Saturday, August 22, 2009
GunPowder Chronicle Sets Forth Some Truth
Tim Patterson at Gunpowder Chronicle has post about furlough days and some under-handed tactics going on.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Good Post on Monoblogue
Michael Swartz has a good post on his site summarizing the local blog scene. He is mainly focusing on the situation a couple of weeks ago when Dr. Jose Alvarado passed away. Unfortunately, a rush to judgement caused so much confusion then a back and forth between two bloggers must have gotten ugly.
At the time Dr. Alvarado passed away I was in Peru on a mission trip with 18 other people. It was a difficult time for many on our team who knew and worked with him. He and Randy Odom have been very helpful to us at ORBC over the years when planning mission trips to Peru. Not having consistent internet access was very troublesome for many who wanted up to date information.
In the future we hope that those dispensing information will act in a positive and responsible manner. It is not always important to be first, it is more important to be respectful and accurate when reporting information. Hopefully all have learned a lesson.
At the time Dr. Alvarado passed away I was in Peru on a mission trip with 18 other people. It was a difficult time for many on our team who knew and worked with him. He and Randy Odom have been very helpful to us at ORBC over the years when planning mission trips to Peru. Not having consistent internet access was very troublesome for many who wanted up to date information.
In the future we hope that those dispensing information will act in a positive and responsible manner. It is not always important to be first, it is more important to be respectful and accurate when reporting information. Hopefully all have learned a lesson.
ECONOMIST RICHARD VEDDER ON WHY COLLEGE COSTS TOO MUCH
The Going Broke By Degree author does the appalling higher education math
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine.
The Free Market as Regulator
by Ron Paul
Since the bailouts last fall, lawmakers have been behaving as quasi-owners of the bailed-out banks and businesses, leading to calls for increased regulation of executive compensation and other wasteful expenditures. We have heard much about bonuses and executive pay packages that sound more like lottery winnings than an honest salary.
Many lawmakers voted in favor of these unconstitutional bailouts, believing that these corporations were too big to fail, and allowing them to go under would precipitate widespread economic disaster. This second wave of citizen outrage at the bailouts has left these lawmakers with a bit of egg on their face, and once again, they feel the need to "do something" to "fix" it. Shouldn't there be a regulatory structure in place governing executive compensation? Politically, it seems quite feasible. People are outraged that the system has once again gutted the many to make a few at the top fantastically wealthy. But they are incorrectly demonizing the free market.
What we need to realize is that there WAS a regulatory structure in place that was attempting to stop bad management, including overpaying executives. That regulatory structure is the free market, and when poor management brought these companies to the point of bankruptcy, Congress circumvented the wisdom of the free market, and inserted its own judgment at our expense. And now because of that intervention, we will be burdened with massive new regulations. We can be certain this effort will fail.
The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can't be eliminated by governments, not even totalitarian ones like the former Soviet Union. It can be regulated, over-taxed and manipulated until it is driven underground. Lately it has been wrongly accused of doing so many things it just doesn't do, that are really the fault of crony corporatism and convoluted government policies that brought on the crisis. Too many people equate the free market with big business doing whatever it wants, but that is not the free market. Unconstitutional taxpayer-funded bailouts are what allow giant corporations to run roughshod over the economy. The free market is what puts them out of business when they misbehave.
The free market is you and your neighbors working hard to produce what you produce, and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, in mutually agreeable arrangements. The free market is about respecting property rights and contracts. It is not about building up oligarchs and monopolies and confiscatory tax theft – these are creatures of government.
We must watch out when government comes up with interventionist solutions to interventionist problems. The root of our problems lies in interventionism. Trusting the free market is the solution.
Afghanistan's Democratic Debacle
by Patrick Basham
This article appeared on Cato.org on August 20, 2009.
Afghanistan's presidential campaign confirms that Western leaders cannot push Afghan political culture where it doesn't want to go. Today, Afghan democrats could hold a convention in a phone booth.
Although Afghanistan's first presidential (2004) and parliamentary elections (2005) were held in an atmosphere of widespread fear and massive voter intimidation, the international community characterized these elections as watershed moments for Afghan democracy. Events on the ground continue to suggest otherwise. According to the UN, Afghan civilian deaths soared by 24 percent during the first half of 2009. Fears for voter safety on Election Day will shut 10 percent of nearly 7,000 polling stations nationwide.
