For confirmation of this, check out the C-SPAN coverage of this issue, especially the speeches starting from around 70 minutes until they begin voting on the rule.

President Obama promised that American people that he would pursue a bipartisan approach to health care reform.  Unfortunately for the American people, President Obama did no such thing.  Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and several other Republicans have been begging President Obama and the Democratic leadership to listen to other ideas and to move to attack some of the problems with health care that the vast majority of Americans agree on.  This bill is not bipartisan in any remote sense of the word.  In a clear sign of both idiocy and doublespeak, Nancy Pelosi disagreed and declared that a “bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes.” The argument here was that because Democrats have included a few small ideas that Republicans and independents support in the bill that it can be called bipartisan.

In fact, the only thing that can even be said to be bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it.  There are no Republicans supporting this bill; it is opposed by every single Congressional Republican and a number of Congressional Democrats.

But, even if this bill had been a perfect example of bipartisan compromise, it is still wrong.  On top of being immoral and undemocratic, this bill is blatantly unconstitutional.

Alas, they have passed it and the battle is over.  What do we do now, you ask?:

Well, we have three choices here.  We can:

1)  Admit the fight is over, accept this new national health care system, its immense costs and potential to result in a level of care much lower than the current level.  Accepting this option is akin to tacitly accepting that our federal government no longer has any limits and thus, is no longer bound to the contractual restraints placed upon it by the Constitution.

2)  Accept that the battle is over, but focus our efforts on repealing this bill.  Republicans have little chance of retaking the Congress in November, and given their history of supporting big government programs, there is little if any reason to believe that they will seek to implement a health care system based on the principles of freedom.

3)  Take the passage of this bill as a setback and as the loss of a major battle, but regroup and get ready for a major guerrilla offensive.  The centralized approach to fighting this bill should be abandoned for now.  This battle simply cannot be fought on the national level right now.  The answer is for a number of different methods of attacking this plan.

Clearly, I favor option 3.  Under this option, we must urge our State legislators to nullify this and all future health care bills coming from D.C.  We must urge our State to follow the lead of Idaho and sue the federal government (however, we should also realize that it is unreasonable to expect federal courts to curb federal power).  Individuals and groups must follow a similar strategy and file lawsuits against the implementation of this bill.  One good thing about this bill is that many of its provisions do not take effect until 2013 and 2014, giving us plenty of time to try out various strategies

The important thing here is to not rely on only one strategy.  We must favor a decentralized strategy for fighting this bill for the same reason that we must facor a decentralized system of government.  The consequences of failure in a “one size fits all” system are too great.  By fighting a number of separate battles against the bill, we can be sure that the failure of one strategy will not lead to our total failure.  Additionally, the beauty of this strategy is that the success of any one of the single strategies that we are using to fight this bill could result in the death of this bill.

The Constitution was a contract between the States to create a federal government.  In creating the federal government, the Constitution also served as a contract between the States and the federal government.  The Constitution delegated certain powers to the federal government and reserved the remaining powers to the States (and to the individual people).

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution delegated certain powers to the federal government.  The 9th and 10th amendments to that Constitution placed every power not given to the federal government in the hands of the States and the people.

[The 9th Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."]

[The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."]

This is the plain and simple truth.  Anyone who argues that the Constitution must adapt to changing times is ignoring the fact that the Constitution contains the mechanisms for this adaption in the amendment process. Any expanse of federal power that is not covered by the Constitution or by subsequent amendments is a direct violation of the Constitutional contract.  Thus, if the federal government wanted to lawfully implement a national health care system, Congress and the States would need to ratify a Constitutional Amendment granting this power to the federal government.

A contract obviously cannot be expected to enforce itself–Party A must be vigilant to ensure that Party B does not ignore the provisions of the contract and take advantage of Party A.  But, suppose that Party B does take advantage of Party A–what now?

The States as sovereign actors must do their parts to reject the improper violations of the Constitutional contract by the federal government.  This means that State governments must refuse to implement–or to allow the implementation of–this violation of the Constitutional contract by one party.

An illegal law is no law at all.  A law that expressly violates the Constitutional contract is invalid and can be ignored by the States.

37 of the 50 States are considering bills to nullify this health care bill.  That is, these States are refusing to allow the federal usurpation of local power to continue (at least in the area of health care).  Several days ago, Idaho became the first State to sign a bill into law requiring the State’s Attorney General to sue to federal government over this bill.  States like Virginia, Arizona, and Utah have also passed nullification bills and are only awaiting the signature of their governor.  Many of these States are considering laws that would lead to the imprisonment of any federal official attempting to enforce any law which is not explicitly authorized under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

There has been a long history of nullification to prevent the federal government from implementing unconstitutional or unjust violations of the Constitutional contract.  This history has included but is not limited to the following:  attempts by Northern States to nullify the propsed military draft in the War of 1812 and actions by Maryland and Wisconsin to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act (and to charge anyone who took an escaped slave back into captivity with the crime of kidnapping).

