The Objective Standard Blog
The Objective Standard Blog: August 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
John David Lewis Interviewed on KOGO, August 31
Monday August 31, at 7:30 p.m. PST (10:30 EST) John David Lewis will be on KOGO radio (San Diego) discussing why Obama has ignited nationwide protests. The show can be heard online at www.kogo.com (click “Listen Live”).
Labels: Announcements, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Dire Message of Mr. David Walker
A person who is in the pay of the government is not always free to speak publicly about the most pressing issues he confronts. Administrators who are appointed to perform specific tasks are generally not free to contradict or even to challenge policies. They often cannot advocate for specific proposals, even if they think that such proposals will be needed to prevent catastrophe.
When Dr. Alan Carlin, a federal Environmental Protection Agency official, wrote a report in March, 2009 that criticized the EPA’s process of formulating regulations, the report was squashed both internally and publicly. Emails from EPA officials state that “a very negative impact on our office” made use of the report impossible. To protect the bureaucracy, Dr. Carlin was told to cease his criticisms.
Such officials must often make a choice: to remain silent and keep their jobs, or to resign and speak the truth. Faced with this dilemma, on March 12, 2008, David Walker chose to resign.
David Walker is the former Comptroller General of the United States, and former head of the Government Accountability Office. As the nation’s chief accountant he was appointed by President Clinton. He resigned near the end of George W. Bush’s second term. He had no authority to decide how a single penny of government funds should be collected or distributed. His job was to count those funds.
Mr. Walker’s enormous range of mind extends far beyond a single budget year. His long-range perspective allows him to project fiscal trends decades into the future, and to assess, through simulations, the impacts of policy decisions beyond their immediate effects. He truly understands the economic maxim, promoted by Henry Hazlitt, to look beyond the visible effects of any given policy and to consider its unseen consequences.
When Walker plotted these trends, and considered demographics among many other factors, what he found was “chilling.” If fundamental reforms are not begun now, he concluded, the United States will experience a financial and political collapse comparable to the fall of Rome.
In a presentation to the National Press Foundation, January 17, 2008, Mr. Walker brought forth the following facts and projections:
- From 1966 to 2006, the percentage of federal funds spent on Medicare rose from 1% to 19%. This trend will grow exponentially as millions of “baby boomers” enter the entitlement pool.
- For the same period, spending for mandated government commitments rose from 26% to 53% of the total budget. The budget is increasingly out of the control of government officials.
- As of 2007, Medicare is running in arrears. In 2017 Social Security will be in deficit. By the year 2040, Medicare and Social Security alone will be running annual deficits of nearly 900 billion dollars.
- Medicare spending from now until 2032 will be 235% of economic growth. By 2040, Medicare will be spending about 10% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product annually, and the annual deficits of the United States will total some 20% of the total Gross Domestic Product.
The bottom line is this: mandated fiscal entitlements, projected into the future, are over 52,000 billion dollars. That will equal 90% of all household wealth in the U.S., and will place a burden of over 450 thousand dollars on every household in the land. This is almost ten times the present median household income level.
Mr. Walker concludes that “We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs.” Further, “GAO’s simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60 percent, or raising federal taxes to two times today's level.”
To close the revenue gap through growth, the United States economy would need to expand in the double-digit range for the next seventy-five years. During the boom years of the 1990s, the economy grew at an average rate of 3.2%. Walker concludes, succinctly: “we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem.”
Health care entitlements constitute by far the largest single piece of this economic disaster. Those who think that creating thousands of billions of dollars in new government entitlements—in a health care bill that adds tens of millions of Americans to government programs—will do anything except hasten the coming bankruptcy are out of touch with reality.
Mr. Walker has taken his show on the road, in an attempt to educate Americans about the financial disaster they are creating. He was accompanied by both the Brookings Institute on the left, and the Heritage Foundation on the right. He stresses that this coming financial meltdown is known by everyone in Washington--but no one wants to acknowledge it.
The Rasmussen poll shows that almost twice as many Americans think that cutting the deficit, rather than health care reform, should be the president’s top priority. Another poll shows that twice as many people think that the reform legislation will drive up costs than think it will lower costs. Perhaps these Americans grasp Mr. Walker’s point better than their elected representatives do.
