An Absence of Principles

Once again the Chronicle editorial board demonstrates its complete lack of principles in an editorial titled "Profit over principle." The editorial chastises insurance companies for refusing to offer child-only policies. With the first phases of ObamaCare kicking in, insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

While paying lip service to this concern, the paper argues that it has no merit:

Insurers complain that the new provisions would trigger an influx of consumers with high-cost pre-existing conditions but few healthy ones to offset these costs. That is certainly a possibility, but one that could have been foreseen and guarded against. 

Exactly how is a business to guard against the coercive power of government? How are insurers expected to be profitable--so that they can remain in business and pay future claims--if they are forced to abide by the arbitrary dictates of petty bureaucrats and pandering politicians?  And how are they supposed to foresee what mandates and prohibitions will be placed upon them in the future?

The editorial oozes of altruism--children have a need and insurance companies have a moral duty to fulfill that need. The fact that the insurance companies are being forced to act against their own judgment, and sensible business practices, is of no concern to the Chronicle. According to the Chronicle, insurance companies should not be seeking a profit, but instead should offer coverage to anyone who wants it.

While the paper is eager to sell doctors into slavery and drive insurance companies out of business, it continues to seek a profit. It continues to charge for ad space, despite the needs of businesses who are hurting from the slow economy. It continues to charge subscribers, despite any hardships they might be experiencing. If others have a moral duty to serve the needs of others, why is the Chronicle immune?

Of course, to see the inconsistency of its position, the paper would have to hold rational principles. As it has demonstrated too many times to count, it doesn't.

Wishing Won't Make It So

Intentions, according to the Chronicle, are all that matter. So long as Obama's policies and legislative agenda is intended to benefit Americans, the actual results that we will experience are irrelevant:

A new Gallup poll shows that only 44 percent of Americans approve of Obama's overall performance in office, his lowest rating to date, while 48 percent disapprove. According to a CBS poll, almost two-thirds of Americans feel that the president's economic programs have not affected them personally, and only 13 percent say they have helped. 

Why such negative reactions to measures aimed at improving Americans' lives, and after such public outrage at fat-cat Wall Street profligates? 

The Chronicle assumes, and certainly wants us to believe, that because the law is "aimed" at improving our lives, it will in fact do so. Why, the paper wants to know, are we so ungrateful for all of these great things that our benefactors are doing for us? It isn't fair, the paper chides, to berate Obama before we see how his policies play out:

As with health care, the implementation of financial reform will be a long, arduous endeavor with uncertain outcomes. But you have to give the guy credit. He's no fool, and is well aware of the toll his sweeping measures have taken on his approval ratings. 

So maybe we should cut him some slack, and take him at his word when he says, as he did earlier this month, "I know it doesn't poll well. But it's the right thing to do for America."

For the Chronicle the outcomes of health care and financial "reform" are uncertain.  Having abandoned principles, the paper is incapable of evaluating any policy or proposal ahead of time. We must try it, see it if "works", and return to the drawing board if it doesn't. Without principles, the future is a vast, unchartered wasteland in which any might happen. And so, we are urged to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because he claims that his policies are the "right thing to do."

The Chronicle's pragmatism does more than blind it to the future consequences of Obama's agenda. It renders the paper incapable of learning anything from the past. That RomneyCare--after which ObamaCare was modeled--has been a complete failure in Massachusetts is irrelevant. That was there and then; this is here and now. That the Federal Reserve was created to prevent an economic collapse is ancient history with no bearing on the events of today. That government intervention into the economy has failed everywhere does not matter--Obama's stated intentions are allegedly good and that is all that matters.

Fundamentally, the paper is arguing that wishes and desires can and will transform reality. If Obama's wish is to provide affordable health care to all Americans, any means he chooses will suffice. If Obama's wish is to "protect" the economy from greater calamity, the specific actions he takes do not matter. We are not to consider anything except his wishes and stated desires.

We might excuse a young child who throws a temper tantrum in an attempt to transform his wishes and desires into reality. Such a child simply has not learned that no matter how much he wants something, wishing won't make it so. Apparently, that is a lesson that the Chronicle's editorial board has yet to learn.

Feeding at the Government Teat

With the State of Texas facing a budget deficit of $18 billion, on Sunday the Chronicle offered advise on how not to balance the budget:

One is that the state budget must not be balanced on the backs of Texas' poor and uninsured. That would be mean-spirited; it's also false economy. Most programs for these Texans come with generous federal matches that make them a bargain. In any case, failing to insure the uninsured only drives them to emergency rooms, where costs for care spiral.

Nothing is said of the taxpayers who will be forced to pay for this.  Apparently the paper finds it acceptable and just to balance the budget on their backs. It is "mean-spirited" to ask individuals to be responsible for their own bills; it is not "mean-spirited" to force me to pay another's bills.

Refusing to question their premises, the paper boldly asserts that taxpayers must pay for the health care of the poor and uninsured, but offers no reason as to why. The payer doesn't tell us why the family struggling to pay its mortgage and medical bills must be forced to pay for the health care of its neighbors. The paper just assumes that we know why, and agree.

This deception goes even further. The paper claims that, because the state receives "federal matches", these programs are good for Texas. We should conveniently ignore the fact that any money the federal government doles out must eventually be taken from someone. And while Texas is fighting to secure its place at the federal teat, the other states are doing likewise. This interstate rivalry to feed at the federal trough, we are to believe, is a "bargain".

In its zeal to pit the poor against the non-poor, Texans against non-Texans, the paper simply ignores the fact that any "benefits" the government distributes to some must necessarily come at the expense of others. The paper shows no concern for the victims.

The Chronicle long ago accepted the premise that life requires sacrifice, that politics is nothing more than a battle to secure government favors. The only question open to the paper is who will sacrifice and who will benefit, who will gain government favors and who will suffer the consequences. What the paper doesn't realize is that, in the end, nobody benefits and all will suffer.

What happens, for example, when those forced to pay for the poor and uninsured can no longer afford their own bills? If the paper remains consistent to its self-imposed blindness, it will simply advocate for expanding government further. And what happens when the victims refuse to "play"? What happens when the number of potential victims dwindle, when the parasites outnumber the productive?

Feeding at the government teat is a dangerous and destructive endeavor. It may provide succor for the moment, but when a new group of piglets appear--and they will--yesterday's litter will be old news. The federal sow will not be able to push them aside, for they are unprepared to fend for themselves. She must grow more teats to feed her growing family. One need only look at the growth of welfare programs to see the dependency borne of feeding at the government teat.

