurance plans has grown to grotesque proportions to the point that insurance companies are no longer insuring only against risk–regular check-ups and procedures, weight-loss surgeries, and prescription drugs are but a few of the litany of covered treatments today (this is the main reason health care costs are so high). Given this overabundance of coverage, it would not make sense for a healthy person to participate, because instead of paying only for the unlikely, occasional, catastrophic illness or injury–which health insurance was originally designed to cover–their premiums would instead be going to pay for the near constant claims of people looking to fund their own lifestyle. The system would basically become a transfer payment. As a result, we have 18 million young people who wisely choose not to buy health insurance.

Given the lack of premiums from healthy people to subsidize perpetually sick people, insurance companies have to be discriminatory in deciding whom to cover. An insurance company would go broke if it had to provide for every single sick person or every pre-existing condition because there simply are not enough healthy people to pay for them all, and this would ultimately defeat the purpose of having health insurance in the first place. This is the sad, ultimate truth about the current health insurance system, and although it is sometimes a painful truth, it is the only way the insurance system can function to provide for the truly needy.

The Solution As They See It

Nationwide Private Insurance Mandates

Here’s what the Democrat politicians plan to do about the problem: Because they believe the insurance companies to be acting out of greed, selfishness, and discrimination, denying coverage purposefully because it would diminish their profits, they intend to solve this problem by punishing the insurance companies in a variety of ways. First and foremost, they intend to use the law to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions in individual insurance markets. The problem with this proposal is not hard to understand. I just explained why insurance companies do not cover all people and conditions, and to force them to do so would be to force them out of business. Besides, the federal legislation HIPAA which was passed in 1996 already mandates insurance companies to sell coverage for groups such as businesses regardless of the health of its employees. They also wish to prevent insurance companies from dropping coverage of those who become sick, but this problem is pretty much imaginary, as HIPAA already prevents this for groups as well as individuals, and no business in their right mind would charge for a product and not deliver the goods. They would go out of business in an instant. They also plan to prevent insurance companies from “watering down” plans and paying only for a limited supply of drugs and medical procedures. Although I actually believe this to be a noble endeavor, I also believe an insurance company that did this would not last long in a free market, and it is because of current federal law that these companies are able to perform such practices and still retain consumers, but I’ll address this subject later. They also intend to disallow “arbitrary cap[s]” on coverage after certain time periods. Again, in a free market, this would not occur, and it is because of federal law that this problem occurs, though it even sounds preposterous in itself. They also want to limit how much a person can be charged for “out-of-pocket expenses,” which I’ll assume to mean co-pays for medicine, check-ups, and non-covered expenses. This has less to do with insurance coverage (although it does revisit the problem of forcing coverage for everyone) than it does with simple economics. You cannot limit the price of those health services and medical supplies through law without causing vast, negative repercussions for the companies and clinics that provide those commodities.

Public Health Insurance Entity

Here is the tricky part of the Democrat plans in congress: The “public option,” as the politicians evasively describe it. It has had many names over the months and been talked about by many people. It has been called names like “government co-op,” “public option,” “health insurance exchange,” “universal healthcare,” oh, and don’t forget “Hillary-Care.” As much as the left wants to deny it, they are all means to the same end: socialized medicine. Every name, every government plan described, takes the power of health insurance away from the private sector, and gives it to a government entity. Here’s what will happen: The government plan, if it doesn’t immediately become the only insurance provider by law, will gradually become this. It may start out as a “government co-op,” or a “health insurance exchange,” both of which are designed to compete with the private companies in the free market. Eventually, the private companies will go out of business, as they will not be limitlessly funded by the federal or state governments, and they will not be able to compete with something that is. This is simple economics. Anyone who says that people may retain their private coverage in this newly created, government monopolized environment with no negative consequences are simply lying. If the government does not immediately force people to sign on to the government plan, then those people who retain their private coverage will see dramatically increasing premiums, and soon their plan and their company will cease to exist.

But what will this new government insurance entity look like, and how will life change with it? Most likely the newly created entity will be a bureaucratic agency, far away in the distant realm of Washington D.C. It will be large, of course, and inefficient as most bureaucratic agencies are, and it will be expensive to run. Many people have listened to the president’s rhetoric, and come away thinking such a system would be benevolent, down to earth, and even cost effective. The biggest misconception today, however, is that the government can actually provide healthcare for us at all. The government does not produce anything; it only rearranges things. The politicians will say they have achieved “healthcare for all,” but what does that really mean? When you go to the doctor for a checkup, you’re not getting the insurance you bought. You’re getting the tangible services of another human being. When you buy and use a pharmaceutical drug, it’s not the health insurance that makes you healthier, it’s the tangible effect of medicine. Of course the government will provide free health insurance coverage to all people in America (including illegal immigrants), but what will we really be getting? The only thing the government can deal with is money–your taxpayer money: You will be using it to buy health insurance once again, only this time there won’t be any private insurance companies to blame for lack of care. There will only be the government. You won’t be paying for your own health insurance, nor will you be paying for the insurance of a group of people associated with a private business. No, this time, you will be paying for the insurance of everyone, whether they be sick or well, whether they pay taxes or not. The government will not discriminate in providing coverage. Everyone will get it, but only a few will pay for it. If you are healthy and don’t feel the need to buy insurance, that’s too bad. You have to pay taxes, and taxes are not a selective matter.