The country's security situation requires 63,000 U.S. troops and 40,500 non-U.S. NATO forces to protect what many consider a rigged election. The UN and the Afghan human rights commission have repeatedly complained about interference in the election by President Hamid Karzai's government.
The most obvious institutional problem is that the election commission is stacked with Karzai's supporters. It's also an open secret that Karzai's campaign has registered three million 'new' voters — swelling the electorate by 17 percent — by allowing males to obtain registration cards for non-existent female relatives.
In Afghan-style elections, campaigning politicians are permitted to broadcast threats against their opponents. On the campaign trail, moderate presidential candidate Ashraf Ghani, a former finance minister popular with Afghans in America, is literally a marked man whose advertisements are mysteriously destroyed as soon as they appear on billboards.
WAYNE ALLYN ROOT WANTS TO EMPOWER "THE CITIZEN REVOLUTION WITH GOD, GUNS, GAMBLING, & TAX CUTS"
The LP vice-presidential candidate has a new book and a new roadmap for American politics.
Libertarian gives her health care perspective to CNN
Debbie Schum, Delta County, Colorado Libertarian Party chair, gave her perspective on health care reform on CNN after attending the White House's press event in Grand Junction. Schum, a small businessperson, shares with CNN's host the concerns of millions of Americans about the rising costs, plummeting quality, restrictions on access and rationing that are hallmarks of government-controlled health care.
Click here for the video, or go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyHYVizifhA&feature=player_embedded
Libertarians press Congress on DOMA, ‘don’t’ ask, don’t tell’
Hate crimes bill opposed, cast as attempt by marriage opponents to buy LBGT votes
WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party challenged House and Senate Democrats Monday to fully commit to the equal justice for gay and lesbian Americans by rejecting a proposed hate crimes law and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring military service by “out” gays and lesbians.
“Libertarians are the only party committed to equal justice under the law, whether it is protection from violence, marriage equality or the ability of a qualified person to serve in the military,” said Cat Sumner, Libertarian National Committee gay and lesbian policy advisor. “So-called ‘hate crimes’ bills further divide America by creating different classes of victims for the same crime. Instead of dividing the gay and straight communities, we should be treating everyone equally.”
“This so-called ‘hate crimes’ bill is just an attempt by Democrat opponents of marriage equality to hold on to gay and lesbian support without actually fighting for them,” said Sumner. “The Libertarian Party is the only party in America not afraid to engage in a no-compromise fight for a country where gays and lesbians can live their lives without government-sponsored harassment. Libertarians challenge Congress to prove they are truly committed to equal justice for gays and lesbians by dropping so-called hate crimes legislation and instead repealing DOMA and ‘don't ask, don't tell.’”
Libertarians consider the hate crimes bill not just a violation of equal justice under the law, but an attempt by legislators to buy gay and lesbian support while still opposing gay marriage and military service. The original sponsor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, then-Republican Congressman Bob Barr (GA,) has recanted his support of the bill and is seeking its repeal. He was the Libertarian presidential nominee in 2008, winning the party’s second-highest presidential vote total in its 38-year history.
The House passed a hate crimes bill, H.R. 1913, on Apr. 29. On Jul 16. the Senate attached a hate crimes amendment to a military spending bill, both of which were approved. The House bill and Senate amendment must be reconciled in committee before being sent to President Obama for his signature.
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 (BlackBerry) or 202-333-0008, x. 225 (office,) or emailDonny.Ferguson@lp.org.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom.
Government health care in action: Vancouver to begin denying surgeries
Today's Vancouver Sun reports on one reason Libertarians, joined by most Americans, oppose Obama's proposed government takeover of health care. Government control of health care has always led to rationing and denial of medically necessary surgery:
VANCOUVER — Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.
Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.
“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”
The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.
“It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.
Dr. Brian Brodie, president of the BC Medical Association, called the proposed surgical cuts “a nightmare.”
“Why would you begin your cost-cutting measures on medically necessary surgery? I just can’t think of a worse place,” Brodie said.
According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year...
...Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.