Texans do not need more teats. They need to be weaned.

The "Radical Center"

Thomas Friedman bemoans the political divisiveness that arose during the debate over health care "reform". He fears that Democrats will lose seats in November, resulting in more gridlock in Washington. His solution:

That is why I want my own Tea Party. I want a Tea Party of the radical center.

Unsurprisingly, the "radical center" is an alleged hybrid of ideas from Leftists and conservatives. Friedman gives us a few examples:

It advocates: raising taxes to close our budgetary shortfalls, but doing so with a spirit of equity and social justice; guaranteeing that every American is covered by health insurance, but with market reforms to really bring down costs; legally expanding immigration to attract more job-creators to America's shores; increasing corporate tax credits for research and lowering corporate taxes if companies will move more manufacturing jobs back onshore...

On the surface, this might appear to be the mix of ideas that Friedman claims. But if we look a little deeper, we see that these proposals--along with other examples--involve government intervention in one form or another. Each takes as an unquestioned premise the belief that government can and should be controlling, regulating, manipulating, and dictating how individuals live and work. Each is founded on the belief that government should compel individuals to put aside their own judgment and values for some alleged "common good".

There is nothing "centrist" about this. It is a complete capitulation to the Left.

Of course, Friedman cannot see this. He thinks that he is taking the "best" ideas from both sides and finding a workable compromise, a "compromise" that mixes government controls with individual freedom. But any freedom that Friedman allows to sneak into his proposals is tenuous at best, for if the government doesn't like the results, that freedom will quickly disappear. If, for example, the "free market" (which ignores the fact that the market hasn't been free for decades) doesn't bring down health care costs the government will step in.

As Ayn Rand noted:

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

The centrist wants us to believe otherwise--that there is no right or wrong, that both sides have valid points, and we all just need to find some happy meeting point. So, if a robber has broken into your home and wants to steal your possessions, the two of your should "compromise". Rather than take everything, the thief should agree to just take your computer and jewelry, and rather than insist on retaining what is rightfully yours, you should agree to let him. Most would find such a "compromise" absurd, but this is what Friedman and all "moderates" urge.

It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The truth is, the road to hell is paved with compromise.

Selling Health Care Repeal

In response to the unanimous opposition of Republicans to enslave doctors and subject the health care of every American to the whim of bureaucrats, the Chronicle predicts that GOP may suffer in future elections:

After the vote its [Republican] leaders vowed to make repeal of the legislation a theme of the fall congressional campaigns.

It will be interesting to see how receptive voters will be to a pitch to reinstate higher drug prices for the elderly, permit insurance companies to resume denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and cancel tax breaks for individuals and small businesses to pay for policies.

Talk about a hard sell.

To the Chronicle, Americans face the choice of being raped by private companies or subjecting ourselves to complete government control of health care. The paper ignores the real alternative: freedom for everyone.

The Chronicle, along with virtually everyone else, conveniently evades the fact that patients, drug companies, insurance companies, and doctors have long been subjected to an ever-growing mountain of government edicts, mandates, and controls. The paper's response to the failures of government intervention is more government intervention.

If Republicans truly want to make good on their promise to repeal the health care bill, they must reject the Chronicle's false alternative. If they make a case for individual freedom, and do so on moral grounds, they will actually have a relatively easy "sell". Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Republicans will do so, given the fact that they overwhelmingly embrace the same self-sacrificial ethics as Leftists.

Convincing the GOP and its supporters to abandon altruism and proudly promote egoism will be the true hard sell.

"Suicide" on the Left

Mark Steyn offers some interesting comments on why Obama and the Democrats seem intent on committing political suicide by ramming health care "reform" down our throats (HT: HBL):

I've been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible.

Steyn points to numerous examples, including the Departments of Energy and Education domestically. Once some program or department comes into being, it becomes almost impossible to eliminate. And so the country moves closer to statism. Even when conservatives get control, they are operating within the context established by Leftists. Steyn concludes that the Left is willing to take a short-term hit in November in order to take a massive step towards their long-term goal.

While Steyn correctly notes that conservatives have done little to stop the Left, he fails to identify the fundamental reason. He accurately identifies the effect, but comes up short regarding the cause. Fundamentally, conservatives agree with the Left. Both sides accept altruism as the moral ideal, and they just disagree on its political manifestation.

Conservatives cannot challenge, let alone rollback, Leftist programs because they agree with the premise that we have a moral duty to self-sacrificially serve others. Conservatives cannot stop the Leftist political agenda because they are in agreement regarding the moral base of politics.

The Left is winning politically because it is the more consistent advocate of altruism. As Ayn Rand identified the issue:

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

While conservatives put forth a pretense of disagreement with the Left, they hold the same basic principles. Their meek complaints that a particular proposal goes "too far" is not a principled challenge, but an open admission that they are morally bankrupt.

More than a century ago the Left started the train rolling towards statism (ironically by regulating the rail roads). With each generation that train has picked up speed, aided and abetted by conservatives who have, with few exceptions, simply gone along for the ride. Altruism set the course, and until it is rejected, it matters little who sits in the locomotive.

A Line in the Stone

On Friday the Chronicle joined the chorus echoing Obama in calling for a vote on health care reform:

President Barack Obama has drawn a line in the sand on health care reform. It's an utterly necessary one, we would contend. Obama has said the American people deserve a vote in Congress, up or down, on health care reform.

While the Chronicle makes it clear that it wants an up vote, the editorial also makes it clear that its position isn't a matter of principle. Up or down doesn't really matter, just give us a vote. In other words, whether doctors are enslaved and the rest of us loose the little freedom we have in the realm of health care is irrelevant--just end this debate. Equally irrelevant is the opinion of the American public, which is opposed to the proposals now on the table.

In drawing his line in the sand, Obama said that he didn't know how health care reform would play out politically, but it was the right thing to do. Is he really this divorced from reality, or is he just posturing? Or, is he so hungry for power that easily perceivable facts escape him? The public's response to the Democrat's proposals was unequivocally clear in last summer's town hall meetings; the election of Scott Brown reinforced that message. If Obama doesn't know how this is going to play out politically--when he has already seen how it will play out--then we can only conclude that he sees no connection between the past and the future.

If one rejects principles, as both Obama and the Chronicle have done as a matter of principle, what happened yesterday has no bearing on what will happen tomorrow. If one rejects principles, the election of Scott Brown provides no clue what will happen in November, let alone next week.

While the election of Brown is certainly no guarantee that the Democrats will take a beating in November, it takes a serious separation from reality to feign ignorance of the political implications of drawing a line in the sand.