More recent examples of nullification include (but are certainly not limited to) the nullification of the REAL ID Act by 25 States (effectively blocking the federal government from implementing a national identification card) and the nullification of federal marijuana laws by thirteen States.

We can and must apply these same principles to this unwanted health care bill.  Many people have taken time in the last year plus to contact their Congressmen and Senators to tell them to vote against national health care.  This approach has failed, but the fight is far from over.  We can win this fight!

We need to put the pressure on our State officials to consider nullifying this and all other unconstitutional violations of our rights.  Please take some time this week to contact your State representatives to tell them to support nullifying this and any other federal health care bills.

Just as in any contract, one side could not grant himself the right to edit the terms of the contract and do as he pleased, the federal government cannot ignore the terms of the Constitutional contract and do as it pleases.  The States must do all that they can to prevent any further violations of the Constitutional contract by the federal government.

Nullifying unconstitutional laws will show the federal government that the States are serious upholding the Constitutional contract and its balance of power.  The federal government will be less likely to pass unlawful laws if they know that these laws will not be enforced on the State level.

Enough violations of a contract–any contract–by one party eventually render that contract null and void.  If the federal government continues to violate the Constitutional contract and encroach on the domain of the States, the States must reserve the right to peacefully withdraw from the contract and fully control their own affairs.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Economy:

The economy continues to deteriorate under President Obama’s leadership. When President Obama pitched the “stimulus” bill to the skeptical American public, we were told that if this “crucial” bill was not passed soon (ie, before Congress had ample time to read the bill) then the economy would face devastating consequences.  This was of course a well calculated and bold faced LIE.  The fact of the matter is that the majority of the spending in the “urgent stimulus” bill were not going to be spent for over a year.  We were warned by the Administration that failure to pass the bill would cause unemployment to skyrocket and could cause it to reach as high as 9%, but passing the bill would keep unemployment from raising above 8% (see this chart put out by the Obama Administration to urge support for the “stimulus”).  So, we passed the bill and despite (or because of) this, the official unemployment rate surged past 9% and currently sits at 10%.  Of course, the 10% figure is a lie as well.  Previous administrations changed the way that the unemployment rate was measured in order to disguise how bad things really were.  This U-6 unemployment figure is still reported by the government, however, the government now uses U-3 as the official unemployment number.  While U-3 unemployment is 10%, U-6 unemployment is 17.3%.  This figure was 13.5% one year ago.  Simply put, things are bad.  But, government data collection is shady and should not be trusted as definitive.  Shadow Government Statistics, a private data collection/analysis website places unemployment at over 22%!

Ben Bernanke failed to see the impending collapse even shortly before the economy tanked.  While a candidate for President, Mr. Obama repeatedly criticized the economic policies of the Bush Administration.  By choosing to reappoint Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, President Obama was giving his tacit approval to the policies of the Bush Administration.

The administration has also increased the national debt to dangerous levels.  The US is now in serious risk of having its credit rating downgraded.  Any hopes of an economic recovery would be shattered if this were to happen.

Foreign Policy:

Candidate Obama repeatedly attacked the Bush Administration on three fronts: the economy, the wars, and foreign relations.  President Obama has failed to correct the errors of the Bush Administration on any of these areas.  As mentioned above, President Obama has continued the “stimulus” and bailout policies initiated by President Bush.  His reappointment of President Bush’s Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke confirms the fact that President Obama’s economic policies are not notably different than those of President Bush.

The second area where candidate Obama frequently attacked the Bush Administration was his handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Mr. Obama criticized President Bush’s Iraqi surge, falsely claiming that it was not a success.  If I were a candidate who ran on a platform of change and who repeatedly criticized the previous administration’s military policies, I surely would not have allowed the previous President’s Defense Secretary to continue serving.  Furthermore, if I had attacked the former President’s Iraqi surge strategy, I would not have employed a similar strategy in Afghanistan.  However, President Obama has done both of these things.  He kept Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his position, and he has sent an additional 68,000 troops to Afghanistan since taking office (many of those troops were sent in the weeks following the President’s claiming of the Nobel Peace Prize).

Candidate Obama promised to have all of the combat troops out of Iraq within 18 months after taking office.  That leaves him less than six months to remove over 100 thousand troops from Iraq.  Id put the chances of this happening right at zero.  More likely, President Obama will declare that the troops in Iraq are no longer combat troops (despite the fact that they will almost surely be engaging in combat).