Now, it’s bad enough having to pay for the care of others in a totally cost-ineffective system, but what if you’re sick? The proponents of government run healthcare tout the excellent quality of socialized medicine. But what happens when the only window you have to obtaining state of the art healthcare is a cost-ineffective system? As the number of people who would require healthcare treatment by law would increase exponentially, and as healthcare costs continue to rise due to inflation, the government will inevitably be forced to ration care. This is where the “death panels” you hear about come in to play. The left-wing media uses that term to mock the opponents of socialized medicine, but when there is only so much healthcare to go around, and too many people to be treated, someone is going to be neglected. The bureaucracy, in its unending quest to be cost effective will have to start cutting healthcare options from the plan until costs can be met. This means the people with the most expensive ailments will be neglected first: People with heart conditions, trauma disorders, cancer patients, mental disorders, asthma patients, etc. These are the people that the far off bureaucratic agency in Washington D.C.—with no regard for the thoughts of the patient, the doctor, or the spirit of life that each patient holds—will cut first. These are what the “death panels” are for. They are to decide who is the most inefficient; who has the least bang for the buck. It doesn’t stop there, though. Coverage will continue to deteriorate until there truly are millions of people (most of them being senior citizens and the disabled) without healthcare in America. When there is no one else to blame but the government, it will be too late. Private insurance will be long gone, the deficit will have ballooned, and millions will have suffered.

Then there are always those proponents of socialized medicine that refer to the success of government plans in Britain, Canada, and other countries. I don’t understand exactly how they would define success, but if they mean substandard care, long waiting lines, and higher mortality rates than the U.S., then yes, I would say they’re successful as well. Here are a few examples of the many “success” stories coming out of those countries:

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

Even though we actually have the best healthcare system on the face of the Earth, and many people from other countries flock here because they are prevented from even purchasing privately state-of-the-art medical care, herds of drones on the left still rant about revolutionizing the healthcare system here. There are plenty of countries around the world with socialized medicine. If those countries are the wonderful utopias that they are purported to be, why don’t huge quantities of Americans flock to nations like Great Britain and Canada? Just leave here, and stop trying to ruin our system for generations to come. Here’s something for those who say that the healthcare system in terms of quality here in America is miserable:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

The Problem As We See It

Misguided Federal Regulation

As for the proponents of new federal laws and increased federal regulation to solve the problems with America’s healthcare system (mostly Democrats and soft Republicans), it seems that the 1996 law HIPAA would be at least mostly satisfying. It provides for nationwide guaranteed issuing of coverage in group/business cases, and guaranteed renewability of coverage for groups/businesses and individuals. But apparently this doesn’t go far enough, hence the need for government run healthcare, and the inevitable destruction of the private insurance market. What most people fail to realize is that the laws of HIPAA already existed in many of the states to varying degrees. For example, by the mid 1990’s, 36 states had laws requiring guaranteed issue, and 46 states had laws requiring guaranteed renewability. I would see this as another strength of federalism, as it should promote national competition and give insurance shoppers more choices when it comes purchasing affordable plans that work for them, no matter their geographical location. Unfortunately, many states also have laws and regulations restricting which policies can be bought where.

The Solution As We See It

Tax Credits

Offering federal tax credits to individuals and families would significantly reduce the number of uninsured United States citizens, with a decreased risk of illegal immigrants or anyone else less inclined to pay taxes getting a free ride. It would also increase insurance participant pools overall, offsetting the spikes in premiums due to expensive, pre-existing, or other specifically designated conditions.

National Insurance Market

As of now, the tangle of state and federal regulations prevent individuals from shopping for insurance across state lines. Some policies and packages are only available in certain geographical areas. Reconciling state regulation through federal law could open up a national insurance market, increasing competition, driving down prices, and increasing levels of customization among plans.

Block Grants

If federal subsidies for insurance are absolutely necessary, they should be issued through block grants that allow states to control how much money goes to individuals and companies, and not waste money when it’s not needed.

Tort Reform

One of the biggest factors in the rise of healthcare costs in the United States is a plethora of malpractice lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, clinics, and HMO’s. Most of these cases are frivolous. Some experts say that 10-15% of the increases in healthcare costs are due to frivolous lawsuits, and federal law needs to be changed to limit them.

Where are the Republicans?

Although the left-wing media would have you believe that all the Republicans in Congress are a bunch of stubborn naysayers who only oppose real healthcare reform because they hate the president and want him to fail, the Republicans between June and the present day actually have had three pieces of legislation introduced in Congress (all three of them combined are smaller than any of the Democrat bills, and add to the deficit much less as well). None of them are really going anywhere, and they likely won’t because the Democrats have the majority in Congress. At least the rapid push to ram the government run healthcare bills down the throats of the American People is being slowed by the Republicans (besides Olympia Snowe and a few others), right?