Unfortunately, sand is easily shifted, and so is the line drawn in it. Obama has already made "concessions" to win Republican support, and given the spinelessness of most Republicans--who generally accept the same unprincipled Pragmatism as Obama--America could be sold down the river for a few cheap trinkets. Or, political favors for some holdout Congressman.

Further, Leftists drew the line decades ago when they first called for universal health care. They have continued to move the line in that direction ever since, and Republicans have largely acquiesced. Republicans have accepted the premise of government control of health care and weakly complained that a particular proposal goes "too far". And so the line keeps shifting.

If Republicans held firm principles they would declare that individual freedom is not negotiable or subject to the fleeting passions of the moment. If Republicans had a backbone a new line would be drawn--a line carved in stone.

The Free Market Solution to High Drug Costs: Freedom

On Wednesday the Chronicle's editorial slammed pharmaceutical companies for what it called "the unconscionable gouging of consumers." Citing the industry's efforts to keep drug prices high, the editorial endorsed a demand by several Senators that Congress put an end to “anti-consumer and anti-competitive backroom deals.”

I would completely agree with the sentiment of that statement, and a good place to start would be in the Senate. This is the same distinguished body that secured votes for health care "reform" by making “anti-consumer and anti-competitive backroom deals” with Ben Nelson and others. This fact however, is noticeably absent from the paper's editorial. Nor does the paper note the years of testing and millions of dollars that pharmaceutical companies must spend in order to secure FDA approval for new drugs.

One of the comments to the editorial mockingly asks what the free market solution would be to this issue. My response: actual freedom for pharmaceutical companies, consumers, and doctors.

Freedom means the absence of coercion. It means the ability to act without interference from others, so long as you respect the mutual right of others. It means that you can act according to your own judgment. Such freedom certainly does not exist in regard to medicines.

Pharmaceutical companies cannot offer products without first securing permission from the FDA. Nor can they label their products for uses not approved by the government. Doctors cannot prescribe medicines for unapproved uses. Consumers are prohibited from purchasing medicines without a prescription and are subject to criminal penalties if they attempt to save money by purchasing drugs in Mexico or Canada.

The pharmaceutical companies are not entirely innocent victims in this injustice. With visions of short-term profits dancing in their heads, they threw their support behind health care "reform". Unwilling and unable to identify the long-term implications of more government controls, they abandoned principles and ponied up to the government teet.

Pharmaceutical companies produce immense values--drugs and other medical products that save our lives. They should be rewarded handsomely for the thought and effort they invest in their products. They should be free to develop and market products as they decide, not as government officials dictate. Doctors and patients should be free to select the medicines they choose, free from government controls.

Despite the implications of the paper's editorial, patients do not have a right to medicines, no matter how dire their circumstances. Patients--like all individuals--have a right to act in the pursuit of their values, to trade the products of their thought and effort for the values they want or need. But neither their desires nor their need constitutes a claim on the property--neither medicine nor the money to pay for it--of others.

The free market solution to health care costs is quite simple: freedom. It's our moral right.

Who Should Pay for Health Care?

The Chronicle's editorial on Wednesday claims that health care costs for "illegal" aliens should be shared by all Americans, rather than imposing these costs upon the residents of the individual states:

The matter of who pays for health care for illegal immigrants has been partially settled in the reform debate continuing in the Senate: The federal government will not. That satisfies most conservatives and vexes many liberals, but it leaves a huge unanswered question for all: Who does pay?

With the nation's largest group of uninsured, and a burgeoning group of illegal residents, Texas has an obvious and enormous stake in the outcome of this fight.

We believe history and fairness argue persuasively that responsibility for caring for those here illegally must not be left only to the region most affected. The burden must be shared.

The editorial fails to tell us why this burden must be shared. Indeed, it fails to tell us why anyone should pay for the health care of others. Refusing to question its basic premise--that one man's need is a claim on the life and property of others--the paper is left to ponder which "others".

Acknowledging that the debate involves money and power, the paper ignores the nature of that power and whose money is involved. The power is political power--the power to coerce, mandate, and prohibit; the power for force individuals to act contrary to their own desires, interests, and judgment; the power to take money from some individuals for the alleged benefit of others. The editorial staff does not question this basic premise, accepting it as an indisputable given.

The fact that one individual wants or needs some value--whether it is purse, a car, or health care--is not justification to rob others. This does not change merely because government acts as a proxy. Indeed, it makes it worse because government holds a legal monopoly on the use of force. An individual can properly resist a mugger or carjacker; resisting the government is likely to result in a "vacation" in a jail cell.

To be clear, this isn't about "illegals". It is immoral to force anyone to pay for another's health care, whether they are in America legally or not. There is no "right" to health care.

So long as the American public accepts the premise that morality consists of service to others, that one man's needs must be paid for by others, that sacrifice is a moral ideal, "dilemmas" such as "Who does pay" are irresolvable. So long as the American public accepts the premise that life requires sacrifice, political debates will continue to center on whose lives will be victimized.

The truth is, life does not require sacrifice. Life does not require a constant debate over whose money will be stolen and who will allegedly benefit from the theft. A proper ethics--an ethics of rational self-interest--resolves these issues. Such an ethics recognizes the moral right of each individual to live according to his own judgment in the pursuit of his own values.

The editorial asks: "Who does pay?" The rational, practical, and moral answer is: Those who receive the health care.

When Driving is a "Privilege" and Health Care is a "Right"

It is bad enough that the average citizen has no clear idea as to the meaning of the concept "rights". It is even worse when a judge is equally clueless. For example, in a letter to the Chronicle, County Criminal Court Jay Karahan writes:

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and there is a legal duty for each driver to give his or her best efforts to do so safely.

While a large segment of the American people think that health care is a right, another segment believes that driving is not a right. These views are simply flip sides of the same coin.

A right is, as Ayn Rand identified, a sanction to freedom of action in a social setting. Rights pertain only to action, not the consequences of action. Rights provide a sanction to act according to one's own judgment, free from coercion or interference from others, so long as you respect the mutual rights of others.

Those who view health care as a right seek to limit the freedom of doctors, patients, and insurance companies. Under the proposed health care "reforms" doctors will be force to accept payments as specified by the government and provide treatments dictated by bureaucrats. Patients will receive only those treatments allowed by government, while insurance companies will be compelled to insure pre-existing conditions and receive government approval for the policies they offer. No matter who you are, your freedom to act according to your own judgment will be restricted and controlled by government.