President Obama missed a historic opportunity to improve relations with Cuba.  Since taking over, Raul Castro has introduced many positive reforms, introducing notions of private property, increasing wages for productive workers, and allowing Cubans to take advantage of certain technologies.  Raul Castro’s Cuba still has a very long way to go, but any movement in the right direction should be seen as positive.  Candidate Obama pledged to improve relations with Cuba.  Instead, President Obama has continued to support the same policies towards Cuba which have failed for the past 48 years.  Of course, this si just one example of this administration’s failed foreign policy.

Candidate Obama pledged to repair our strained relations with foreign nations.  President Obama has failed at this as well.  He has been publicly scolded by Russia’s Putin, Israel’s Netanyahu, France’s Sarkozy, and other allies.  In fact, I would argue that our foreign relations have not noticably improved with a single foreign nation since President Obama’s inauguration.

Agenda:

President Obama has almost completely failed in his efforts to push his agenda during his first year.

Remember, this President was the candidate who vigorously campaigned on a platform of “change.”  There have been few noticeable changes in the previous year.

With sizable majorities in Congress and a public eager for change, President Obama should have had a relatively easy time pushing through at least some major parts of his agenda.  The only major bill that President Obama was able to push through Congress during his first year in office was the “stimulus bill.”  This was a bill which was passed by using intimidation, threats, fuzzy math, erroneous estimates, and down right lies.  The “stimulus” bill was a costly mistake that did little if anything to stimulate the economy but will cost taxpayers around $1 trillion when the time comes to repay the costs of financing this bill.

Congressional Democrats pushed various health care reform bills for well over 6 months.  During this time, President Obama showed almost zero leadership on this issue, basically promising to sign any bill that came out of Congress.

Had President Obama taken a leadership role and urged Congress to pass a series of smaller health care reforms instead of trying to push a sweeping bill down the throats of an adamantly opposed American public, he could have signed several of these reforms months ago and moved onto other pressing issues.  Instead, Democrats wasted the better part of a year, alienated a large portion of American voters, and came up empty handed.  Democrats might now adopt the strategy of pushing through smaller, incremental reforms, although it could even be too late for that approach.

Opponents of government controlled health care can thank President Obama’s complete lack of management abilities for preventing the nationalization of health care that seemed to be a foregone conclusion several months ago.

The President’s inability to lead has also prevented the passing of cap and trade and several other government intrusions into the lives of individuals.  He has placed his coalition in danger time after time, and now seriously risks losing the House of Representatives in November.  Things also look increasingly likely that the Senate may be in play in November as well.  More ont his in a future article, but it is beginning to look very likely that Democrats will lose President Obama’s former Senate seat, Vice President Biden’s former Senate seat, Harry Reid’s Seat, and possibly Hillary Clinton’s seat.  This would have been unthinkable only one year ago, but then again so would a Republican winning Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat.  President Obama has alienated Democratic voters to a degree that even the most optimistic Republican would have thought to be impossible a year ago.

President Obama should follow the lead of Domino’s Pizza: soak in and address the valid criticisms, revamp his “product,” and use his rhetorical skills to sell his new image to the public.  Failure to do so can only lead to a changing of the guard in the 2012 Presidential election.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

One thing I have not written much about is the legality of passing this type of health care reform.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  No matter how much we all want a new law, regulation, or program, this new law, regulation, or program is illegal if not authorized by the Constitution.  The rule of law is the idea that leaders and government officials must follow the law just as common people must follow the law.  If our leaders violate the Constitution while pursuing reforms. they are violating the rule of law.

Although a majority (or at least a plurality) of Americans have opposed the Democrats’ health care plan in EVERY SINGLE POLL on the issue for over a month now, a bill has passed the House of Representatives and a similar bill will almost certainly pass the Senate this Thursday.  However, the popularity or unpopularity of a law has no bearing on its Constitutionality.

The first problem with this bill is the “insurance mandate.”  If this bill is enacted into law, all Americans who can afford to purchase health insurance but fail to do so are subject to a fine of $750.  Failure to pay this fine will lead to a prison sentence.  One obvious question here is why, if health insurance is so good and vital do people have to be threatened with jail time for not purchasing it? More troubling than this question is the legal basis for imposing such a mandate on Americans.

There is no historical precedent for this type of mandate.  A similar insurance mandate was considered in a 1994 health care bill which prompted CBO analysts to write: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

More importantly though, there is not a Constitutional precedent for an insurance mandate.  Read the entire Constitution as many times as you like: you will find nothing in the document which grants the government the right to force citizens to purchase a privately produced product.  Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the “enumerated powers” of Congress.  There is absolutely no mention of anything even remotely relating to a) the right of Congress to enact laws regarding health care b) the right of Congress to force Americans to buy a product from a private company under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

Liberals will likely argue that Congress does have the power to enact this type of mandate (and this health care bill as a whole) by citing three clauses within Article 1, Section 8: the “general welfare clause,” the “commerce clause,” and the “necessary and proper clause.”  Here is why they are wrong on all three points.

