Principles are the Missing Ingredient in the Health Care Debate

In a Guest Commentary in Sunday's Telegraph, Dr. James W. Squires lamented the failure of the 2009 Health Care “reform” effort due to a failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue free from language that he complained stifled discussion and debate.  He complained that a focus on the principles underlying the policy served only to end the policy discussion.

I would argue that the reason that the current Health Care bills passed by the House and Senate will never be reconciled is because we did not reach agreement on the principles upon which that policy would be built.

Imagine the discussion between two honest, principled people about what the Giants needed to do to reach the playoffs next year.  Without taking the time to agree upon the framework of that discussion what follows would be an incoherent, frustrated cross-talk which fails to find agreement.  One argues that the Giants need to work on their pitching and infield play and the other argues that they need to improve their secondary and pass rush.  Without an understanding of whether they were talking about the baseball Giants from San Francisco or the football Giants from New York, any attempts at collaboration and agreement of ideas would be frustratingly fruitless.

So it has been with the 2009 Health Care discussion.  We couldn’t have a meaningful, fruitful discussion about heath care reform without first agreeing on the core principles and morality upon which any policy would be built.

Every honest poll – and the recent Senatorial election in Massachusetts - shows that most Americans disapprove of the policy contained in the House and Senate health care bills.  For the sake of argument, even if we stipulate that the Democrat leadership is motivated only by the noble objectives that they share with the public, let’s agree that resistance to the current bills is not because of any disagreement with their noble goals. Let’s simply stipulate that we disagree with the means by which the bills would attempt (and ultimately fail) to achieve those noble goals because of the violation of the core principles held by most Americans.

One step that “reform” advocates could take to reduce the cross-talk would be to refrain from conflating the premise that most Americans are opposed to the current policy being negotiated with the conclusion that most Americans are against true health care reform.

The reason most Americans reject the current bills in the House and Senate is an unacceptable infringement upon our personal freedom.  “Freedom” is not an “incantation” designed to stifle discussion as Dr. Squires mentions in his commentary.  Quite the contrary.  Reasoned Americans seek to understand how any policy will impact their freedom. The problem the Democrat leadership has created with its 2009 Health Care “reform” is that it has not paid sufficient regard to the concern that most Americans feel regarding the risk to their freedom inherent in these bills.

Most Americans understand that the only power in the world that can strip Americans of their freedom is government.  For a people to enjoy hundreds of years of freedom as we have in America is a historical anomaly – an aberration in the normal march of human history.  Generations of Americans have willingly risked their lives and livelihoods to secure their freedom and the freedom of the next generation.  Most Americans view the policy contained in the two health care bills to be an unacceptable risk to that precious freedom.  Voters of all political leanings sent this message last Tuesday in Massachusetts.  They felt their cherished principle of freedom was under attack by the current health care bills.

We have seen the enormous capacity of Americans to solve any problem when we work together.  Health Care reform should be no different.  President Obama and the Democrat leadership can find their place in the annals of history by making a substantive, sustainable improvement to our Health Care system, but they must first spell-out the principles upon which this policy would be built such as:

•    The government has no moral authority to compel any American to buy an insurance policy involuntarily and with costly provisions he does not want.  The current bills would mandate all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine.

•    The government has no moral authority to intercede in a private, voluntary exchange of values between a patient and a doctor by limiting the amount the doctor may receive for providing a service to a patient.  The current bills would limit the amount that doctors and hospitals could receive for a given service.

•    The government has no moral authority to coerce young people to pay a higher insurance premium based on their lower-risk profile in order to subsidize the insurance cost of older people who are higher users of health care.  In order to gain the buy-in from insurance companies to provide insurance to people who have pre-existing conditions, the government promised to coerce every American to buy health insurance.

•    The government has no moral authority to tell any business, such as a health insurance company, with whom it must do business.  The current bills would require health insurance companies to issue policies to risks that would reasonably guarantee that the health insurance companies would lose money.

•    The free market, if unfettered by destructive government mandates, mis-incentives and other distortions, is better able to provide health care better than a government-run system.  The free market has shown that it is the best vehicle for increasing the availability and quality of products and services while reducing the cost to the consumer.  The fact that it hasn’t (yet) been used in the health care industry is due solely to government barriers.

•    Providing health care insurance is not the same as providing health care service.  Health care service is a product that must first be produced before it can be delivered.  A government-issued “coupon” for “universal foot protection”, for example,  does not, by itself, produce a single pair of shoes. Similarly, a government-sponsored “coupon” for health insurance does not produce health care service. 

•    If you pay doctors and hospitals less than it costs them to provide the service, you will have fewer doctors and hospitals providing that service. Setting a price-cap that each person who has a “universal foot protection” coupon must pay for a pair of shoes will not increase the number of shoes manufactured. Quite the contrary.  Price-controls will, theoretically and in historical practice, reduce the amount of a good or service whose price is artificially controlled.