Two weeks ago, Dix released a Fraser Health Authority draft communications plan listing proposed clinical care cuts, including a 10-per-cent cut in elective surgeries and longer waits for MRI scans.
The move comes after the province acknowledged all health authorities together will be forced to cut staff, limit some services and increase fees to find $360 million in savings during the current fiscal year.
LP Monday Message: Dems not backing down on public option, but stepping up the fight
posted by Donny Ferguson on Aug 17, 2009
Dear friend,
Faced with withering criticism from the independent voters who elected Obama, as well as polls showing majorities of Americans oppose their health care reform plans and would prefer government inaction to the current system, the media reported this weekend Democrats may consider removing a provision for government-run health insurance from a massive bill outlining a government takeover of the nation’s health care system.
Don’t be fooled. The so-called “public option” isn’t about to be taken off the table. The eradication of your private health insurance plans is at the very core of the entire so-called “reform” movement.
Just listen to official White House health care spokesperson Linda Douglass. “Nothing has changed. The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”
House Democrats also tell the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico government-run health insurance will stay in their bill. It’s their goal for the legislation.
Not only will Democrats never relent on their plans for government-run insurance, they are instead doubling down in their attacks on advocates of free market reforms.
It already began today at The Washington Post. There, the official Democrat Party playbook turned the page to its typical Hail Mary play – broad-brush accusations of racism.
The Post’s Susan Jacoby, opening an online discussion with readers this morning, asked if opposition to government-run health care was A) the “unwillingness of an unreconciled minority to accept the legitimacy of an African-American president,” or B) “right-wing populism (which has always included a strong element of racism).”
At no time did she ever suggest opposition to government-run health care was the product of anything other than hate.
Why would advocates of government-run health care accelerate their assaults on millions of everyday Americans if they were truly giving up their fight for government-run health insurance?
Because they’re not. They have already declared they will pass government-run health care regardless of whether or not the eventual government-run insurance plan is in the first draft.
In a 2007 exchange with union officials, Barack Obama openly stated his style of health care “reform” will lead to the eventual eradication of private health insurance, regardless of whether the so-called “public option” is in the final draft of the bill – or quietly slipped in later.
His Chicago confidante, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, gleefully cheered on a crowd of radical activists, claiming the bill, which didn’t even include a public option in the draft at the time, will end all private insurance in America.
Don’t be fooled. Democrats aren’t giving up their drive to make your private medical decisions the business of government. Their goal is nothing less than an America where “my opponent will cut off your government-provided health care” is all you need to campaign for re-election. They already do it to those on Medicare, which may be why those very seniors so adamantly oppose the proposed government takeover.
Democrats are stepping up their assaults on the majority of Americans who oppose them because they know they simply need to pass something to guarantee the eventual eradication of private health care.
Don’t be fooled. They’re not giving up. Even if the so-called “public option” isn’t in the final bill, passing something gives them a government-run health care system, which they can just easily add government-run insurance to.
Now is the time for advocates of free-market health care to fight even harder as those pushing government control resort to nastier attacks and ugly accusations of racism. The only way to keep the waiting lists, rationed care and crippling deficits of government-run care from becoming a reality is to defeat the entire health care bill…and the politicians pushing it.
With optimism,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee
Dear friend,
Faced with withering criticism from the independent voters who elected Obama, as well as polls showing majorities of Americans oppose their health care reform plans and would prefer government inaction to the current system, the media reported this weekend Democrats may consider removing a provision for government-run health insurance from a massive bill outlining a government takeover of the nation’s health care system.
Don’t be fooled. The so-called “public option” isn’t about to be taken off the table. The eradication of your private health insurance plans is at the very core of the entire so-called “reform” movement.
Just listen to official White House health care spokesperson Linda Douglass. “Nothing has changed. The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”
House Democrats also tell the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico government-run health insurance will stay in their bill. It’s their goal for the legislation.
Not only will Democrats never relent on their plans for government-run insurance, they are instead doubling down in their attacks on advocates of free market reforms.
It already began today at The Washington Post. There, the official Democrat Party playbook turned the page to its typical Hail Mary play – broad-brush accusations of racism.
The Post’s Susan Jacoby, opening an online discussion with readers this morning, asked if opposition to government-run health care was A) the “unwillingness of an unreconciled minority to accept the legitimacy of an African-American president,” or B) “right-wing populism (which has always included a strong element of racism).”