The “general welfare” clause of the Constitution reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”

Liberals see the phrase “general Welfare of the United States” to mean that Congress has the right to provide for the good and welfare of citizens of the United States.  This is an incorrect and dangerous view of the Constitution.  The Constitution was written to create a new federal government by mutual consent of independent States.  Thus, the name United States meant just that–States which were united as partners in a common government.

The meaning of this clause in the Constitution therefore means that Congress has the power to provide for the “general welfare of the States.”  By no means does this clause imply that Congress has the right to provide for the “general welfare of all American citizens.”  Such a power was neither written, nor implied in this clause.

But dont take my word for it.  The “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison agreed with my sentiments when he said:

“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.”

The “commerce clause” of the Constitution reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  The interpretation of this clause has been widened greatly over the years, helping nationalists as well as socialists consolidate power on the federal level.  However, even given the wide interpretation of this clause, Congress lacks the power to nationally mandate health care.

I (as well as many others) previously advocated allowing consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines.  The reasoning here was that allowing a national insurance market to emerge would increase competition and lead to more insurance carriers, lower costs, and better products (as it has done in many other industries).  However, Congress long ago prohibited the slae of insurance plans across state lines.

This measure is one of the primary reasons why health care costs are out of control, making it one of the primary reasons why the system is broken, in turn making it one of the primary reasons why the Democrats are attempting to nationalize health care.

However, this measure is also a major reason why it is unconstitutional for Congress to nationalize health care.  Yes, Congress does have the right to regulate commerce between the states.  However, Congress has no power whatsoever to regulate commerce within an individual state.  By refusing to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines, Congress has lost any legal right it would have to regulate health care.

Thus, Congress has created a sort of legal “catch-22.”

Perhaps the most common excuse that big government proponents use to enact statist policies is the “necessary and proper clause” of the Constitution.  The “necessary and proper clause” reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have power…  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Liberals (and conservatives when it is convenient for them) tend to stop paying attention to this clause after the word “proper” and interpret it to mean that Congress has the power to do as it wishes, as long as the measure is both necessary and proper.  This is not true.  As clearly stated above, Congress can only [legally] pass laws which are necessary and proper to executing the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

But, even if this clause does allow Congress to pass any law that is both “necessary and proper,” the insurance mandate is still an unconstitutional violation of this clause.  For a law to meet the qualifications in the above clause, the law would have to be both “necessary,” and “proper.”

The fact of the matter is that this mandate is not “necessary.”  Many people are uninsured by choice.  They have the means to purchase insurance but for whatever reason choose not to.  I wrote about this more extensively here.  But here are a few quotes:

“A lot of other people are also voluntarily uninsured.  For example, about 9 million people (more than one in five of the uninsured) are eligible for employer insurance and decline to enroll even though the employer share of the premium is usually nominal.”

“The largest increase in the number of uninsured in recent years has occurred among higher-income families.”

“Further, over the past decade, the number of uninsured increased by 54% in households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 and by 130% among households earning $75,000 or more.  By contrast, in households earning less than $50,000 the number of uninsured decreased approximately 3%.”

What the above quotes indicate is that many people who do have the financial ability to purchase health care coverage decline to do so.  These people would prefer to use their money to purchase other items, or to save.  For these people, it is NOT necessary that they have health insurance.

Two further reasons why this bill is unconstitutional are found in the Constitution in Article I, Section 9.

One clause in Section 9 reads as follows:

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” A bill of attainder is a law which targets a specific group of people.  Requiring individuals to purchase health insurance under penalty of fine or imprisonment violates this prohibition by directly targeting those who choose not to purchase insurance.

I spoke with Dr. Robert Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, and the legal scholar behind the D.C. v. Heller case.  I asked Dr. Levy if the proposed individual mandate constitutes a violation of the Constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder.  His response is below (all emphasis added by me):

“As you correctly note, Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution forbids the federal government from enacting bills of attainder – broadly defined as legislative acts, civil or criminal, that inflict punishment without a judicial trial.  The most egregious bills of attainder designate by name the parties to be punished.  But the Supreme Court has also invalidated legislation where the names are omitted, yet could be ascertained without great difficulty. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) (federal crime for member of Communist party to serve as officer of labor union).

Legislative bodies are supposed to enact general rules, broadly applicable, that grant rights, impose obligations, or prohibit acts.  The judiciary then decides whether specific persons are entitled to a right or bound by an obligation or prohibition.  In carrying out their function, courts have to follow prescribed procedures — e.g., jury trials and rules of evidence — that are not applicable to legislatures. That’s why the Bill of Attainder Clause was included in the Constitution — to prevent legislatures from punishing identifiable persons or groups without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves.

