ObamaCare Has Not Won Yet

Supporters of the Democrats’ health care bill may think that now that it’s been signed into law, it’s safe from further attack. Don’t be too sure.

Many elements of this bill are of questionable constitutionality, the most notable of which being the “Individual Mandate.”
This mandate is entirely unprecedented. Never before has Congress mandated that private individuals agree to a contract with another private entity just because they’re alive. Certainly, the purchase of a car is mandated to coincide with the purchase of car insurance. However, the purchase of a car is understood by past courts to be a form of commerce, which falls under the “Commerce Clause” of the US Constitution. Thus, the real question at hand is this: is the non-purchase of health insurance a form of “commerce” that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause? If the power isn’t specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, the 10th Amendment can, and will, be applied to deem it unconstitutional.

Some less-informed Democratic Congressmen have also tried to justify the mandate under the “General Welfare Clause.” However, this clause only states that Congress may “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” to provide for the general welfare. It does not state that Congress may force private individuals to make contracts, and it actually specifies that all taxes laid by Congress “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” making the use of tax as punishment of those without health insurance entirely unconstitutional.

So is this “Individual Mandate” unconstitutional? I certainly think so. I think it’s only a matter of time before it, along with other questionable components, are struck down in the Supreme Court.

Treasurer of Massachusetts Bashes ObamaCare

…And goes even further, saying that it will “threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years.”

Did I read that right? Timothy Cahill, a Democrat (until just recently), the Treasurer of Massachusetts no less, is saying that the similar legislation passed in Massachusetts 4 years earlier “has nearly bankrupted the state.” This man, who (I repeat) runs the Massachusetts Treasury, says that the only reason Massachusetts is not yet bankrupt is the state is “being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive [the legislation] through.”

How much more damning can you get? The one empirical test of ObamaCare (from back when it was RomneyCare) on US soil, and the state’s own Treasurer is saying that without the politically-motivated federal aid, they wouldn’t be able to make ends meet because of it.

Consider also the fact that the cost to individuals in Massachusetts has been skyrocketing as well, and this piece of national health care legislation is absolutely devastated. Under such a plan, health care costs everyone more.

How can anyone still support this folly? How can anyone still support the Democrats’ efforts to ram this thing through Congress with little regard for the Constitution?

Comprehensive, Systematic Takeover of Everything I Think I Can Run Better than You Act.

In Congress, the Democrats are pushing a lot of bills that expand the President’s capacity to set standards for and control management of quite a few major components of the economy and individual lives. There’s HR 4173, which would allow the President and his appointees to liquidate any company they deem a “danger” to the economy. There’s HR 3590, which would make the purchasing of insurance deemed “satisfactory” by the President and his appointees mandatory. There’s HR 2454, which would allow the President and his appointees to determine how much carbon dioxide you can emit. There’s the proposal to institute national age-based education standards which would be set by…you guessed it- the President and his appointees.

I have to ask: If the Democrats feel it’s so important to expand executive power in all these sectors, why not just combine it all into one sweeping bill that accomplishes all of their goals in one fell swoop? Here’s my proposal for a draft of the bill:

Comprehensive, Systematic Takeover of Everything I Think I Can Run Better than You Act.

Sec 1000. Definitions

a) Entity – Any corporation, business, organization, group, individual, or practice which is determined by the President to not be running the way the President deems to be of most benefit to everyone.

Sec 1001. Extension of Presidential Powers

a) At the President’s request, a committee shall be formed to investigate the status, actions, structure, and any other qualities of any Entity. This committee will deliberate with the President to determine what corrective actions are necessary. Corrections shall be applied immediately upon the request of the President.

b) Actions by the committee shall be subject to judicial review, evaluating the extent to which the actions are actually corrective.
———–

There. Simple, sweeping, and effective. So, to all the statists out there, would you support such a bill? What happens when the Republicans take the White House? Do you still support it then?

Barack Obama: CEO in Chief

Is this a country or a corporation? It’s getting hard to tell. This new price controls proposal, coupled with H.R. 4173, which would give the president the power to liquidate any company deemed “too big to fail,” would make this a Corporatist (a.k.a. economically Fascist) State. This would be the totalitarian dystopia cautioned against in “Atlas Shrugged.” Is it any wonder that Ayn Rand’s books are selling better than ever before?

It is this sort of totalitarianism which has galvanized the public against the Democrat Party. It is this sort of totalitarianism which has swelled the numbers of the Libertarian Party in opposition, and given the Republican Party a new life.

Do you value your freedom? Do you want to avoid living in a totalitarian state? If so, then I suggest you drop any support you may have for “progressivism.” The newly reformed, libertarian Glenn Beck is right: progressivism is a cancer which eats away at our basic, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as it grows. The only thing we’re progressing towards when we surrender power over our lives to the government is totalitarian slavery.

Health Insurance => Health?

Does having health insurance imply that an individual has a higher chance of being healthy?

Well, of course! I mean, it’s so obvious! Having health insurance has got to make people more healthy and less likely to die, right?

Actually, no.

According to this review, every major study that was conducted scientifically enough to control for independent variables like demographics, smoking, and certain types of risky behavior has found no statistically significant link between lack of health insurance and higher mortality.

In other words, Health Insurance =/> Health, and any apparent link between them is due to common causes (e.g. someone doesn’t have health insurance because they smoke, and then they die because they smoke) rather than a cause-effect relationship.

This is a trifle surprising, but it’s certainly damning for those who believe that total health insurance coverage is necessary for a healthy society. It also supports my view that going without health insurance leaves you in danger of bankruptcy, not death.

So now that no statistical survival benefit can be seen from having health insurance, the health care debate is no longer about life or death. It’s about money. Redistribution. Control vs. Freedom.