Having expanded the concept of "rights" into a meaningless term, statists can then declare that legitimate rights are merely privileges bestowed by the state. The state "allows" you to drive, so long as you meet whatever terms it demands. To the judge (and those who share his view) individuals may act only with the permission of government.

This perversion has profound implications. If legitimate rights are "privileges" and mere desires are "rights", every human action becomes subject to government scrutiny and control. If the freedom to act is only a privilege, government may revoke its permission at will. If the desire of one individual is a claim on the actions of another, each individual's life becomes subject to the whims of others.

The fact is, driving is a right. Individuals have a moral right to take the actions necessary to sustain and enjoy their lives. This includes the right to move about freely if one possess the means and desire to do so. (One does not have a right to be provided transportation--such as light rail or bus service--by others.) To declare otherwise is to claim that individuals do not have a right to their own life.

This is the meaning of "health care is a right" and "driving is a privilege". Those who advocate such ideas do not view individuals as independent, autonomous entities who may act for their own benefit. They view individuals as disposable "cells" in the organism of society and each must act for the "common good". Those who refuse to do so "voluntarily" may properly be forced to follow the demands and dictates of government.

While statists are aiming their regulations and controls at our actions, their real goal is to control our minds. They want to render the judgment of doctors and patients moot--we will not be allowed to act on our judgment without government approval. They dislike the choices made by some individuals--whether the developers of the Ashby High Rise, or "greedy" insurance companies, or "unscrupulous" doctors, or distracted drivers--and they want to eliminate everyone's ability to choose. Which means, they want to paralyze our minds, and destroy everything a thinking, rational mind makes possible.

Do "Something" and Do It Now

Since taking office, the Obama administration has repeatedly told us that we must act, and act now, on a number of issues. Yesterday's Chronicle carried a story with a similar refrain.

A week after a Texas agency reported health care reform legislation would cost the state's Medicaid program an extra $20 billion over the next 10 years, a non-partisan foundation says inaction will exact a greater price.

Citing numerous statistics and quoting several state officials, the article paints a very bleak picture for Texas. Underlying all of the numbers and quotes is one resounding message: We must do something and we must do it now. But in this context "something" is a very broad, and a very vague, concept. In this context, it is meaningless. For example, "something" can range from a complete government takeover of health care to the complete repeal of Medicaid. Doing either is "something".

Of course, the Chicken Littles who are demanding immediate action are not considering the latter option. To them, "something" means more government controls and regulations. They refuse to question their basic premise, and any type of "reform" invariably means more of what has created this situation.

Ignoring the evidence of every nation that has nationalized health care, the advocates of "reform" demand action. When they do acknowledge some failure in Canada or Cuba or Great Britain, they retort that America will somehow avoid those failures. We must try "something", and if that doesn't work, we must try "something" else. They imply that we cannot predict the outcome of a particular course of action. If we abandon thinking in principles, they are right. If we abandon principles, the past has no connection to the future. If we abandon principles, all we can do is act and judge the results after the fact. If we abandon principles, all we can do is "something".

I would agree that "something" must be done about the state of health care in America. And I would agree that it should be done immediately. But that "something" must be guided by specific principles. True reform must be guided by the principles of individual rights.

Obama has attempted to frame the debate over health care in moral terms. He is correct. Fundamentally, the debate over health care reform is a moral issue. But to Obama morality consists in service to others, that morality demands that we place the welfare and interests of others before our own, that each of us must sacrifice for some alleged "greater good". To Obama, one man's need is a claim on the life and property of others, and it is government's responsibility to protect this "right".

However, need is not a right. "Rights" are, as Ayn Rand puts it:

a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Absent the recognition and protection of individual rights, there are no restrictions on the actions of government. In such an atmosphere, government may do as it pleases, justifying the most horrific atrocities in the name of the Volk or the proletariat or Allah. The lives of actual people are disposable.

If one rejects the principle of individual rights, then doing "something" ultimately means treating individuals as chattel. If you value your life, that is something that you must fight.

Choices, Competition, and Straw Men

Last week Chronicle columnist Lisa Falkenberg posted a piece titled "Power to choose is little more than myth". Writing about the debate over health care "reform", she claims that most Americans have little choice in regard to health insurance.

As Yale University political science professor Jacob Hacker told The New York Times recently: “For many Americans, the idea that they have a choice of health plans is about as mythical as unicorns.”

First, we must remember that 47 million American don't have health insurance at all. Their options are limited by factors ranging from affordability to being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The rest of us who are blessed enough to have some form of health insurance find our options limited as well, by factors such as market saturation and the limited number of plans offered by employers.

In other words, since our options are limited, we really have no choice in the matter. The fact is, our options are limited in regard to every product and service--everything in the universe exists in some finite quantity--but this does not mean that we have no choice. For example, I can purchase gasoline from at least eight different places within a mile of my home. My options are limited--they are finite--but I certainly have a choice in where I purchase gasoline. Falkenberg's argument is nothing more than a straw man.

Falkenberg goes on to cite statistics showing that, in most states, health care insurance is dominated by a few companies. This, she concludes, is evidence that competition does not exist in those markets. But nowhere in the article does she explain why this situation exists, or why it is necessarily bad.

Falkenberg conveniently ignores the fact that health insurance companies are regulated by the individual states. And those regulations prohibit individuals and businesses from purchasing health care insurance from a company in another state. If I want to purchase health insurance from a company in Ohio, and they want to sell it to me, neither of us can act on our own judgment. The law prohibits us from doing so. Presumably, the state provides this service to prevent me from making a bad decision; it also prevents me from making a good decision. In fact, such prohibitions prevent me from making decisions--decisions about my own life and health care.

Objective reporting requires that all of the relevant facts be presented. If one is going to decry limited choices in health insurance, one has a professional responsibility to report why that condition exists. But Falkenberg is not interested in objective reporting--she has an agenda to push and she isn't about to let the facts get in her way.

State regulations do more than reduce competition for health insurance--they also drive up the cost of the options that do exist. An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal reported:

New York requires every insurance policy sold there to cover podiatry. Acupuncture coverage is mandated in 11 states, massage therapy in four, osteopathy in 24, and chiropractors in 47. There are an estimated 1,800 or so such insurance "mandates" across the country, and the costs add up....

What's more, states like New Jersey and New York add two more ultra-expensive requirements: "Guaranteed issue" allows people to wait till they are sick and then buy insurance; "community rating" prevents insurers from charging different prices to people of different ages and health status. These may sound like compassionate ideas, until you realize they make insurance so expensive that millions of people are exposed to financial ruin because they aren't allowed to buy basic policies focused on catastrophic costs.