For the Bill of Attainder Clause to be successfully invoked, a court would have to conclude that it was the legislature’s intent to punish rather than to regulate for a legitimate political purpose.  In my view, the prospects for a successful bill of attainder challenge to the insurance mandate are negligible – but only because the Supreme Court is less attentive than you and I to the Constitution.“

Besides the insurance mandate, this bill fails on several other Constitutional grounds.  The 10th Amendment reads as follows: 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This expressly means that all powers not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution belong to the states or the people.  Thus, because health care is not mentioned in the Constitution, this power belongs to individual states.

While this provision would allow states to create their own state run health acre plans, it would not allow states to require insurance mandates, nor would it allow them to ban the provision of private health insurance.  According to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, “No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The prohibition on laws impairing the obligation of contracts means that no state can interfere with the rights of citizens to enter into private contracts with insurance providers (or with any other business).

Finally, as mentioned above Congress has already declared that health insurance is not classified as interstate commerce.  Remember that by denying insurance providers the right to sell insurance across state lines, they have made health care an intrastate issue, rather than an interstate issue.  Congress simply does not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how badly liberals want this bill to pass, it is unconstitutional.  Congress does not have the legal power to enact this law.

I hate to even bring this up, but there is one way that the Democrats could pass a bill of this magnitude legally; they would need to amend the Constitution to grant Congress the right to provide health care.

Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. has proposed such an amendment.  While I would oppose the ratification of this amendment, its ratification would at least lay the legal grounds under which the government could provide health care.  Until such an amendment passes, the federal government’s legislation regarding health care is in direct violation of the Constitution, and as such, should be ignored or nullified by the States.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

“I totally disagree with # 2. There is no way to control the quality of medical education in every country around the world. This would also completely flood the market with medical practitioners and drastically reduce doctors salaries which I am totally against. I don’t think reducing medical practitioners salaries is the right way to go. Why would anyone do 9 years of med school and residency and be on call all hours of the night if they were making less than they are now?? And on that note, would you want a surgeon trained somewhere you’ve never heard of in Tanzania cutting into you.. even if he charges 1/5 the price of an American?”

Here is my response:

John,

Thanks for the comment.

There is a very simple way to “control [for] the quality of medical education in every country around the world.”  This plan is completely workable if you force foreign doctors to take the same medical licensing exams that American doctors have to take.  This way, whether the doctor was from Canada, Tanzania, or somewhere Ive never heard of, he or she would have to be held to the same standards that all American doctors would.

As far as “drastically reduc[ing] doctors salaries,”  that wouldnt be the case either.  Remember, that part one of my plan would end all income taxes on doctors.  Given that the average doctor finds himself in the highest tax bracket, this would actually result in a massive increase in pay.  [Furthermore, it would save the doctor time, allowing him or her to relax or work more instead of having to figure out their taxes.]  When talking about reducing doctors’ pay, I think you are also forgetting the demand side of this equation.  The simple fact is that demand for medical care is rapidly rising.  A big part of this is because baby boomers are getting older and are requiring more care.  Allowing more doctors into America will result in better care for more Americans at a lower rate.  Yet, ending income taxes for doctors allows them to keep more money while charging less for services–a win-win situation.

Additionally, if we could ensure that doctors from foreign countries were held to the same standards as American trained doctors the cost of medical school might actually decrease.  Think about it–if you knew for a fact that medical schools in Asia, Europe, South America, or elsewhere were significantly cheaper, and you were able to go online and find the pass rates for student from these schools, you as an American might be more willing to attend one of these less expensive schools.

To sum up:  the goal is to increase supply without decreasing pay or quality.  That is why allowing foreign doctors into the country must be done while holding them accountable to the same medical standards as American trained doctors.  That is also why this must be accompanied by an end to taxes for doctors.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Rand Paul, the son of Congressman Ron Paul has decided to run for Senator Bunning’s seat.

Rand Paul is not just a son of a Congressman following in his father’s footsteps.  He has been very involved in Kentucky politics for the last 15 years.  He founded a group called Kentucky Taxpayers United in 1994 and has run the organization ever since.  Under Rand Paul’s leadership, this organization has become very influential in influencing State legislators to push for lower taxes.  Rand Paul is a strong supporter of Austrian Economics as well.

Rand Paul is also a successful doctor, and understands the health care issue very, very well:

Dr. Paul’s supporters are holding a moneybomb for his campaign tomorrow.  The recent moneybomb for Peter Schiff was successful–he raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single day.  Tomorrow, Dr. Paul’s supporters are hoping that his moneybomb can raise over $1 million–becoming the first Senate campaign to raise $1 million in a single day.  We can make this happen, but only if those who favor free markets are willing to invest a little money.  A small donation–even $10 will help Dr. Paul win what is sure to be an expensive primary battle.

