In-Depth Political Analysis

"A spokesperson for Sen. John McCain said he won't meet Snooki this week even though she was in D.C. Do you really need to announce that you're not meeting with Snooki? That's like Obama going, 'Welcome to the State of the Union. I'd just like to let everyone know that I will not be having brunch with Amber from 'Teen Mom' tomorrow.'"

–Jimmy Fallon

Libertarians oppose Republican plans to hang onto Obamacare

WASHINGTON - Incoming Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that Republicans now want to keep two significant parts of Obamacare: forcing insurance companies to offer coverage for people up to age 26 under their parents' policies, and forcing insurance companies to issue coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "This switch is predictable. Republicans love to say the words 'less government,' but they always vote for more government. It's a shame that the big-government Republican Party succeeded in fooling Americans again on November 2. We tried to warn the tea partiers."

Hinkle continued, "Repealing one bill and replacing it with much of the same thing doesn't count as a repeal.

"Issuing coverage for a pre-existing medical condition is like issuing coverage for a house with a pre-existing fire. It doesn't make any sense, and no insurance company would do it in a free market.

"By the same token, forcing insurance companies to cover adults up to age 26 under their parents' policy is absurd. Republicans and Democrats both love to treat adults like children.

"If Republicans succeed in keeping these Obamacare policies, it will mean significantly higher insurance premiums for everyone, in order to subsidize the huge new expenses that insurance companies will be forced to pay."

The LP platform plank on health care states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

Is Health-Care Reform Constitutional?

by Randy Barnett

This article appeared in the Washington Post on March 21, 2010.

ith the House set to vote on health-care legislation, the congressional debate on the issue seems to be nearing its conclusion. But if the bill does become law, the battle over federal control of health care will inevitably shift to the courts. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II, has said he will file a legal challenge to the bill, arguing in a column this month that reform legislation "violate[s] the plain text of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments." On Friday, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced that they will file a federal lawsuit if health-care reform legislation passes.

Will these cases get anywhere? Here is a guide to the possible legal challenges to a comprehensive health-care bill.

The individual mandate.


Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.

If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.

READ MORE @ CATO

Libertarians: No need for ‘Iraq war rush’ to government-run medicine

Obama demands for immediate action, little transparency are hallmarks of bad legislation

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Tuesday urged Congress to take its time deliberating the proposed government takeover of the nation’s health care system amid pressure from the White House to quickly adopt the troubled proposal quickly and with minimal debate. Libertarians oppose the plan, which deepens the federal budget deficit and leads to the rationing of basic health care.

“As confidence in President Obama’s plans for a federal government takeover of medicine plunges, the White House is pressuring legislators to rush to judgment while the plan can still be salvaged,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chairman. “We urge Congress to deliberate this massive government takeover carefully, take their time to allow Americans to read the full bill and then vote down this legislative disaster.”

A poll conducted independently by the Gallup organization, not for any party or group, and released today shows disapproval of the Obama plan tops approval among adults by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin. Among political independents, the gap grows. Fifty-five percent of independents disapprove of Obama’s plan. Only 40 percent approve.

“The more we find out about the Democrat plan, whether it’s the language on page sixteen outlawing private insurance or Section 440 empowering government to visit your home and monitor your parenting, the more obvious it becomes why President Obama wants as little transparency as possible. As we saw during the rush to the Iraq war, nothing good can happen when the president demands Congress give him what he wants immediately and without debate,” 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 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, 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.

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right

by Ron Paul

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middleman. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

CATO Institute's Website on Health Care Reform

Here is the link for tons of information gathered by the CATO Institute on Health Care Reform.

Health-Reform Malpractice

by Michael D. Tanner

With unemployment rapidly approaching 10 percent, one would think it would be a priority for Congress to make it easier for businesses to hire workers. But the health-care bill unveiled by House Democrats on Tuesday goes in exactly the opposite direction, actually making it more expensive to hire workers.

The bill would require all but the very smallest businesses to provide health insurance to their workers. Employers would have to pay 72.5 percent of the premium for individual coverage and 65 percent for family coverage. Those businesses that don't comply would be assessed a penalty or tax equal to 8 percent of their payroll.

Such a mandate is simply a disguised tax on employment. And while it might be politically appealing to claim that business will bear the new tax burden, nearly all economists see it quite differently.

Business owners care about the total cost of hiring a worker, not how that cost is apportioned between wages, taxes, health insurance or retirement benefits (or for that matter, a free parking space). Mandating insurance or assessing a new tax penalty simply increases the cost of hiring that worker.

Employers will therefore seek ways to offset the added cost by raising prices (the most unlikely solution in a competitive market), lowering wages, reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits (such as pensions), cutting back on hiring, laying off current workers, shifting workers from full-time to part-time or outsourcing.

Most economists believe that the largest portion of those offset costs would come in the form of job loss, since workers are likely to resist wage reductions. READ THE REST

mon·o·blogue

Michael Swartz over at mon·o·blogue has a good post on what is next for Frank Kratovil - health care.

Scholars Opposing "Stimulus" Spending Take to the Airwaves

What if Government Ran Health Care? (Sprint Ad Remix)

Obamacare failed in Europe

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jun 30, 2009

Guillaume Vuillemey, a researcher at France's Institut Economique Molinari, and Philip Stevens, a researcher at Britain's International Policy Network write in today's Washington Examiner about how Obama's proposed government takeover of the health care system has worked in Europe.

Hint. Not so well.

Click here to read the column, or if you live in the metro D.C. area pick up a copy of The Examiner. Vuillemey and Stevens write, in part:

President Barack Obama's proposed "public insurance option" for universal health coverage seems logical: A large public insurance fund will provide quality coverage for the uninsured and force competing insurers to lower costs. In practice, though, one needs only look at what decades of government health care have done to ramp up the financial and quality problems endured by Britain and France.

The Obama plan is supposed to make health insurance more competitive. But heavy subsidies will give it a big advantage, pulling an estimated 118.5 million people from private insurers to the public system. This government-subsidized system will eventually dominate the market in a way that would overrule competition...

...One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death

This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets...

...America can certainly draw lessons from overseas about saving money on health care. But in the cases of France and Britain, these lessons are in what not to do. These countries show that nationalizing care damages care.