At no time did she ever suggest opposition to government-run health care was the product of anything other than hate.
Why would advocates of government-run health care accelerate their assaults on millions of everyday Americans if they were truly giving up their fight for government-run health insurance?
Because they’re not. They have already declared they will pass government-run health care regardless of whether or not the eventual government-run insurance plan is in the first draft.
In a 2007 exchange with union officials, Barack Obama openly stated his style of health care “reform” will lead to the eventual eradication of private health insurance, regardless of whether the so-called “public option” is in the final draft of the bill – or quietly slipped in later.
His Chicago confidante, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, gleefully cheered on a crowd of radical activists, claiming the bill, which didn’t even include a public option in the draft at the time, will end all private insurance in America.
Don’t be fooled. Democrats aren’t giving up their drive to make your private medical decisions the business of government. Their goal is nothing less than an America where “my opponent will cut off your government-provided health care” is all you need to campaign for re-election. They already do it to those on Medicare, which may be why those very seniors so adamantly oppose the proposed government takeover.
Democrats are stepping up their assaults on the majority of Americans who oppose them because they know they simply need to pass something to guarantee the eventual eradication of private health care.
Don’t be fooled. They’re not giving up. Even if the so-called “public option” isn’t in the final bill, passing something gives them a government-run health care system, which they can just easily add government-run insurance to.
Now is the time for advocates of free-market health care to fight even harder as those pushing government control resort to nastier attacks and ugly accusations of racism. The only way to keep the waiting lists, rationed care and crippling deficits of government-run care from becoming a reality is to defeat the entire health care bill…and the politicians pushing it.
With optimism,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Why Be Libertarian?
by Murray N. Rothbard
by Murray N. Rothbard
This essay is chapter 15 of the book Egalitarianism As a Revolt Against Nature.
Why be libertarian, anyway? By this we mean, what's the point of the whole thing? Why engage in a deep and lifelong commitment to the principle and the goal of individual liberty? For such a commitment, in our largely unfree world, means inevitably a radical disagreement with, and alienation from, the status quo, an alienation which equally inevitably imposes many sacrifices in money and prestige. When life is short and the moment of victory far in the future, why go through all this?
Incredibly, we have found among the increasing number of libertarians in this country many people who come to a libertarian commitment from one or another extremely narrow and personal point of view. Many are irresistibly attracted to liberty as an intellectual system or as an aesthetic goal, but liberty remains for them a purely intellectual parlor game, totally divorced from what they consider the "real" activities of their daily lives. Others are motivated to remain libertarians solely from their anticipation of their own personal financial profit. Realizing that a free market would provide far greater opportunities for able, independent men to reap entrepreneurial profits, they become and remain libertarians solely to find larger opportunities for business profit. While it is true that opportunities for profit will be far greater and more widespread in a free market and a free society, placing one's primary emphasis on this motivation for being a libertarian can only be considered grotesque. For in the often tortuous, difficult and grueling path that must be trod before liberty can be achieved, the libertarian's opportunities for personal profit will far more often be negative than abundant.
The consequence of the narrow and myopic vision of both the gamester and the would-be profit maker is that neither group has the slightest interest in the work of building a libertarian movement. And yet it is only through building such a movement that liberty may ultimately be achieved. Ideas, and especially radical ideas, do not advance in the world in and by themselves, as it were in a vacuum; they can only be advanced by people and, therefore, the development and advancement of such people – and therefore of a "movement" – becomes a prime task for the libertarian who is really serious about advancing his goals.
Turning from these men of narrow vision, we must also see that utilitarianism – the common ground of free-market economists – is unsatisfactory for developing a flourishing libertarian movement. While it is true and valuable to know that a free market would bring far greater abundance and a healthier economy to everyone, rich and poor alike, a critical problem is whether this knowledge is enough to bring many people to a lifelong dedication to liberty.
In short, how many people will man the barricades and endure the many sacrifices that a consistent devotion to liberty entails, merely so that umpteen percent more people will have better bathtubs? Will they not rather set up for an easy life and forget the umpteen percent bathtubs? Ultimately, then, utilitarian economics, while indispensable in the developed structure of libertarian thought and action, is almost as unsatisfactory a basic groundwork for the movement as those opportunists who simply seek a short-range profit.