For more information–or to donate, please visit either the official site of the moneybomb, or Dr. Paul’s official campaign page.  The moneybomb page has plenty more YouTube clips of Dr. Paul speaking.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

This cry is sounded repeatedly by those who are demanding some type of health care reform from President Obama.

Its hard to argue with their logic.  After all, health care costs are soaring and [according to some] there are nearly 50 million Americans lacking health insurance (although they are not without health care itself). Insurance premiums are rising faster than income, and Medicare will run out of money in 2019, potentially leaving millions of retirees without coverage, or causing taxes or government borrowing to rise rapidly.

I agree that something needs to be done.  However, I disagree about what exactly should be done.  Even the proponents of the Congressional plan agree that it is far from perfect, but they continue to repeat the mantra that “we have to do something.”

Well, we do have to do something, right?

The American people arent so sure.  According to a new Rasmussen poll, 54% of American voters–a larger majority than the percentage of Americans who voted for President Obama–believe that passing no health care reform would be a better option than passing the plan currently before Congress.  Only 35% say that the current bill would be better than “doing nothing.”

And it is now being reported that the President has dropped his demand for a “public option.”  If this is true, it could leave behind an expensive bill that does little to change the current system.

This plan is being pushed through Congress at a rapid pace.  President Obama has set artificial deadlines for when he wants legislation on his desk, yet health care reform is a massively complex issue that a new administration shouldnt reasonably expect to tackle in such a short time.  How this Nation to decide on a complex long term health care reform plan in only a matter of weeks?

I am one of the 54% of American voters who prefers “doing nothing” over passing the current plan.  However, that doesnt mean I favor doing nothing in general.  Here are some of my ideas for health care reform:

1)  End (or significantly reduce) income taxes for individuals working as medical doctors, nurses, medical practitioners, etc.

Doing this could dramatically lower the costs of medical care.  Ending or cutting income taxes for medical workers will essentially allow them to earn the same amount of money for charging less for their services.  This would also encourage those considering becoming nurses or medical staff to return to school and become certified in their fields, as well as encourage older medical workers to work for several more years (if they are able to keep more of their earnings, they could be more willing to work longer).  While this could add to the National debt if spending is not cut, the Nation would save a considerable amount of money in added health care costs.  And of course, I would support this plan only if it included spending cuts to balance out the lost revenues.

2)  End (or significantly reduce) immigration restrictions for individuals working as medical doctors, nurses, medical practitioners, etc.

Ultimately, costs in any industry, including health care, are dependent on supply and demand.  Any doctor, nurse, x-ray technician, etc. who is able to speak English should be offered instant American citizenship.  There are large numbers of such people all over the world who are interested in becoming American citizens, but who are unable to do so because of current immigration laws.

3)  Allow insurance companies to sell plans across State lines.

Federal law currently prevents insurance companies from selling plans across State lines.  This is just plain illogical.  This leads to inefficiencies and increased costs for both the business and the consumer.  Imagine if cell phone companies had to comply with similar restrictions–a company like Verizon would be prevented from having a National plan, they would have to have a different plan and pricing scheme for each State and D.C, and the cell phone user’s costs would be higher as a result.  The same is true for health insurance.  Allowing insurance companies to sell plans across State lines would essentially create a National insurance market where customers could go online to a site like e-healthinsurance.com and select a plan from companies headquartered anywhere in the Nation.  Taking this step would also allow insurance companies to cut unnecessary staff–potentially passing savings on to consumers.  There is no reason for a company like Blue Cross to have to have 51 different organizations to create and price different insurance plans.

Remember that just because we “have to do something” does not mean that we should have to do “anything.”  There are good as well as bad reforms, just as there are good and bad treatments for any disease.  A doctor with a seriously ill patient should look at all the options and diagnose the patient carefully and as accurately as possible before treating the patient.  Treating the patient before diagnosing him and reviewing all of the options could be catastrophic.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

So, I decided to send them the following email:

To whom it may concern,

I recently saw a nasty rumor about the health care bill on the internet.  According to this terrible misinformation, the health care bill will add $1 trillion to the National debt between 2010 and 2019 and will still leave 16-17 million people without health insurance!

This awful propaganda can be found here.

Yours in Liberty,

Phred Barnet
404-202-1360

——————————————
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

For the record, the link was a link to the CBO’s analysis of the health care bill which contains the following text  “According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.”

Yeah, Im a smart ass, but this is a very weird thing for the White House to be doing.  Its definitely improper, and may also be illegal.