Falkenberg noted the number of people who can't afford health insurance, but again failed to mention the role that state regulators play in this. She ignored the regulations that limit competition; she ignored the costs imposed by those regulations. She ignored the restrictions placed on consumers--not only are they prohibited from buying policies from insurers in other states, they are prohibited from buying policies that do not meet state requirements.

Falkenberg concludes:

Those who choose to fight change, particularly those with health insurance, should first understand the status quo, which is that many of us don't have a choice at all.

I would suggest that Falkenberg heed her own advice and study the facts before spouting off. The status quo is government control and regulation--in regard to both health insurance and the provision of health care services--which she simply evades throughout her piece.

And while she is in a studious mood, perhaps she will break out a dictionary as well. A choice exists when two or more options are possible. Falkenberg has options: she can accept what her employer offers, she can purchase health insurance on her own, she can find an employer with a health plan more to her liking, or she can do without. But since she doesn't like those options, she wants to whine that she really doesn't have any choices.

The sad irony is, while Falkenberg is lamenting the options she actually has (and ignoring the reasons that she doesn't have more) she advocates a plan that will eliminate all options.

Political Magic

It should come as little surprise that those without health insurance are in favor of forcing others to pay for their medical care. But that alone isn't sufficient. They want to be treated just like the individuals who are paying the bill. A Chronicle reporter interviewed a number of people at Ben Taub--which provides free health care to those without insurance--on health care reform. The story starts on a promising note:

Those waiting to be seen or accompanying a relative in need of care knew nothing of the particulars of Obama's plan or the criticism of it. All readily admitted the current public option — waiting for hours to be called to the triage room — is better than nothing. But the promise of universal insurance coverage, a cornerstone of health care reform, is one they all would take to heart.

Many of those interviewed are unemployed, so I think that it is reasonable to assume that they have some time on their hands. Yet, they know nothing of the current health care debate. Why then, is their opinion of interest to anyone? Why would the Chronicle send one of its reporters to get the opinion of those who don't know what they are talking about? Because an informed opinion doesn't matter when there are unmet needs sitting around the waiting room.

Anastasia Bennett, who has apparently abandoned any responsibility for her own life, told the reporter:

I don't think it's right that some people can get insurance and I can't get it. If positions were reversed, vice versa, they would want to be seen by a doctor. They are no better than we are.

Ms. Bennett doesn't think it's right that some people have something she doesn't have, and therefore, it is perfectly proper to take their money to fulfill Ms. Bennett's desires. Like an insatiable parasite, she believes that sucking the life out of productive citizens and doctors is right. For added measure, she plays the guilt card--productive citizens are no better than leeches feeding at the public trough.

I suppose that Ms. Bennett would also think that its not right that some people can get a BMW, or a cruise, or a home in River Oaks, or countless other things that she can't get. The fact that these individuals work and earn their money is irrelevant. The fact that these individuals are responsible for their own lives doesn't mean a thing. She has a need, and it is the responsibility of others to fulfill it.

Certainly, some people suffer misfortune through no fault of their own. Such situations are tragic, and I do not mean to diminish the impact on the lives of those involved. But one person's tragedy, no matter how dire, does not provide him with a claim on the lives and property of others. One person's need does not give him a right to steal from others, and this doesn't change merely because government acts as his proxy.

In a free society, those in need must rely on the good will and charity of others. And in a free society there is seldom a shortage of such good will. However, receiving charity, we are often told, is demeaning to the recipients. Acting as a moocher isn't. An act of good will and benevolence is degrading, but theft isn't. This is the type of "logic" employed to justify legalized plunder.

Ms. Bennett and her ilk do not realize that they are chewing off the hand that feeds them. They don't concern themselves with tomorrow, because they count on another hand to magically appear. And unfortunately, there is an abundance of politicians who think that they are magicians.

The Objective Standard has made several articles on this crucial issue available for free:

"How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability"
"Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America"
"Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'"

Two Birds with One Stone

As opponents of ObamaCare point to the socialized health care systems of Great Britain and Canada to illustrate what awaits Americans if they travel the same path, many citizens of those two nations have rushed to defend their systems. A British libertarian--Sean Gabb--recently jumped into the debate, and his article shows what is wrong with both socialized medicine and libertarianism. (HT: Barry Klein)

Gabb readily acknowledges that the British National Health Service (NHS) is founded on compulsion and is unjust:

It is as much an act of theft as if I were to be robbed in the street. The whole present system, therefore, is illegitimate. If it were, as we are continually assured, the “envy of the world”, my opinion would not alter. It is in itself unjust. I resent its existence in my country. I join with Mr. Hannan [a British politician touring America to oppose ObamaCare] in warning the Americans not to accept it for themselves.

But the fact that the NHS is unjust and illegitimate is only a part of the issue according to Gabb. He finds it necessary to point out that America's health care system is heavily regulated and forty million Americans do not have health insurance. Americans, he implies, have no place to demean the NHS:

This should not be taken as a defence of the NHS. I am simply pointing out that it is no worse on balance than the American system. They are differently organised and differently funded. Each has specific advantages and disadvantages.

To Gabb, there is no difference between nationalized health care and a system with some elements of freedom--they are just "differently organized". There are, he tells us, advantages to a socialized system:

If I contrast what I am told about the American system with what I know from personal experience about the British, the NHS is not really that bad. In December 2007, my wife needed an emergency caesarean. This was performed by the NHS. At all times, we were kept informed of our options and our legal rights. I was allowed to stand beside my wife in the operating theatre. I was then allowed to sit with my wife and daughter until gone midnight... While there were visiting hours, I was allowed to come and go as I pleased. The quality of treatment was first class. Apart from the flowers and chocolates and bottles of wine that I chose to lavish on the medical staff when we left, there was no final bill for any of this. About ten years ago, the father of my best friend died of cancer. There may be more effective cancer treatments than the medical establishment prefers to see provided. But within the terms set by the medical establishment, he had excellent treatment. When all else had failed, he was allowed to die in peace under a broad umbrella of opiates. Another of my friends was diagnosed with prostate cancer about seven years ago... He remains well and has no complaints about the NHS.

According to Gabb, some people do receive decent health care in Britain for "free". So? That doesn't change the nature of the NHS or the fact that British doctors are slaves of the state. That some individuals receive good health care is completely irrelevant. And it certainly isn't free--the cost is the freedom and lives of doctors and patients. Gabb is a typical libertarian--despite his calls for a free market, he is essentially a statist. He believes that government control of health care has "advantages".