It is our view that a flourishing libertarian movement, a lifelong dedication to liberty can only be grounded on a passion for justice. Here must be the mainspring of our drive, the armor that will sustain us in all the storms ahead, not the search for a quick buck, the playing of intellectual games or the cool calculation of general economic gains. And, to have a passion for justice, one must have a theory of what justice and injustice are – in short, a set of ethical principles of justice and injustice, which cannot be provided by utilitarian economics. READ MORE
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obama Kills Health Competition
by Michael D. Tanner
President Obama has repeatedly said that one of his "reform" goals is to increase "competition and choice" in the US health-care system -- but the policies he's pursuing would actually reduce competition and give consumers fewer choices. Meanwhile, he's ignoring reforms that would bring more choices and competition.
The nation now has some 1,300 insurance companies, but most consumers actually have far fewer choices. An American Medical Association survey found that in 299 of 313 largest metro areas, one insurer controls at least 30 percent of the market.
In New York, just two insurers, GHI and Empire Blue Cross, represent 47 percent of the market. In New Jersey, a single insurer, Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield, controls 43 percent of the market. And in Connecticut, Wellpoint holds an astounding 55 percent.
There's nothing inherently wrong with one company earning a large market share, but the lack of significant competition helps contribute to higher insurance costs and poorer service. Moreover, this market concentration hasn't necessarily flowed from consumer preference in a free market, but results in good part from barriers to entry erected by state insurance regulation.
Obama's answer to this problem is to set up a new government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. But such a plan will ultimately result in less competition, not more.
A government-run plan would have an inherent advantage in the marketplace, because it ultimately would be subsidized by taxpayers. The government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefits, because it could turn to taxpayers to cover any shortfalls.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Added to cato.org on August 13, 2009
This article appeared in the New York Post on August 13, 2009.
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter. ..."
Yes, the proposed government takeover of health care actually contains that language, which The Washington Times editorializes as "Orwellian."
Click here to read the editorial, which goes on to debunk the Obama claim he isn't raising taxes:
...The bill does contain new taxes -- plenty of them. Pages 167 and 168 impose an income tax of 2.5 percent on any individual who chooses not to buy government-approved health insurance. Pages 149-150 impose a tax of between 2 percent and 8 percent on the payrolls of all companies whose payrolls exceed $250,000. Pages 197 and 198 outline income tax surcharges to be imposed on individuals with incomes over $350,000, rising to a highest surcharge of 5.4 percent.
Meanwhile, as the bill specifically acknowledges imposing a tax without counting it as a tax, it also imposes all sorts of requirements that act as indirect taxes under names such as "mandates" and "requirements." Page 146 requires employers to provide insurance even for part-time workers. Page 280 begins to outline a penalty for hospitals that are adjudged to have "excess readmissions." Federal bureaucrats, of course, will determine which patient readmissions are reasonable and which are excessive. The bureaucrats will do this by following the simple rules for such determinations laid out on pages 281 and 282 ... and 283 ... and 284, 285, 286, and ... oh, forget it; we got lost...
Libertarians: Obama promises of postal system-style health care fail to deliver
President seeks to assure voters by promising health care will be run like the mail
WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Wednesday took aim at comments made by President Barack Obama in a New Hampshire press event Tuesday, in which he took questions from a pre-selected audience. Obama compared his proposed government-run health care system to the nation’s postal system, which he admitted is “always having problems.”
“My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining…then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems," said Obama.
“For once, President Obama is right. His proposal for government-run health care is exactly like the current government-run postal system,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chairman.
“Like the postal system, which is cutting post offices, delivering less often and runs multi-billion dollar deficits, government-run health care always leads to fewer facilities, rationed care and crippling deficits,” said Redpath. “Obama admitted the postal system he wants to model health care on is ‘always having problems.’ It’s one thing to have ‘problems’ when delivering a Christmas card on time. It’s a matter of life or death when the government-run health care system is ‘always having problems.’”
Libertarians urge Democrats and the White House to make health care accessible and affordable by dropping massively unpopular plans for government-run care and to instead repeal laws restricting competition in the health insurance industry.