I guess what the debate boils down to is this: If you support a destroyed private health insurance market, a government run health leviathan, rationed care, “death panels,” a ballooned federal deficit, substandard quality of care, long waiting lines, coverage for illegal immigrants, and higher mortality rates all for the sake of 10-15 million long term uninsured who will end up worse off than now anyway, then the Democrat proposals fit your bill. But if you believe that the system we have here, albeit imperfect, is the greatest healthcare system on the face of the Earth, and can be made better in a low cost and efficient way, without endangering the lives and prosperity of Americans for generations to come, while preserving and streamlining federalism, and while preserving coverage and quality of care for the most people possible, then not only do the Democrat proposals need to be opposed, but the Republican proposals need to be championed.

We do not elect our representatives or our president to authorize a cost-benefit analysis on the lives of their constituents, the American People. We elect them to preserve our freedom to choose the best path for our own lives.

Sotomayor and Race

I would now like to comment on something which should be completely trivial and unnecessary in rational discussion: Judge Sotomayor, and the question of race in the context of her confirmation. I am not the first to examine this topic, but I believe it is part of a larger whole that is the use of identity politics in America today at all levels of government. To start out, let us remember a point she made from one of her speeches in 1994, which she recycled and used again in 2001:

“A wise woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a man.”

…and here is the 2001 quote:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

As these statements halfheartedly trickled down through the catacombs of mainstream left-wing reporting entities, the “wise Latina woman” herself has had ample opportunity to justify her words, and ample opportunity to be attacked. That aside, you know as well as I do, if a white male had made similarly bigoted comments about the superior judgment of his own race, and the value of his own experiences in judicial rulings, the mainstream left-wing media would never let it go; we would never hear the end of it! Here is my message to any senator—Democrat or otherwise—any judge, or any other supporter of Sotomayor because of her race: If you find yourself incapable of judging her (or anyone else) as a nominee using an immutable standard such as constitutional interpretation or originalism as opposed to variables, and characteristics respective of different national or ethnic groups, you only show a deep and malignant blemish on your character. The fact that she can get away with this (in hearings by rephrasing her words like any good politician, and on the floor of the Senate, where she will most likely be confirmed by vote) is bad enough. It is yet another example of the incompetency of our representatives and parts of their constituency who do not understand the role of a justice. But the fact that this has even developed in to a valid discussion in the first place, and successfully distracted us from the nominee’s positions on constitutional issues is even more disgusting. It was apparent from the start that the President nominated her because of her race and background. The mainstream left-wing media doesn’t even need to make the case for judicial activism on her part or anyone else’ because the debate is framed around whether or not the opposition to her confirmation represents racism in America. This is to be entirely expected when the debate concerns a liberal politician, and I must give her credit for dodging every question possible regarding constitutional interpretation, but I digress. Americans need to understand that the role of the justice, whatever gender, nationality or race they may be is not to vote or rule based on empathy, nor is it to institutionalize identity politics in any branch of government, nor is it to create policy. We must not let nomination based on racism become the precedent for the high courts of the United States.

Good Ol’ Master Nolan

I was on Facebook today, and I noticed one of my friends had used the Nolan Political Chart in the context of identifying political orientation. I’ve seen it loads of times before, but I never really thought about it much until now.

I find it very disturbing that David Nolan chose to gauge political standing using a diagram that separates economic and personal freedom. This is evidence of a society that does not fully understand the role of government and how personal and economic freedoms are all inalienable rights. A person and their family’s very well being is determined by their economic freedom. To say that a society is personally free when the government controls the means of achieving a desired standard of living is absurd, and a government that does not respect one facet of freedom cannot respect another. Abridging either facet only expands the power of government, and creates dependency in its constituency.

That being said, I also find it disturbing that Nolan associates the “right-wing” with having a lack of personal freedom. Not only are terms like these ambiguous, but they also show a lack of understanding of conservatism, the political philosophy most commonly associated with “right-wing”, and the United States Constitution. I outline conservatism in a previous blog entry of mine, show how conservatives have been labeled by common arguments and misconceptions, and how conservatism has been and always will be the philosophy of individual rights in an ordered civil society.

Lastly, getting back to rights: The only finite human aspect in the universe is time. By nature, humans base how to spend their time living on economic rationalizations. The time a person spends (or doesn’t spend) on economic productivity is directly related to the personal well being of them self and their family. Be abridging or delegitimizing the value a person’s economic productivity (labor or lack thereof) through government activity (taxes, welfare, etc.), you are delegitimizing the time they spend living, affecting all aspects of life, including non-economic, personal ones. Likewise, the abridgment of certain personal freedoms also decreases opportunity for economic endeavors.

Normally, I can somewhat sympathize with the libertarian viewpoint for many issues on a case-by-case basis. However, I am consistently annoyed with the general libertarian mindset that disregards the importance of constitutional government and ordered liberty in the civil society. When limited and controlled, government does provide protection for the citizens as well as other minimal, efficient services.