•    If you have fewer doctors and hospitals producing health care service and we provide “free health care coupons” to every American, either costs will go up or delivery delays will be experienced and / or both.

If the Democrat leadership or any health care “reform” advocate could please address these reasoned and reasonable concerns, then we promise not to mention the corrupt methods (Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker kickback, $60 billion union buy-off, no CSPAN, etc) by which these unprincipled bills have been crammed down our throats.

We are concerned by the over-reach of Democrats in this health care debate because of the violation to our principles this policy represents.  We are concerned that the Democratic leadership is indifferent to the core principles of Americans and that “might makes right”.  In Oct 2008, Hillary Clinton sent an email to her supporters that said, “Sixty is the magic number.  If we reach 60 Democrats in the Senate, then the days of Republican obstruction are over…there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.” Chilling.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Reason is not automatic.  Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.  Do not count on them.  Leave them alone.”  Principled, independent Americans wish to have a reasoned discussion about health care policy with the leadership in Washington.  We are asking for a discussion based on objective reason.  We ask that they respect our principles and do not dismiss our concerns as those of unhelpful obstructionists.  A reasoned, principled policy will stand on its own merits and its virtues will be easy to discern and discuss.  A reasoned, principled policy will “sell-itself” when presented in the disinfecting light of day to reasonable Americans.  Expensive buy-offs of critical votes, as we have witnessed, would not be required if the bills aligned with the principles of Americans.  Americans will support any policy that they think will benefit them.  Let’s have that dialogue.

On 1/9/09, Stephen Moore published a piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years. I enjoyed Mr. Moore's piece and submitted the following to The Wall Street Journal:

During his 22 November radio broadcast, John Galt states:

“Drifters and physical laborers live and plan by the range of a day. The better the mind, the longer the range. A man whose vision extends to a shanty, might continue to build on your quicksands, to grab a fast profit and run. A man who envisions skyscrapers, will not. Nor will he give ten years of unswerving devotion to the task of inventing a new product, when he knows that gangs of entrenched mediocrity are juggling the laws against him, to tie him, restrict him and force him to fail…”

First the immediate crisis of liquidity in September that required emergency measures to get us through this “temporary” crisis… then the immediate crisis of the viability of the Big Three auto makers that required emergency measures to get us through this “temporary” crisis. Yesterday President-Elect Obama stated :

"I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible… We won’t get out of it by…relying on the worn-out dogmas of the past.

"That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jumpstart job creation and long-term growth. It’s a plan that represents not just new policy, but a whole new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges… It is time to finally change the ways of Washington so that we can set a new and better course for America."

Following this prelude, President Elect Obama proceeded to list the “new” spending plans with a promise that this “new” spending plan will be different in that it will “invest in what works”. An utter denial of reality. We are being extorted to deny what we think and know to be true and to believe the unreal. We are being extorted to suspend our reason and have mystic faith in “change”. We are being extorted to trust our lives to the new government.

Imagine, instead, if we heard the following yesterday:

“Stability and consistency of government policy being critical to the establishment of the trust necessary for every American to regain the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the following policies shall be implemented by the incoming Administration:

• “The current tax system, including payroll taxes, and the IRS will be eliminated effective 1 January 2011, replaced by the Fair Tax Act. This act will eliminate the gross distortion in the market caused by the government and will reward production instead of consumption;

• “The sale of Health Insurance will be disconnected from employers and shall be sold in an open market similar to auto insurance, homeowners and life insurance;

• “Pet projects / pork-barrel spending shall be outlawed. No longer will people from Montana have to pay for construction of water slides in Florida.

• “Effective 1 January 2012, the United States will return to the Gold Standard”

Too much of the blame for the current state of economic affairs finds its roots in Washington policy to suggest that more of the same will prove effective. It is a denial of reality that we can “fix” the pain with another dose of government spending morphine in the short term to get us through this “temporary” rough patch. How many more “temporary emergencies”, typically created by government intervention, must we suffer before we realize that we need to take the long view? Or, are we simply incapable or unwilling to take the long view? Are we no longer capable of building skyscrapers?

Atlas Shrugged - The Prequel

One of the reasons I started this blog was the frustration I felt see letter after letter rejected by the local newspapers. So, while some of the next few posts may be dated by a few months, I think there messages are as timely today as the day I pecked them out on my keyboard. Enjoy...

Atlas Shrugged - The Prequel (12/6/08)

For those of you grasping for an understanding of the tumultuous and seemingly contradictory times in which we live as 2008 draws to an end, the answer is much closer than you may be willing to admit.

We are writing the unwritten story that is the prequel to Ayn Rand’s 51-year old apocalyptic epic Atlas Shrugged.