“Like most Americans, Libertarians oppose government mandates that force you to pay for coverage you don’t need, driving up costs. Libertarians also believe you should be able to pool together freely to buy group plans and should be able to shop across state lines,” said Redpath.
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 (BlackBerry) or 202-333-0008, x. 225 (office,) or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
Dr. Richard Davis' August Letter to the Editor
I have read and heard a number of comments from people who feel my candidacy for Congress has helped or will help the candidate of one or the other major parties. This misses my point. If you are happy with what either major party has accomplished in the last twenty years, your choice must already be clear.
I believe that a vote for either of those major parties encourages that party’s leadership to continue what they have been doing in that time. In the last election, my impression was that both of my opponents were decent men who were much more conservative than their party leaderships. I believe the election of either could have (at most) minimal influence on those leaderships.
Refusing to vote sends little or no message, as those leaders appear to count winning or losing vote totals. I believe only a significant number of votes for another party altogether will send a message that voters want a REAL change of direction – electing a number of third party candidates would obviously send an even stronger message.
Believing we need a major change in the way this is done, I am running this campaign accepting NO monetary contributions. I hope to begin by providing more content in these editorials with 250 words per month than can be conveyed in a 60-second radio or TV commercial, much less a sign or bumper sticker.
They will go on my website at davis4congress.com, possibly occasionally in somewhat expanded form.
I believe that a vote for either of those major parties encourages that party’s leadership to continue what they have been doing in that time. In the last election, my impression was that both of my opponents were decent men who were much more conservative than their party leaderships. I believe the election of either could have (at most) minimal influence on those leaderships.
Refusing to vote sends little or no message, as those leaders appear to count winning or losing vote totals. I believe only a significant number of votes for another party altogether will send a message that voters want a REAL change of direction – electing a number of third party candidates would obviously send an even stronger message.
Believing we need a major change in the way this is done, I am running this campaign accepting NO monetary contributions. I hope to begin by providing more content in these editorials with 250 words per month than can be conveyed in a 60-second radio or TV commercial, much less a sign or bumper sticker.
They will go on my website at davis4congress.com, possibly occasionally in somewhat expanded form.
The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey lays out the problems with government-run health care, the need for serious reform and offers a libertarian alternative in a tremendous column in The Wall Street Journal. Click here to read the full column.
Mackey suggests Congress, among other things:
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
• Equalize the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
• Enact Medicare reform.
• Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Mackey also writes:
...Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments...
...Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.
Austin Petersen's Goodbye Letter
By: Austin Petersen
A little over two years ago I stood in a crowded nightclub surrounded by screaming New Yorkers watching millions of dollars pour into the campaign coffers of Congressman Ron Paul. It was December 16th, the night of the first real Tea Party. As the deafening crowd roared their approval, I stood back with my video camera taping the events so that I could show the world what happened there.
As the millions rolled in that night, little did I know it would be the beginning of my future career in politics. The following February, Dr. Paul’s campaign was suspended and I was disheartened when a phone call from Washington D.C. came in. It was Shane Cory; he wanted me to come to CPAC to interview for a job. I booked the next flight to Reagan, and a week later committed to fill the position of Volunteer Coordinator at the Libertarian National Committee.
I started work in D.C. after having taken over from the last volunteer coordinator with no idea what to do, or where to begin. I knew third party politics would be difficult, but I honestly expected more resistance than I got in some ways. I’ve always been someone to think outside the box and applied that to make projects successful with little to no resources. The Libertarian Party afforded me a fantastic opportunity that I sought to use to further our commonly shared beliefs any way that was possible. I was given near complete autonomy to experiment in an office full of books from decades of libertarian campaigns, one an original signed copy of work by Milton Friedman. It was an experience of a lifetime that I will always remember.
If I could give Libertarians some advice it would be this: Run professional, strategic, think-outside-the-box campaigns. There are enough motivated libertarian minded youths out there now for you to rally to your campaigns. Learn the tools of the trade on Facebook, Youtube and other social networking sites to bring in the support you need. Your friends will run as Libertarians if you ask them to. So do it and support them! Or run yourself for goodness sakes, but just do it, and do it with class and professionalism. You should have a good answer to the questions: Why should people run as a libertarian? Why should the American people vote for our candidates? What does it mean to be a Libertarian?