Faced with this knowledge, why would anyone still support any form of mandatory health insurance?

What is Fascism?

Thanks to Hitler, the word “fascism” has been demonized beyond recognition. This is a good thing in that people will rarely knowingly support fascism. This is a bad thing in that most people will support it anyways, not realizing that what they’re supporting is fascism.

In Mussolini’s own words, fascism is “organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy.” It is the belief that the State represents the will of “the people,” and that the will of “the people” always trumps the will of the individual. This is what allowed the horrors of fascism to occur: the belief that majority election creates a government that should be absolute in its power, and totalitarian in its reach.

Mussolini believed in the Corporate State. Contrary, to popular belief, the term “Corporate” used in this sense doesn’t specifically refer to corporations, though corporations usually play the major roles in the Corporate State. The name actually derives from the idea of the state being a single “corporis,” or body, comprised of entities which act as the organs of the body, performing the necessary functions for its survival. Mussolini saw the corporations producing cars, the health care industry providing its services, the farmers, etc., as entities working for the well-being of the people of the State, and hence the State. If any of these organs should fail, he felt, then the people within the State, and hence the State, would lose their capability to dominate nature, and would thus fail.

To believe any entity within the State as necessary to the survival of the State or Nation is to adopt the economic principles of fascism. To view the State as necessary to ensure the survival of corporations by controlling their aims is to adopt the economic principles of fascism. Again, Mussolini says it best:

The Ministry of Corporations is not a bureaucratic organ, nor does it wish to exercise the functions of syndical organizations which are necessarily independent, since they aim at organizing, selecting and improving the members of syndicates. The Ministry of Corporations is an institution in virtue of which, in the centre and outside, integral corporation becomes an accomplished fact, where balance is achieved between interests and forces of the economic world. Such a glance is only possible within the sphere of the state, because the state alone transcends the contrasting interests of groups and individuals, in view of co-coordinating them to achieve higher aims. The achievement of these aims is speeded up by the fact that all economic organizations, acknowledged, safeguarded and supported by the Corpo­rative State, exist within the orbit of Fascism; in other terms they accept the conception of Fascism in theory and in practice. (speech at the opening of the Ministry of Corporations, July 31, 1926, in Di­scorsi del 1926, Milano, Alpes, 1927, p. 250).

And so I charge that Barack Obama’s policies stink of fascism. From his bailout and buyout of major corporations that he felt were “too big to fail,” to his attempts to regulate the health care industry as an arm of the State, Barack Obama’s belief in his right to take away individual liberties because of a “democratic mandate” is absolutely fascist.

As a libertarian, I stand opposed to such a conception of society. I stand as a man and an individual, independent of the will of the State. Unlike the State, individuals are self-sufficient. I do not exist as a component of the State. Rather, the government should only exist to protect my independence and the independence of others. No individual or group should have the power to take away my existence as an individual, and they certainly do not have the right.

Is Health Insurance a Right?

One reason why some people think that we have a legal right to health insurance (note that health insurance is not the same thing as health care) is because the costs for medical care necessary for good health sometimes make people go bankrupt. Does this choice of “health care vs. bankruptcy” in some cases make health insurance a need rather than a luxury?

The thing is, people go bankrupt for a lot of reasons. People go bankrupt because they bought houses or cars they can’t afford. They go bankrupt because they make poor decisions with their credit. Sometimes they just go bankrupt because of bad luck in the stock market. Should the government be insuring all of these things as well?

In general, you can certainly have the medical treatment that you need, possibly at the cost of some financial stability. But if financial stability is considered a need, and not a luxury, then where’s my taxpayer-funded general bankruptcy insurance to cover me in case of poor investment decisions, credit abuse, or bad luck in stocks?

If health insurance is really a basic human right, then does that mean that countries like Ethiopia and Uzbekistan where people can barely even afford to eat should create national health insurance programs so that everyone can get the latest and greatest medical treatment while being taxed into starvation? Forget economic development of luxuries like industry and improved agricultural methods; These people need MRIs!

The Cost of Health Care

In my debates, I come across quite a few people who are under the impression that more government-controlled health care would save the US money. The reason health care premiums are so high is because greedy CEOs are taking it all in the form of salaries, right? The belief that government-controlled health care would be more efficient is a horrible misconception.

The thing is, the country could save over $200 billion every year just from cleaning out the waste and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. Barack Obama himself admitted as much. And then government regulation of the private industry adds an additional $300 billion in waste. Elimination of those costs alone could pay for health insurance for 40 million families.

On the other hand, I’ve quite often heard the suggestion that elimination of the for-profit aspect of the health care industry would save enough money to pay for public insurance. What most people don’t seem to realize is that the annual profit margins for private health care insurers hovers around 4%. The total profit of the health insurance industry last year was a mere $13 billion.

Take a minute to let those figures sink in. Private industry costs us $13 billion a year so they can profit, while the federal government costs us $500 billion per year in waste alone. And the solution is to add more wasteful government programs and regulation?

To further drive the point home, let’s take a look at the bigger picture. We are currently spending $2.2 trillion per year on healthcare in this country. $850 billion of that is spent on Medicare and Medicaid to cover 103 million people, and another $184 billion is spent on other government health programs. That means that the government spends 47% of total health costs to cover 34% of the people. Private industry spends 53% of the total costs to cover 51% of the people (pg. 12). Private industry clearly does a far better job of providing efficient health insurance services. And they’d do an even better job (39% of current costs to cover the same 51% chunk of people) if we passed tort reform and cut some of the regulations that raise costs so much.

Why would anyone replace private industry with the inefficient government and expect costs to decrease?