A nation that violates the rights of its citizens cannot, in the long run, escape the consequences of its moral failure. When a nation with the unique strength of the United States does so systematically and over decades, the results must necessarily be catastrophic. The dire economic forecast of David Walker illustrates the connection between the moral and the practical. To regain our economic viability we must regain our moral viability.
Labels: Business and Economics, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Virtual Objectivist Club
Here’s a note from Keith Schacht, who is involved in the start up of a new organization called the Virtual Objectivist Club (OCN).
I helped start the Objectivist Club Network (OCN), an organization dedicated to helping all Objectivist Campus Clubs. OCN is not affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, although we support them and regularly communicate with them to ensure our respective organizations are not duplicating efforts.
Recently we've expanded our efforts to solve a new problem: there are students interested in joining an Objectivist club where no club exists. Some of these students start their own club, but others don't have time to start a club or do not find enough participants on campus to form a club.
We've created the Virtual Objectivist Club (VOC) for these students -- a phone-based discussion group dedicated to the study of Objectivism. Meetings will be weekly, beginning this September, each moderated by an experienced Objectivist. The group is open to any current students who would like to learn more about Objectivism.
My request: Please help spread the word to any students you know who may be interested in learning more about Objectivism. The deadline for applying to the VOC is August 31st. Students can learn more and apply at: http://www.oclubs.org/voc
Please let me know if you have any questions and we greatly appreciate you sharing this with others!
Keith & the OCN Team
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Activism with TOS
American culture is at a critical juncture. Over the next few years, the country will move substantially toward either further violations of individual rights or better protection of individual rights. So I’d like to offer a few suggestions about how you can employ The Objective Standard in the fight for the latter alternative.
TOS, now in its fourth year of publication, is written consistently from an Objectivist perspective, which means it goes consistently to fundamentals, anchoring political arguments in the principle of individual rights and the morality of rational egoism. And TOS stands alone in this regard. No other periodical publishes essays such as “Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis” by Richard M. Salsman, “Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative” by John David Lewis, “The Menace of Pragmatism” by Tara Smith, “Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market” by Alex Epstein, “Deeper Than Kelo: The Roots of the Property Rights Crisis” by Eric Daniels, “Moral Health Care vs. ‘Universal Health Care’” by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, or “The Morality of Moneylending: A Short History” by Yaron Brook.
Importantly, however, articles in TOS presuppose no familiarity with Objectivism; they are written entirely in layman’s terms and are thus accessible to active-minded people in general. This makes TOS a crucial tool for spreading the ideas on which a culture of reason and the politics of freedom depend. The articles are easy to read, easy to comprehend, and anchored in sound philosophic principles. Such articles change minds.
But few people know that TOS exists, and our articles cannot change minds if they are not read. Here is where you can make all the difference. The following are three key ways in which you can help TOS reach a wider audience:
- Let your university, alma mater, or local librarian know about the journal.
TOS is now indexed and abstracted in Columbia International Affairs Online (CIAO), Public Affairs Information Services (PAIS), and Political Science Complete (PSC). Periodicals covered by these indices are more appealing to libraries, so now is a good time to try (or retry) persuading your university, alma mater, or local librarian to subscribe. To inform a librarian about the existence and nature of TOS, please print and hand (or mail or email) him our Library Recommendation Letter, which can be found here. - Purchase PDFs of TOS articles, and distribute them far and wide.
TOS articles are now available in Portable Document Format (PDF) for $4.95 ea. For activism purposes, once you purchase a TOS article in PDF, you are welcome (and encouraged) to email or print and distribute it to as many people as you see fit—friends, relatives, colleagues, politicians, pundits, talk show hosts—anyone who might be moved by rational ideas and logical arguments. The more the merrier! We ask only that you not resell the article nor post it on the internet. PDFs of articles can be purchased here. - Give the journal as a gift.