During the past year and a half I’ve traveled all over the country, worked on Bob Barr’s Presidential campaign, petitioned congress, built a large and exciting internship program at LPHQ, and made many lifelong friends in the movement. I will always be grateful to the LNC for giving me a chance to succeed in professional politics. Now I’m off to start a new journey but with the same goal; to maximize individual liberty. I wish you all the best of luck.
A Libertarian question--and answer--about bringing health care to millions of uninsured people ... now
from Delaware Libertarian
The question is, why can private organizers do what the government can't: bring basic health care services to those in need on a shoestring budget like Remote Area Medical?
Here's what the purely private organization does:
The organization was founded in 1985 and years of research and planning yielded a vast, carefully developed network of men and women who have come together to make RAM a highly mobile, remarkably efficient relief force. Volunteers are doctors, nurses, technicians, and veterinarians who go on expeditions at their own expense and treat hundreds of patients a day under some of the worst conditions.
Volunteers have provided general medical, surgical, eye, dental, and veterinary care to tens of thousands of people and animals, with 60% of the expeditions serving rural America. There are plans for expansion of US expeditions, an airborne medical treatment center, a permanent clinic site in Guyana, and a program start-up in Africa.
I never thought Inglewood CA would be considered remote, but maybe urban California is remote in terms of accessible medical care. So here is what RAM is doing, even as I write:
Inglewood, CA (AHN) - Charity clinic Remote Area Medical (RAM) started its eight-day free medical, visual and dental check-up to uninsured and under-insured individuals at the Forum in Inglewood, California on Tuesday.
RAM volunteer doctors will serve 1,200 individuals per day starting at 5:30 a.m. until 6 p.m. As usual, RAM will not require individuals seeking treatment to show proof that they don't have healthcare insurance or have low income.
RAM has set up 45 medical exam rooms, 100 dental stations and 25 eye exam sites at the basketball stadium. Exams include mammography, chest X-ray, PAP smears, blood pressure screening and diabetes test.
Prescription eye glasses will also be fitted and prepared on site.
RAM has some corporate sponsorship and gets donations, but its average yearly budget ranges in the $100-250K range--that's thousands, not millions.
With that, and a willingness to go anywhere, jump through any hoop necessary, and practice in fairgrounds, animal stables, or even on bleachers in the rain, they make a difference and save lives--over 300,000 patients and counting.
RAM founder Stan Brock epitomizes the humanitarian (and libertarian) ideal that it is not acceptable to wait for the State to do it for you.
Which brings me to my major point: the answer.
Why can't the government do this? Suppose Stan Brock had a budget of $1 Billion and worked for the government. Government regulations would not allow him to just lease pieces of ground with no real facilities. Government would require records and authorizations of those who came to be treated. The government would have to have a multi-thousand page manual, a quality control panel, a diversity impact committee, a physician licensing inspection office....
For $1 Billion I will be willing to be you that the government could not treat the 300,000 people that RAM has treated over the past twenty years for less than $5 million.
One of the more ominous pieces of bait and switch in the current debate is when the administration and key congressional leaders stopped referring to what is going on in Washington as health care reform and started calling it health insurance reform.
And rushing us to pass a bill immediately that won't even change anybody's level of insurance or treatment until 2013....
We could make a difference right now, if the State were not so mired in being the State.
Toss some regulations overboard and send the US Public Health Service doctors and nurses out to do RAM-style expeditions at the drop of a hat, with nothing but what they can carry in....
Give poor communities matching grants they can use to invite RAM to come visit them.
Too simple. We need bells, whistles, health advisory panels whose membership is driven by obscure qualifications.
Ah horseshit --waves hand in disgust--you know the answer as well as I do, even if you're not willing to admit it publicly.
So what to do? They need money, and anybody can send it.
I have twenty-one years experience as a medic in the US Army, including specialties in innoculation, physicals, and record-keeping. There is an RAM expedition in Grunday VA on 3-4 October. I'm calling today to volunteer.
If one out of every thousand people jacking their jaws on either side of health care reform would actually get off their ass and do something positive, there would not be a health care crisis of such magnitude in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)