I was recently interviewed by Walter Hudson for his the Fightin Words Podcast. I spoke with him mostly about the Audit the Fed bill, but we also touched on health care. I hope this is the first of many interviews for me on the Audit the Fed bill.
Its a very interesting podcast and he hits on the health care debate from a different perspective than I usually do. My interview starts at around 16:35.
President Obama announced today that he will nominate Ben Bernanke to serve as Chairman of the Federal Reserve for a second term. This is a huge mistake.
Ben Bernanke started as Chairman of the Federal Reserve on February 1, 2006–about two years before the economic crisis fully blossomed. While his policies are not responsible for the onset of the crisis, they have done little to help the situation. Chairman Bernanke has consistently been wrong about his assessments of the economy since he began his tenure:
I think that nominating Ben Bernanke for a second term is a careless move on President Obama’s part. For one, the man ran on a platform of “change.” He hit the Republicans and President Bush particulary hard on two main issues–the administrations handling of the war(s) and the administration’s handling on the economy.
And yet, in his first year of office, President Obama has continued to allow President Bush’s Secretary of Defense to serve, as well as allowing President Bush’s choice for Federal Reserve Chairman to stay on. Selecting a new Federal Reserve Chairman would have been a great opportunity for the President to reinforce his message of “change.” He could have dumped Chairman Bernanke and blamed President Bush for the economic crisis in the process. By renominating Chairman Bernanke, President Obama has taken ownership of the economy, and tacitly accepted President Bush’s decisions with regard to the crisis.
This will be one of the moments that will come back and bite President Obama in the 2012 Presidential elections.
Unless you have been living under a rock, you have probably heard that NFL star Plaxico Burress has been sentenced to two years in prison for “criminal possession of a weapon” and “reckless endangerment.” Plaxico had a gun in the waistline of his pants at a nightclub, it slipped, and as he went to grab it, the gun went off, shooting him in the leg in the process–yet injuring no one else. And now he is going to jail for two years.
Forget for a second that the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Plaxico Burress is famous football player with no history of major criminal actions. It is pretty safe to assume that Mr. Burress was carrying the gun to protect himself prom any possible threats, rather than with the intent of committing a crime.
The man shot himself in the leg. No one else was injured. The fact that the presence of the gun “could have” resulted in injury to someone else is irrelevant. The truth of the matter is that no one except for Plaxico Burress was injured.
Anyone, whether they are a celebrity like Plaxico or a “regular Joe” has the right to defend themselves. The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the right to self defense is a natural and inalienable right of man. This idea comes to me directly from the works of John Locke.
A law that violates the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, as well as “natural law” is an unjust law.
Plaxico will be going to prison with rapists and murderers for the next two years as a result of New York’s unjust “law” concerning guns. His young son will be left without a father for the next two years because the city of New York rejects the right of a man to defend himself.
As I said above, Plaxico was almost certainly carrying this weapon as a defensive measure to use only in case of a hostile threat. Sentencing a productive, non-violent member of society for two years for this offense is an affront to justice, as well as an affront to the Constitution of the United States of America.
I received the following comment from my friend John who recently started medical school. The comment was posted on my Not Doing Nothing About Health Care post.
“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.
Jim Bunning, the current Senator from Kentucky has decided not to run for reelection in 2010, leaving an open field in both the Democratic and Republican primaries.
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.