Nothing changes minds more effectively than a steady stream of clearly written, easy-to-read articles that address current events and cultural issues from a rational, principled perspective. Gift subscriptions can be purchased for individuals or institutions (libraries, doctors’ offices, corporations, etc.), and although institutions themselves pay a higher subscription rate, gifts to institutions are sold at the regular (i.e., individual) rate. Gift subscriptions can also be purchased in packages of 5 at a discount of 15% (the “Standard-Bearer”). For more information or to purchase a gift subscription, click here.
People are looking for answers to today’s cultural and political problems. TOS articles provide principled answers in plain English on a regular basis. Please help us distribute these articles to a wider audience.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Craig Biddle, Editor
The Objective Standard
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
John David Lewis on the Bill LuMaye Show August 27
Thursday, August 27, at 4:00 p.m. (EST), John David Lewis will be interviewed again on the Bill LuMaye Show (WPTF, Raleigh, NC) elaborating why there is no right to health care. The show can be heard online at www.wptf.com (click on “Listen Live”).
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Suppose Car Insurance Was Considered to Be a 'Right'
The major impetus behind the Democratic health care plans is not economic—it is moral. The claim that health care is a moral right has motivated enormous government coercions against the medical industry for nearly fifty years. But this moral claim has blinded people to the fact that huge price increases have necessarily followed the growth of the coercions.
To understand why, it is instructive to consider what would happen if car insurance were considered to be a “right” and the right was enforced by the government.
After the purchase of a home and the ordeal of major surgery, a car is most people’s biggest financial risk. One mistake—or one bad driver—can harm dozens of people. We need insurance, so why should it not be considered a right?
Car insurance is provided by companies that manage their investments in order to absorb financial losses. If insurance is considered to be a “right,” then someone must be force to provide it: either the companies directly, or the citizens through coercive taxation. Either way, the new “right” will be taken by physical force, that is wielded by the state against those who are bound, by law, to provide it.
To enforce this new “right,” the government must take money from some people and give it to others, without regard for the actual risk they pose. As huge amounts of money are pumped into insurance markets, demand increases, and prices rise. Government officials blame the companies, so they pass more controls, thus squeezing the supply. Prices rise further—the law of supply and demand cannot be thwarted.
People want to be protected from greedy repair shops and auto manufacturers. So the companies undergo a ten-year approval process costing millions of dollars for new products. As lawsuits mount, courts enforce claims of strict liability against the companies—who pass the costs on. Price rises accelerate.
As people get used to a “right” to car insurance, they demand more coverage. Oil changes, brake jobs, torn seats and new tires become insurance matters. If insurance is a “right,” then no one should be deprived of these goods because he cannot pay for them. Every visit to the repair shop—big or small, routine or emergency—now involves an insurance claim. Prices escalate.
Male drivers under 25 pay more because they are statistically higher risks—but they resent this inequality. So they assert their “right” to insurance at the same price as older, wiser drivers. Companies spread the costs out across the board—and as good drivers face higher premiums, they demand more coverage. Prices shoot up further.
By this point, no one asks what a repair job will actually cost—they ask only about their “co-pay.” Customers have little incentive to keep costs down. Why bother to change the oil, if the insurance will give you a new engine?
As regulations increase, critics castigate companies who are unwilling to cover pre-existing conditions, such as a fender dented before the car was insured. As paperwork increases, repair shops that once had four mechanics and one secretary now have five secretaries, who spend their days filing claims. Prices rise further—until car insurance becomes a crushing burden.
By this point, the very idea that insurance should be used for catastrophic losses—not routine maintenance—has been lost. A chorus of calls for “reform” demands more government coercion to enforce the “right.” Anyone who suggests reducing the controls is shouted down by those who blame the “free market” for rising costs. By this point, most people have forgotten what a free market is—or that they had no “right” to insurance before someone else produced it—or that there was a time when insurance was not so costly.
This is fiction, of course—but it directly mirrors what has happened in health care. After World War II, companies began to offer employee health insurance because government controls forbid them from paying higher wages. Twenty years later, the “Great Society” lavished billions on programs—and as prices rose, regulation against the producers multiplied. HMOs and a host of other schemes were tried.