As Rand taught in Atlas Shrugged, contradictions cannot exist. As Rand writes, “A is A”, “A cannot be not-A”. We can claim that ‘A is not-A’ but saying so does not make it true. To claim “A is not-A” is simply a lie – the language of idiots, brutes and tyrants – not the language of free, honest men and women.

The government tells us that if we take money from those who produce the most and give the money to those who produce the least (in other words, the “Stimulus Package” of 2008) then our problems will go away. Of course, as we know, the “Stimulus Package” did not “work”, because of the moral contradiction inherent, but unchallenged, in its premise.

A society does not create wealth through consumption; it creates wealth through production. Our government fed us the unchallenged lie that we can consume our way into prosperity. When in the history of the planet has a society ever consumed its way into prosperity?

The other contradiction in the original stimulus package is the definition of what defines “success”. What was the desired effect of the “Stimulus Package”? To consume our way into prosperity? We know that to be false. No, the true purpose of the “Stimulus Package” was for those in power to take money from a group of people that has few votes and give that ill-taken loot to a group of people that has more votes.

When viewed within this context, there is no contradiction. Our politicians took, at the point of a gun, earned money from those who produce most and gave this unearned loot to those who produce least (or not at all) to buy their votes. There is no other explanation that does not contain a contradiction.

The initial “Stimulus Package” is all the more sinister due to its secondary and tertiary effects. First, the precedent is set that the government possesses the power and moral right to take (at the point of a gun) earned income from one American and give it to another. Obama said, “it’s a good thing to spread the wealth around”.

Less than a year after the first “Stimulus Package” our politicians are tripping over each other to give the money earned by one to anyone with a tin cup (the bigger the tin cup, the better).

Secondly, the government looters demand the fruit of production but vilify those who produce it. Who are the greatest “villains” in the eyes of the government, media, and, I dare say, Americans under the age of 25? Big Oil and Big Pharmacy. We demand oil products and miracle drugs like crack addicts and then crucify the CEO’s of the companies that produce the products we demand most in sham kangaroo courts called Congressional hearings. Do we not see the contradiction here?

The Big Three auto manufactures, with their $34B tin cup, make good cars (and to argue otherwise is immaterial) but do so at a price that Americans have been unwilling to pay.

Congress, this week, entertained placing further demands, at the point of a gun, upon my money to force a purchase of automobiles from Detroit that I refused to buy in the free market. Upon what legal or moral basis do we allow this?

Pelosi, Reid et al will claim that the Big 3 situation represents a potential calamity for all Americans if the Big 3 are allowed to fail. It is a lie. The political class is willing to give my money to the Big 3 in order to pander to the unions and to provide a quid pro quo for political contributions. There is no other conclusion that does not contain a contradiction.

18 months from now, the failed economic policy of wealth re-distribution that we are witnessing today will have only accelerated the destruction of the freedom of honest Americans.

Pockets of violence will crop-up as frustration devolves into despair. A new special police force will be established due to the “temporary emergency conditions” and firearms will be banned “for the public good during these trying times.” High profile cases of “greed” will be brought, not before rump Congressional Hearings but in front of Federal District Courts.

Production levels will drop precipitously as we continue the policy of consumption vs production and continue to vilify those who produce most. We will tax the biggest producers at unheard of levels “due to these temporary emergency conditions” and because the highest producers “don’t need” money nearly as much as the useless.

At least 52% of Americans believe that they are entitled to that which they have not earned. Until we have at least 50% of voting Americans stand up and say, “I am entitled to no more than that which I can produce as valued by those who would pay money for my products”, then there should be no mystery as to where America is headed. Ayn Rand documented that journey in 1957.

Craig Powers

1959 Interview by Mike Wallace with Ayn Rand

In this engaging 1959 interview, her first on television, Ayn Rand capsulizes her philosophy for CBS's Mike Wallace. The discussion ranges from the nature of morality to the economic and historical distortions disseminated about the "robber barons." She also comments on her relationship with Frank O'Connor, provides some autobiographical information and gives her perspective on the future of America.

"There are People who Aren't Broke"

As the wheels of the economy were coming off the tracks in Ayn Rand’s chillingly prescient novel Atlas Shrugged, one of the desperate, discredited, feeble central planners states to his cohorts, “You boys have no excuse for permitting all of that need and misery to spread through this country – so long as there are people who aren’t broke.”

As startling, though perhaps unexpected, as Obama’s first week's of Presidential Directives were, they are merely an overture to the greater pageant that is unfolding before our eyes. President Clinton, in his first term, had Gingrich and a united Republican House to check his leftist agenda. President Obama has no such counter-balancing force with which to limit the reach of his leftist agenda – an agenda that will fulfill his promise of change…but a change that few understood.