It is no surprise then, when Gabb attacks property rights:

I believe that all drug patent laws should be repealed. These do nothing to encourage innovation, but are simply a means by which well-connected drug companies extract huge rents from the rest of us.

This is both morally evil and economically illiterate. A drug company has a moral right to any products it develops. If it has no protection from competitors stealing its products, what possible motivation would it have for investing millions of dollars in the research and development of new drugs? Patent laws, by protecting property rights, are precisely what do encourage innovation. But Gabb--like libertarians in general--wants to be "free" to engage in any whim. He wants no restrictions, no standards, and no principles to stand in his way.

Gabb believes that any restriction on one's actions is an act of force. If patent laws prohibit a company from making a product that it did not invent, that is an act of force. The rights of drug companies--who invest millions of dollars and years of research to develop and test their products--should be discarded, according to Gabb.

If the rights of drug makers can be discarded so easily, the rights of all citizens will not be far behind. Anyone who can find any type of "advantage" in a system that enslaves doctors is not a friend of liberty. Any claims to the contrary are just empty words.

Altruism and the Health Care Police

Altruism--the dominant morality of our culture--holds that we are our brother's keeper, that the individual must place the welfare of others before his own, that we must sacrifice for the benefit of others. We see this manifested in the political arena in a multitude of ways--welfare, social security, public education, and public health care programs are but a few examples. Each of these is justified on the basis of need, and some individuals are forced to provide for the needs and welfare of others.

A less obvious consequence of altruism often lurks just below the surface of these, and other issues. Take the growing concern with obesity for example.

The obvious connection between altruism and obesity is publicly supported health care. If the taxpayer is forced to pay for the health care of others, and our desire is to reduce health care costs, then it is proper to take measures to reduce obesity. But altruism demands meddling in the dietary and lifestyle choices of individuals for other reasons.

If concern for the welfare of others is a moral duty, then we must do more than simply pay for the health care of the needy. We must also take steps to improve their overall health. In other words, we should not only take care of their illness, but we should also try to prevent that illness. Since obesity is one of the primary health risks that is relatively easy to correct, we--meaning government--have a moral responsibility to combat obesity. After all, it is for the good of the obese, whether they know it or not. We--meaning government--must look out for them, and even more so when they lack the willpower or desire to act responsibly. We--meaning government--are their keeper, and they obviously have a need for more control over their actions. We--meaning government--must exercise that control.

The demands of altruism go deeper than just our actions. Our actions are determined by our ideas and conclusions. We act on the basis of what we believe to be true. But if we must place the welfare and interests of others before our own, our own ideas and conclusions are irrelevant. Altruism demands that we act, not on the basis of the contents of our own mind, but on the basis of what others declare to be a need. In the physical realm we must place the interests and values of others before our own; in the intellectual realm we must also place the thoughts and ideas of others before our own.

In every aspect of our lives, altruism demands that we cast aside our own desires and our own judgment. Altruism demands that we deny our self, that we become selfless.

The growing calls for controls and restrictions on trans fats, sodas, and other "bad" foods are a logical consequence of altruism. And since virtually every action we take has some impact on our health, it doesn't stop with what we put in our mouth. It is no coincidence that health care "reform" also includes calls for more emphasis on exercise. It will not be long before mandatory exercise programs will be discussed, and a sedentary lifestyle will possibly become a crime.

So long as altruism is accepted as the standard of morality, this is the direction we are going. So long as the needs and interests of others supersede your own, logic demands that government expand its control over your life. If you want to sit on the couch watching Oprah and eating potato chips all day long, you must put aside your own "selfish" desires and go to the gym--or jail.

You are not your brother's keeper. You are responsible for nobody but yourself (and those you voluntarily choose to help and support). Until you accept that, and everything it implies, you should not be surprised when government dictates what you eat. You should not be surprised that government demands that you practice what you preach.

Lies, Misrepresentations, and Scare Tactics

During the debate over zoning in Houston in the early 1990s I sponsored a booth at a convention on Houston development. Among the literature we distributed was a pamphlet that described how zoning operates in other cities. One of the leading proponents of zoning picked up one of our pamphlets and began reading it as he walked away. He quickly returned, accusing my organization of spreading lies.

The pamphlet had stated that under zoning all land-use in the city would fall under the control and dictates of the zoning board. This zoning advocate was irate--the proposed zoning ordinance did not call for a zoning board. Instead, land-use decisions would be decided by city council. Because we had mislabeled the political entity that would have dictatorial powers over land use in Houston, our entire argument was regarded as a lie.

In the aftermath of the referendum on that zoning proposal, its advocates cried foul. Opponents, they argued, resorted to lies, misrepresentations, and scare tactics because, among other things, we pointed to examples of corruption, racism, and economic decline associated with zoning in other cities. That would not happen in Houston, they insisted, because our fair city would have "Houston-style" zoning, and therefore, my arguments were invalid.

This same attitude is now being exhibited by proponents of ObamaCare. Claims that the proposed health care reform will result in "death panels", drive private insurers out of business, and lead to rationing are dismissed with angry cries of lies, misrepresentations, and scare tactics.

When I heard these claims in regard to zoning, I concluded that zoning proponents were simply sore losers who were blinded by their power lust. And while I still think that there is some truth in this, the real cause is much deeper and more profound. The real cause is pragmatism, which holds that

there is no such thing as an objective reality, men’s metaphysical choice is whether the selfish, dictatorial whims of an individual or the democratic whims of a collective are to shape that plastic goo which the ignorant call “reality,” therefore this school decided that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism—that knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of “competent investigators” who can “predict and control” reality—that whatever people wish to be true, is true, whatever people wish to exist, does exist, and anyone who holds any firm convictions of his own is an arbitrary, mystic dogmatist, since reality is indeterminate and people determine its actual nature. [emphasis added]

This is the cause and source of the anger directed at anyone who asserts his own independent judgment. How dare anyone be so naive and arrogant as to believe that his own judgment is superior to the mob. How dare anyone have the audacity to reach a conclusion without consulting the latest opinion polls. How dare anyone think for himself.

On every level, an independent thinker is a slap in the face of the pragmatist. The independent thinker asserts that reality is objective, not a creation of the "collective consciousness". The independent thinker asserts that he can learn the facts of reality, and need not consult the mob to do so. The independent thinker asserts his moral right to live for his own sake, rather than sacrifice his life to the demands of the group. Both physically and intellectually, the independent thinker asserts his sovereignty. Such an assertion denies everything the pragmatist believes about the world and himself. Having surrendered his own mind to the collective, he loathes anyone who has not done likewise.