Now, bucking under the weight of economic distortions and regulations, the law of supply and demand is wreaking vengeance on those least able to pay. Medicare and Social Security are approaching insolvency, insurance companies are forbidden from selling across state lines or from offering innovative health savings accounts, and the solution offered is—even more programs, with a price tag so large that it that cannot be grasped by the human mind.
To expand government programs is not “reform.” It is an extension of sixty years of government interventions. The government now controls nearly fifty percent of all health care dollars—paid for by skyrocketing prices, taxes and borrowing. The correlation with history, and with the law of supply and demand, is precise and inescapable.
The primary cause of medical price increases is the government coercions. But the cause of the coercions is the idea that health care is a right. Until we understand that nothing is a “right” if others must be forced to provide it, we will continue to swallow the same poison, and we will reap even worse consequences in the future.
John David Lewis
Associate Professor
Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
Labels: Business and Economics, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
John David Lewis on the Tara Servatius Show
John David Lewis will discuss the limitation on review provisions in the health bill HR3200, on the Tara Servatius Show, Thursday, August 20, at 4:30 p.m. (EST). The show can be heard online at http://wbt.com/ (click on "Live Stream").
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, has an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal, in which he outlines several market-oriented changes that would substantially improve the quality of health care in America, multiply consumers’ options, and decrease health-care costs. Among other things, Mackey advocates the following:
- 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 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 tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
What these measures have in common is that they are steps toward respecting the rights of producers and consumers to act on their own judgment for their own sake. This—the recognition of individual rights—is the solution to any deficiencies in health care (as well as all other products and services). And Mr. Mackey is to be commended for grasping this fact and advocating such measures.
The leftists, of course, are spewing sound and fury about Mackey’s call to respect individual rights. They have even called for a boycott of Whole Foods. I will be shopping at Whole Foods more regularly in support of Mackey. I hope you will too.
Labels: Business and Economics, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Friday, August 14, 2009
John David Lewis on BBC Radio August 14
Friday, August 14, at 1:00 p.m. EST, John David Lewis will discuss why there is no right to health care on “World Have Your Say.” The show can be heard online at www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice (click on “Listen Live”).
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, August 13, 2009
John David Lewis on the Bill LuMaye Show August 13
Thursday, August 13, at 4:00 p.m. (EST), John David Lewis will be interviewed on the Bill LuMaye Show (WPTF, Raleigh, NC) about why there is no right to health care. The show can be heard online at www.wptf.com (click on “Listen Live”).
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Craig Biddle on the Doc Thompson Show August 17
Monday, August 17, at 4:05 p.m. (EST), Craig Biddle will be interviewed on the Doc Thompson Show (WRVA, Richmond, VA) about his book Loving Life and Ayn Rand’s morality of selfishness. The show can be heard online at www.wrva.com (click on “Listen Live”).
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Events, Philosophy
John David Lewis on the Brian Wilson Show August 14
Friday, August 14, at 4:30 p.m. (EST), John David Lewis will be interviewed on the Brian Wilson Show (WPSD, Toledo, OH) about why there is no right to health care. The show can be heard online at www.wspd.com (click on “Listen Live”).
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
TOS Contributors on ‘The Big Biz Show’
I am pleased to announce that three members of the newly formed TOS Speakers Bureau, John David Lewis, Richard M. Salsman, and Raymond C. Niles, will be interviewed at separate times in coming days on “The Big Biz Show” (www.bigbizshow.com). Alex Epstein, a TOS contributor and an analyst with the Ayn Rand Center, will be interviewed as well.
“The Big Biz Show,” with Bob “Sully” Sullivan & Russ “T” Nailz, is syndicated via Business Talk Radio Network on 150 AM stations and heard on Internet Sites via BTRN, CBS radio, Chat-About-It, AOL radio, and wsRadio. The show can be heard live online from 1 to 3 p.m. Pacific Time (10–1 EST) at www.businesstalkradio.net (click on “Listen Live”).