In a recent piece, entitled A Tyrant's 'Liberation', published in the 1/26/09 edition of the National Review, Otto Reich recalls his memories from another place in time, when the population unhesitatingly heralded the overthrow of an unbearable tyrant and the coming of their savior. All of their problems were behind them. Freedom and equality were finally within their reach. The long awaited liberator - a messiah, perhaps - was delivered. That place was Havana, Cuba on January 1, 1959 and the savior was Fidel Castro.

Fifty years later and after the total and undeniable emasculation of what was once a thriving economy and a vibrant people in Cuba, there are still apologists, if not out-right admirers of the Castro regime. Fifty years of denying reality. Fifty years of believing (of feeling) that, as Rand would say, "A is not A". Fifty years of living with the contradiction between the world that is and the world as these apologists would have it.

Fast forward fifty years. The parades celebrating Obama this week are no shorter than the ones that welcomed Castro fifty years ago. The mindless, desperate unthinking hope of the Cubans fifty years ago is no less than that displayed by hundreds of thousands of sobbing Americans who filled the Mall this week. The firing-squads that Castro used fifty years ago will be replaced by Obama with means more "politically correct" yet comparably effective to silence dissent and to consolidate power. An "unprecedented" time? No, the times are quite well precedented and are in plain view to all who would see them.

So, the Obama Clan (OC) is pushing forward a trillion dollar "stimulus" package, one that no honest, informed person can possibly think will stimulate anything but the rapidly-advancing left-wing power grab. If, the middle class, whom tax cheat Charley Rangel told Robert Reich, former Clinton Labor Secretary and current Obama economic advisor, at the 1/21/09 House W&M hearing, "And one thing you can depend on, you don't have to worry what the middle class will do. Things are so bad. They have to put food on their tables, get clothes on their kids, get them in school." Words uttered not in a smoke-filled back room somewhere - but in full committee, on C-Span. In August 2007, the nation shuttered at the thought of injecting $3 billion into the economy to ease a potential credit crunch. 18 months later, it is $1 trillion and Charley Rangel is saying not to worry...that the middle class is too busy trying to work hard supporting this corrupt government to know it is being further enslaved.



So, it is almost a fait accompli that within a month, in a fabulous signing ceremony (where the choicest interviews and photo ops will be provided to the media who pay more to play), we will witness the spark of the match which will result in our immolation. This stimulus bill will be worse than useless for it will empower the enemies of America. In fact, for its true, primary purposes the "stimulus bill" will be incredibly effective. With the stroke of a pen:

1. Money will flow from those who produce (and will produce in the future from generations to come) to the worst of the worst "shovel ready" programs. Rangel and former Labor Secretary and socialist Robert Reich, in their conspiracy caught on tape for all to see, want a federally mandated formula and criteria to "expedite" tax payer money to land not where it can be most productive, but where it can be least productive.

2. The money is not being spent to pander to current and future voters in the interest of improving their plight. Quite the contrary. The purpose of this "stimulus" package is to make the appearance of stimulating the economy while ensuring that every penny spent is wasted. The OC have no interest in remedying the emergency they have declared. For if the emergency passes, then what would justify their need for emergency measures? The sinister beauty of what we are watching unfold before us dwarfs the horror described by Rand in Atlas Shrugged.

Fast forward one year. As we slip deeper and deeper into recession, where the "light at the end of the tunnel" draws dimmer and dimmer, we will be reminded in the news that this is all the fault of George W. Bush and that President Obama is working feverishly for all of us and that while the initial $1 trillion stimulus doesn't appear to have done the trick, the problems inherited from the Bush administration were much worse than was admitted. But if we all work together we can get through this....but we need another infusion of cash.

So, where will the next "stimulus package" come from? The one that will be pushed in September 2009? It will come from your 401K. Yup. Your 401K. You know, for years, when you've been setting aside money instead of spending it now? That money.

In October 2008, Democrat-led sub-committee hearings were held to review a plan hawked by Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research. In essence, the plan would empower the government to seize the assets in our 401Ks, provide some pedestrian income on these stolen assets and do so under the name of "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts".

Too audacious? Really? Do you think there are any bounds or moral limits to what the OC will try to do to bleed America? When candidate Biden was called by a courageous journalist who accused Biden and Obama of promoting socialism (from each according to his ability to each according to his needs) the left was ready in deflecting that parry. In essence, Biden stated "we're not trying to control the means of production." True statement. But as Milton Friedman cited in Free to Choose, "W. Allen Wallis put it in a somewhat different context, socialism, 'intellectually bankrupt after more than a century of seeing one after another of its arguments for socializing the means of production demolished - now seeks to socialize the results of production."

Charley Rangle doesn't worry about any resistance from the producers of this country because we're too busy trying to get by. But so long as there are men and women among whose who "aren't broke" the OC will take steps every day - each step more audacious and pernicious than the last - to bleed the life out of each of us and give our blood to the leeches who posses the one thing the OC needs... a vote.