I recommend sending the White House your own smart ass email.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

In an effort to both stimulate the economy and aid the environment, Congress and the Obama Administration enacted a $1,000,000,000 [$1 billion] which allowed people to trade in old cars with low gas mileage and receive a discount of up to $4,500 on new cars with high gas mileage.

Because protecting the environment was one of the goals of this program (and to protect against fraud), dealers were required to pour a solution into the engine of the car that was traded in which permanently disables the car.  The car is permanently taken off the road and is recycled.

Sounds good, right?  Not quite.

Who buys new cars?  People with money, of course.  The rest of the driving population buys their cars used from people who feel the need to buy a new car every few years.  By disabling used cars, the government is permanently removing their supply from the market.  Doing so prevents lower and middle class Americans from buying that vehicle, and has the net effect of raising the prices for used cars.

Someone who is still driving the 1995 Cadillac DeVille that they bought from their neighbor 7 years ago probably isnt very likely to go out and buy a 2010 Honda Accord, even under this program.  But, they would be much more likely to purchase the 2003 model DeVille that their neighbor bought after selling the 1995 DeVille 7 years ago.

But, rather than allowing the market to work in this fashion, the “Cash for Clunkers” program removes the 2003 DeVille–a perfectly good car–from the market and makes it tougher for the person still driving the 1995 DeVille to find a used car that fits his budget.

My personal opinion was that one of the reasons that this bill was passed was to protect the United States’ “investments” in [read:  theft of] General Motors and Chrysler.  It is clear to all that Congress and the Administration intended for this program to stimulate the economy and help the environment.  But I also believe that the government wanted to use this program to inflate the revenues at GM and Chrysler to make the American people less uneasy about the bailouts of those firms.  Think about it.  If you had just made a hugely unpopular move like taking over two iconic American automakers, you would do anything possible to convince the public that it was a good decision.  This includes funneling money to those companies to make their revenues look good.

My guess is that this program will actually hurt GM and Chrysler as compared to their competitors, namely Ford.  Why?  Well for one, a new Rasmussen poll found that 66% of Americans have at least “a somewhat favorable opinion of Ford.“  The same poll found that “General Motors is viewed favorably by 38%… and unfavorably by 56%”  It also found that 34% have at least somewhat favorable opinion of Chrysler “while 55% see the company unfavorably.”  The American people are angry at the other two companies for taking taxpayer funds, and Ford is now perceived as the only American automaker that isnt owned by the government.

They also make much better cars now than they used to.  I love my 2007 Ford Fusion.

In another poll that was published on the same day, Rasmussen also found that 46%of Americans are more likely to buy a Ford because they did not take a government bailout (13% said they were less likely and 37% said it didnt make a difference).  41% OF Americans also believe that quality of GM’s cars will get worse now that the government owns the company, while only 19% think it will get better.

[Investors like me know this.  For the sake of disclosure now that the FTC has announced that it is going after bloggers, I am a proud stockholder of Ford Motor Company and have seen the stock rise by about 18% in the last week.  Still, I am 100% opposed to this program.]

Additionally, the government’s intention was to get people to purchase cars with much better fuel efficiency and the new Ford Fusion Hybrid gets 41 MPG and was rated higher than the Toyota Camry Hybrid, making it an attractive choice for anyone who decides to trade in their clunker.

If the intention was to increase the revenues at GM and Chrysler, this program will backfire, as do most government programs.  My prediction is that the market shares of Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia will rise at the expense of GM and Chrysler.

This program also raises further questions about the competency of the government.  Love or hate this program, it was administered poorly.  No, this doesnt “prove that government cant run our health care system.”  It should, however raise at least some concern about the capability of government to administer programs.  It should also serve as a warning that when the government offers people a massive discount to use a service, people will take advantage of it (people respond to incentives).  The government and taxpayers should at least use the example of this program to think about what the effects of what will be perceived by many to be free health care will have on an already strained system.

This program should remind us to be weary of government estimates.  The $1,000,000,000 [$1 billion] allotted for this program was expected to last at least until the program’s anticipated end date of November 1st.  Instead of lasting for 4 months as estimated, it lasted less than one month before it exhausted its funding.  If the government was this wrong–way wrong–on estimates for its costs of giving out coupons for discounts on cars, can you imagine how far off could its estimates of the costs of administering a $1,000,000,000,000 [$1 trillion] “free” health care program be?

Its worth thinking about.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

I spent about two weeks using sites like ehealthinsurance.com comparing literally hundreds of plans with all kinds of different features until I found the one that suited me best.

I selected an HSA from Kaiser Permanente.  An HSA (Health Savings Account) is similar to an IRA, but for health care savings rather than for retirement.  A person enrolled in a HSA is allowed to contribute up to $3000 tax free each year to their account.

Under Federal law, these HSA’s must be paired with a HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan).  For example, my plan has a $1200 deductible, but everything after that is covered 100% by Kaiser.