Zoning proponents conducted hearing after hearing, soliciting the input of the public in order to build a consensus. They posed as saviors of the city, promising a glorious future of economic growth, "protected" neighborhoods, and an improved "quality of life". But a recalcitrant few disputed the consensus, denied their claims, and stood on principle. We were attacked as liars and fear mongers, just as the opponents of ObamaCare are attacked today.

Pragmatism blinds the statist to the consequences of his actions. (Not that he really cares, because intentions are all that really matter.) We cannot discuss how zoning operates in Detroit, or Miami, or New York City, because they aren't Houston. We cannot predict how zoning will play out in Houston--nobody can predict the future. We cannot state with certainty that Houston will experience the horrors that plague other cities with zoning. These are all based on theory, and to the pragmatist, all that matters is the specific, concrete issue of the moment.

To the pragmatic proponents of zoning, a claim that the zoning board would control land-use is a lie. A claim that zoning is used as a political tool is a misrepresentation. A claim that zoning increases the cost of housing is a scare tactic. They could not, and cannot, refute the factual evidence that damns zoning (and ObamaCare), and so they resort to the tactics of child. That anyone takes them seriously is what is truly scary.

"General Welfare" and Health Care

I seldom read liberal blogs because I have better things to do with my time. And they generally make my head hurt, which is an experience I try to avoid. On occasion, I will read one, usually to find an example of some point I want to make. Thus it was that I went to Half Empty to read why health care is a constitutional right.

The post's title was my first clue regarding what I would read. The blog's tag line was my second clue:

Expect the worse. That way you can be pleasantly surprised when the worst fails to occur.

This is the type of cynical attitude that we have come to expect from the Left. Life is a tortuous struggle filled with suffering, and then you die. Any success you somehow manage to achieve will only be temporary, because soon the rich and powerful will take it all away. But this isn't the point of my post.

Half Empty cites an article on Politico, in which a self-described “dumb southern Iowa redneck” asks Sen. Chuck Grassley to identify the section of the Constitution that states that health care is a right. Citing the Preamble of the Constitution, Half Empty writes:

So what, I ask, is the argument against having, as a constitutional right, the right to health care when it is right there in the Preamble that one of the purposes of the constitution is to “promote the general welfare” of the people.

This, along with quoting one paragraph from another web site, is the entirety of his argument. He closes by asking:

So, dumb Iowa redneck, is the question answered?

Actually, it isn't. Apparently, Half Empty is completely empty of knowledge regarding the Constitution, and has never read anything by James Madison on the subject. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, knows a thing or two about that document and the "general welfare" clause:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

Madison correctly understood that the "general welfare" clause could be interpreted to mean anything and everything; it could be used to justify any government program. To give that clause such broad and undefined meaning would be to render the Constitution itself irrelevant, which is precisely what Half Empty proposes.

Anyone who wishes to comment on the "general welfare" clause would do well to read the Federalist Papers, as well as Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention. Both make abundantly clear the meaning and intent of that clause. For example, in Federalist #41 Madison explained the inclusion of the "general welfare" clause in the Preamble:

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?

There are many, many more instances in which Madison and other Founders explained the meaning and intent of the "general welfare" clause. But the meaning and intent of the Founders is of no concern to the Left--they regard the Constitution as a living, breathing document that should be interpreted according the the whims of the moment. They don't want to be "confined" by such things as principles. They believe that what was true yesterday, let alone more than 200 years ago, could not possibly be true today.

The fact is, the purpose of the Constitution was to protect individuals from arbitrary government dictates. It was not a grant of unlimited powers, subject to the changing tastes of the time, or the interpretation of power lusters. It was a limitation on the powers of government, and it enumerated those powers, reserving all others to the states and individuals.

Liberals, as well as many conservatives, do not want to be constrained by such limitations. They want unbridled power to dictate and control. If they have to misrepresent the words of America's founding heroes, so be it. If they have to invent "rights", no problem. To them, it's just a game, and individuals are dispensable tokens.

The "Public Option" and Education

Proponents of ObamaCare argue that offering a "public option" will not prevent individuals or businesses from obtaining private insurance. Let the "market" decide, they chortle, while ignoring that any service that is subsidized by the government is not really competing in the marketplace. A recent article in the Chronicle illustrates this fact:

Several Houston-area public school leaders said they are picking up dozens of new students from families who can no longer afford private school tuition, which can approach $20,000 a year for high school students.

While many parents prefer private education, financial difficulties are making the "public option" more attractive. Faced with the choice between paying tuition or receiving "free" education, many parents choosing the less expensive, though inferior option.

This is precisely what will occur with health care. Businesses who continue to offer private insurance to their employees will find their costs higher than competitors who don't. Financial pressures will drive more and more businesses to the "public option". Insurance companies, who reportedly will be prohibited from writing new policies, will find their customer base steadily decreasing. They will die a slow death.

Consider a few of the restrictions that will be imposed on private insurance companies:

• Their policies must be approved by government
• Changes in a policy will render it unacceptable
• Companies cannot write new policies

If such restrictions were imposed on private schools, they too would be condemned to a slow death. Their curriculum would require government approval, and any changes would render the school illegal. The schools could not attract new students, so as students graduate the schools will have fewer and fewer customers--and ultimately none.

But to recognize this, one must think in principles. Only by thinking in principles can one connect seemingly disparate concrete issues--such as health care and education. Only by thinking in principles can one project the long-term consequences of a particular policy. Proponents of ObamaCare reject principles.

They think that they can correctly say that health care "reform" will not eliminate private insurance, for the proposed legislation does not do so explicitly. Any claim based on principles is rejected as a lie. Any claim that extends beyond the immediate, concrete wording of the proposed legislation is called disinformation.

To claim that the "public option" will compete with private insurers is equally unprincipled. It is in fact a "stolen concept":

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

While offering the "public option" the government will shackle private insurers with a growing list of regulations and controls. Private companies will be at the complete mercy of government bureaucrats, whose edicts will be unchallengeable in court. And this, we are to believe, is a competition. Most would recognize the absurdity of a "competition" in which chains were placed around the feet of Michael Phelps, but when applied to a business the implications are completely evaded.

We can learn valuable lessons from the "public option" in education. To do so, we must look beyond the stated intentions and vague promises. We must use the distinctively human form of cognition--thinking in principles.

Public education is a well-documented failure. Certainly there are exceptions, but they are exceptions. The same will occur with health care, because the underlying principles are the same. The same cause will lead to the same effect, or in computer lingo, garbage in, garbage out.

Evasion in the Health Care Debate

Sunday's Chronicle carried an OpEd article that demonstrates the equivocation, gross evasion, and emotionalism dominating the appeals to nationalize health care. In the article, Dr. John C. Baldwin writes:

In the continuing absence of universal access to health care in the U.S., terror abounds. The terror of being uninsured if you become ill, the terror of personal bankruptcy due to health care costs, the terror of pre-existing conditions that prevent obtaining health insurance — all have led to a state of fear in this country. Having reconsidered the previous administration's “war on terror” that led to so much abuse of power and loss of domestic freedoms and so little success in the Middle East, we should now commence a national effort to combat this real form of terror in our own country.

Extending his argument, Dr. Baldwin claims that "health care security" is as important as national security. We cannot field an army without a healthy populace. We cannot support that army without a healthy work force. Dropping context further, he argues that we would not agree to have our defense services provided by private companies, and therefore, it makes no sense to allow health care to be provided by private companies. To Dr. Baldwin, fear is fear. Its source, nature, and legitimacy are irrelevant. Protecting Americans from calculating mass murderers--which he implies is not a real threat--is the same as protecting them from disease.

National defense is a proper function of government, as it is the means by which government protects individual rights from foreign threats. But to argue that "health care security" is equivalent to national defense is to ignore the source and meaning of those rights.

Rights pertain to action--they are a sanction to act without interference from others, so long as one respects the mutual rights of others. Rights protect one's freedom to act as one chooses, to select one's values and act to attain them. Rights place boundaries on others; they may not interfere with your actions, just as their rights prohibit you from interfering with theirs.

Rights do not guarantee success. They do not guarantee that we will attain the objects of our desires, only that we will be free to take the necessary actions. There is no such thing as a right to haircuts, television sets, Internet connections, or health care. There is only the right to take the actions to acquire these values through voluntary trade with those who produce such values.

Claims that health care is a right obliterates the entire concept of rights. As Dr. Leonard Peikoff writes in Health Care is Not a Right:

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it--period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens--to their individual rights--to their real rights--in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

Both theory and practice provide the answers: The government must take from some to give to others. The government must force doctors to provide their services to those who have not earned them. Doctors must become servants of the state.

Decrying the high cost of health care in America, Dr. Baldwin argues that we must reform the system to reward "better decisions" rather than the number of procedures performed. He doesn't tell us who will make these decisions or by what standard, but he makes it clear that it won't be patients and their doctors. Doctors, he tells us, are motivated by "perverse economic incentives". Removing these incentives will drive down health care costs and improve quality.

This argument evades basic economic truths. Nationalized health care will increase the demand for health care--when a product or service is provided for "free" demand always increases. Indeed, increasing access to health care--which means increasing demand--is a common refrain among universal coverage advocates.

At the same time, these advocates want to reduce costs and remove decision making from doctors. The results will be predictable. Cost reductions in the face of soaring demand can only be achieved by dramatically reducing the procedures performed--that is, rationing.

While these economic arguments against nationalized health care are important, they are not the fundamental reason to oppose a government take over. The fundamental reason is moral--the moral right of doctors and patients to act according to their own judgment. And this is precisely what Dr. Baldwin and "reform" advocates are explicitly attacking. They seek to "free" patients and doctors from economically based decisions, and drive both into the strangling hands of government bureaucrats.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 14

Do As I Say...
During the presidential campaign, Obama told us that "we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times." Repeatedly, he told us that everyone would have to make sacrifices. Everyone apparently, except for Obama. Since the Messiah's arrival, the Oval Office has been reportedly kept warm enough to "grow orchids", according to Chief of Staff David Axelrod.

It is very fitting that the Oval Office is uncomfortably warm, since its current occupant intends to put all of us through hell.

Voices of Reason
From an email from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:

Today, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights has launched its blog Voices for Reason, where its experts will provide daily commentary on breaking news from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.

According to Debi Ghate, vice president of Academic programs, “Every weekday, we will post new commentary on current events on topics such as the financial crisis, environmentalism, foreign policy, free speech, and property rights. We will also explore the principled solutions Ayn Rand’s philosophy offers for tackling today’s political, economic and cultural problems.

“It is our goal to make Voices for Reason the go-to source for our unique perspective on the most important news of the day and the state of our culture. Our writers will share their insights, evaluating current events using Ayn Rand’s philosophy of reason, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism as their guide.”

Voices for Reason will also carry announcements and updates from the Ayn Rand Center and the Ayn Rand Institute.

Loving Death
From Gus Van Horn I learned that Tom Daschle, the would-be medical czar, is jealous of Europeans for loving death.

He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Daschle advocates a board to make the "tough decisions", that is, decide who lives and dies. Apparently Daschle thinks medical care is only for the healthy, and if one doctor (or if Daschle has his way, one bureaucrat) declares a situation hopeless, the individual is sentenced to death. His judgment and his life are irrelevant, because his treatment might cost the government (if Daschle has his way) "too much". This is where socialized medicine always leads--"free" health care, even if it kills you. And it will.

I'm Just Not That Into Her
Sheila Jackson Lee, the Houston Congresswoman who never misses an opportunity to stick her scowling face in front of a television camera, is rumored to be in line for a position as “Under-Secretary” of something in the State Department.

In some ways this would be a welcome development. Those of us in Houston might be spared her incessant whining and constant appearances on radio and television. But she would likely help make what is going to be a disastrous foreign policy more so. So I'm torn. If she stays in Congress she will be a vocal proponent of "universal health care"; if she goes to the State Department, she will help get us all murdered. It reminds of a commercial for some car repair company years ago-- "Kill me now, or kill me later."

Agree to Disagree
Speaking of women who disgust me, Eleanor Tinsley died this week. As a member of city council, Tinsley was the mother of the city's anti-billboard legislation and a leading proponent of "quality of life" issues. In other words, she a busy-body with a gun.

Years ago, when I was a regular irritant at City Hall, she sent me a letter stating that we would have to "agree to disagree". Wikipedia defines the term as a:

resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict is unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree.

Such a position might be justified over a minor issue, such as what kind of toothpaste is best, or whether Jeremy Brett was better as Sherlock Holmes than Basil Rathbone. But in this context, her position was intellectual cowardice and brazen dishonesty.

As a city official who wrote laws--laws backed with the power of government--she didn't tolerate anything she didn't like. She wrote a law to ban it. And if you didn't follow her commands, you could wind up in jail. I won't miss her.