The interviews are scheduled as follows:
Thursday, August 13
2:10 PST: Alex Epstein—Defending the Oil Industry
2:40 PST: Richard M. Salsman—Health Care, the Economy, and the California’s Financial Crisis
Monday, August 17
2:10 PST: John David Lewis—How Obama Care will Destroy Private Health Insurance
Tuesday, August 18
2:10 PST: Raymond C. Niles—Property Rights and Crisis of the Electric Grid
Please help promote these events by posting the information to websites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and the like.
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,' Says
What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.
This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissioner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.
This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.
We may answer one question up front: How will the government pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.
(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)
1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?
This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:
(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.
and, under “Definitions”:
(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .
and:
(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.
and:
(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .
(C) the measures of readmissions . . .
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
- This section amends the Social Security Act
- The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
- The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
- This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
- This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
- There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
- The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.
2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:
(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
- This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
- Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
- The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.
3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?
Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:
(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .
(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services . . .
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care . . .
(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .
(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
- The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
- By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.
4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE
(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—
(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.
(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)
The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
- The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
- Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
- The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
- With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
- The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
- With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.
5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?
Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS
SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—
(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
- This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
- Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.
- The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
- Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.
6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
- The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
- The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.
7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?
What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—
(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.
And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:
(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
- This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
- The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
- Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
- Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.
8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?
What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:
(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.
And, page 145, section 312:
(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
- Do nothing and you are in.
- Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.
9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?
What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.
And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.
(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—
(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or
(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
- Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
- Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.
Labels: Business and Economics, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Monday, August 03, 2009
Invitation: Upcoming Ayn Rand Institute Event—The Atlas Shrugged Revolution
While Washington rapidly expands its control over our lives—exacerbating an economic crisis that was caused by government control in the first place—a hopeful countertrend is underway.
Ayn Rand’s classic best-selling novel Atlas Shrugged is flying off bookstore shelves at an unprecedented rate.
Hundreds of thousands of concerned Americans are turning to Atlas Shrugged—and discovering Ayn Rand’s morality of rational egoism and her uncompromising defense of laissez-faire capitalism.
Why is this happening? And what can those of us who uphold reason, individual rights and capitalism do to encourage and support this trend?
For an evening devoted to the discussion of these questions, we invite you to join us in New York City on September 15, 2009, for a special dinner event, The Atlas Shrugged Revolution.
At this benefit dinner event, Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and John Allison, chairman of BB&T Corporation, will discuss why Americans are turning to Rand’s magnum opus—and why the novel’s revolutionary ideas are crucial to the future of freedom in America. You’ll also learn what the Ayn Rand Institute is doing right now to promote even greater public interest in Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
We hope you’ll be able to join us on September 15th for The Atlas Shrugged Revolution!
Sincerely,
Mark Chapman
Vice President of Development
The Ayn Rand Institute
P.S. In addition, a number of rare Ayn Rand books and manuscripts will be auctioned at the event. Images and descriptions of the items are available for viewing on the Web site for this event at www.arievents.com.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Events, Individual Rights and Law, The Arts
Saturday, August 01, 2009
NYT Article on BB&T, John Allison, and Ayn Rand
Andrew Martin has a nice article in today’s New York Times, titled “Give BB&T Liberty, but Not a Bailout.” The piece is, for the most part, positive, and I highly recommend it.
I must point out, however, that the article includes a smear by subjectivist philosopher Brian Leiter, who expresses his wish that Rand is “irrelevant” and that her ideas are “simple-minded in the extreme” and “embarrassing.” Well, I suppose her ideas would be embarrassing to someone such as Leiter, who, in the article, exposes his method for answering such questions as whether or not a given person is a philosopher: Take a poll.
The reason why Rand’s philosophy is not for Leiter & Company is that it is for those who are willing to think for themselves rather than follow the herd, and who are not embarrassed by clear, straightforward arguments, which characterize Rand’s work.
Labels: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Philosophy
Blog Feed
Click the button below to subscribe to our blog's feed.
Get the Feed
Subscribe to the journal for people of reason.
Topics
- Announcements
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism
- Business and Economics
- Education
- Environmentalism
- Events
- Foreign Policy and War
- Healthcare
- History
- Individual Rights and Law
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Religion
- Science and Technology
- The Arts
Blog Archive
- Recent Posts
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
Advertisement
Advertisement