I love my plan.

The point of having the high deductible plan is to encourage patients to keep their health care costs down.  If a customer knows that they have to spend the first $1200 of their health care expenses out of pocket, they are more likely to avoid unnecessary health care expenses.  Conversely, a health emergency is extremely unlikely to lead to major financial distress, as the maximum out of pocket expenditures are only $1200.

I mentioned above that an HSA is similar to an IRA and that I am legally allowed to contribute $3000 tax free to my account each year.  This allows individuals to save money for their future health care expenses.  For example, if I deposit the maximum of $3000, but only spend $1500, including all medical bills and over the counter and prescription drugs, I am left with a surplus of $1500 in my account.  This money can be kept in an interest bearing savings account, invested in a money market, or invested in the stock market.

This type of plan obviously doesnt suit everyone, but it is a great plan for people like me:  young, relatively healthy people with minimal health care costs.  Because I enrolled in this plan while young and healthy, I can use the unspent funds remaining in my account to save for when I am a sick old man with high health care costs.

In fact, while insurance premiums were expected to rise around 8% this year, my premium actually dropped by 3.6%!  It dropped because I kept costs for both me and my insurance company under control.

As I said above, I am an informed consumer who spent quite a long time comparing plans until I found the plan that I felt was best for me.  This plan has some great features, encourages saving and allows me to contribute money on a pre-tax basis.  It has also resulted in my premiums actually going down in a time when most people are seeing rather large increases.

My plan is great as it is, but if the government wanted to make health care more affordable, they would remove contribution limits on HSA’s, allowing consumers to place much more money in these plans.  They could also allow users of any health plan to enroll in an HSA, rather than limiting HSA’s only to those with high deductible plans.  Making these reforms would lead to lower costs for many Americans, and would create an incentive for the young and healthy to save money for the future when they face declining health.

Sadly, the Democrats’ health care plans will outlaw my health insurance plan.

I dont even understand why anyone would want to outlaw this plan–it really is great– but there seems to be a lot of things that I dont understand these days.  Are these Congressmen so conceited that they actually believe that they are capable of making a better decision about my own life than am I?  None of these people have ever met me.  None of them can possibly understand my health care needs better than I do.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Tomorrow morning we will all wake up in a world where everyone is covered with some form of medical insurance, including the approximately 50 million Americans currently without health coverage. Yet, the number of doctors, nurses, and medical staff will be the same tomorrow as it is today. Likewise, there will be the same number of hospitals, doctors’ offices, and medical care facilities as there is today.

It is worth remembering that our medical professionals are already strained, waiting rooms are crowded, emergency rooms are already plagued by long waiting times, and it often takes days to get an appointment to see a doctor.

Giving an additional 50 million Americans immediate access to the same number of medical professionals and facilities will flood our health care facilities and doctors with new patients, putting further strain on an already strained system. The result will be longer waits, more crowded doctors’ offices and hospitals, and a general decrease in the level of care.

Increasing the number of Americans with health care is a noble goal and is being pursued with the greatest of intentions. But as it is said, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. There is no way around the fact that adding an additional 50 million people to the health care system will decrease the level of service being offered.

The current health care bill will succeed in giving more people health care, however it will result in much worse care for the over 80% of Americans who are currently covered.

This is an excellent example of the law of supply and demand. No matter what is done about health care, tomorrow’s supply of health care –the number of doctors, medical facilities, etc. – will be the same as today. Yet, implementing a nationalized health care system requires that tomorrow’s demand for health care increases dramatically. A sudden increase in demand without an increase in supply always leads to a shortage of the product in question.

In the free market, a shortage of goods causes prices for that good to increase to a level where those who cannot afford them are ‘crowded out’ of the market. The profit earned by the producers of the good encourages additional producers to enter the market. This creates an increase in supply and drops the price of the goods for all consumers. Under the President’s plan, however, demand will be raised without an increase in supply, whereby the government will be forced to allocate health care. When government bureaucrats make decisions on how goods and services should be allocated, rationing occurs.

Under the new government run health care system, the government will need to take measures to “keep costs low” in an effort to save American citizens money and prevent negative political fallout. While this also seems like a noble goal, the consequences will be devastating. Government mandated cost cutting measures also necessarily mean less profit for those who operate medical facilities.

Taking away the profit motive, will result in fewer people being willing to take risks and opening new medical facilities. Medical supply companies will be less willing to produce life saving medical devices, and the benefits of taking a medical education will diminish. The loss of profit motive will result in fewer services being shared among more consumers. This will lead to further rationing, rather than allowing market forces to make corrections.

Even the best of intentions can’t change facts. If Americans want to continue to have a decent health care system without government rationing, they must oppose universal health care coverage.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook