The Objective Standard Blog

The Objective Standard Blog

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Spring Issue of TOS

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:45 PM

Spring 2010

The print edition of the Spring issue of TOS is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning March 20; and the Kindle edition will be delivered to Kindle subscribers on March 30. For promotional purposes, we are making Steve Simpson’s article “Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America” available on our website early and for free.

The contents of the Spring issue are:

From the Editor

Letters and Replies

ARTICLES 

Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America by Steve Simpson

Government-Run Health Care vs. the Hippocratic Oath
by Paul Hsieh

The Virtue of Treating People Like Animals: Why Human Health Care Should Mirror Veterinary Health Care
by Sarah Gelberg

The Practicality of Private Waterways
by J. Brian Phillips and Alan Germani

Norman Borlaug: The Man Who Taught People To Feed Themselves
by Audra Hilse

Making Life Meaningful: Living Purposefully
by Craig Biddle

BOOKS REVIEWED

Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Reviewed by Heike Larson

Winning the Unwinnable War edited by Elan Journo
Reviewed by Grant W. Jones

Why Are Jews Liberals? by Norman Podhoretz
Reviewed by Gideon Reich

Capitalism Unbound by Andrew Bernstein
Reviewed by Ari Armstrong

Essays on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged edited by Robert Mayhew
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

The Sparrowhawk Series by Edward Cline
Reviewed by Dina Schein Federman

Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
Reviewed by David H. Mirman

Newton and the Counterfeiter by Thomas Levenson
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not do so today? You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

2009 Front Range Objectivism Media Output

Posted by Craig Biddle at 11:59 PM

Kudos to all the writers and activists involved with Front Range Objectivism. As reported by Paul Hsieh, in 2009 FRO members published 3 articles, 57 op-eds, and 48 letters to the editor.

Some of the topics covered include the financial crisis, health care, gun control, environmentalism, free speech, and government regulation.

The majority of this writing was done by people working in their spare time, in addition to their day jobs.

This list does not include numerous citations and interviews in local and national media, participation in Tea Party events, letters to elected officials, and blogging.

I'd like to thank my fellow FRO activists for their hard work this past year.

The detailed list of our published output includes the following:

Articles: 3

Ari Armstrong, "Lest We Be Doomed to Repeat It: A Survey of Amity Shlaes's History of the Great Depression", The Objective Standard, Spring 2009.

Monica Hughes, "A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture", The Objective Standard, Summer 2009.

Paul Hsieh, "How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability", The Objective Standard, Fall 2009.

OpEds: 57

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Shut down corporate welfare for tourism", Grand Junction Free Press, 1/5/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Universal healthcare and the waistline police", Christian Science Monitor, 1/7/2009. (Also redistributed to ABC News, Yahoo News and multiple local newspapers.)

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Obamanomics threaten economic recovery", Grand Junction Free Press, 1/19/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Free Our Beer", Colorado Daily, 1/25/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Salazar promotes special-interest warfare", Grand Junction Free Press, 2/2/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Obama's Regulatory Chief Believes in Paternalistic Government", Pajamas Media, 2/10/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "We're From the Government and We're Here to Help You Drive", Grand Junction Free Press, 2/16/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Food Thoughts", Boulder Weekly, 2/19/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "America Doesn't Need a Health Care Czar", Washington Examiner, 2/23/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Ayn Rand and the Tea Party Protests", Pajamas Media, 3/2/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Political Controls Provoke Producers to Go On Strike", Grand Junction Free Press, 3/2/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Beware single-payer health care", Colorado Daily, 3/8/2009 (also Denver Daily News, 3/9/2009).

Paul Hsieh, "Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil", Pajamas Media, 3/22/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary’s", Grand Junction Free Press, 3/30/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "See you at the Grand Junction Tea Party", Grand Junction Free Press, 4/13/2009.

Lin and Ari Armstrong, "After tea, try long, cool drink of liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 4/27/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care", Pajamas Media, 5/5/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Legislature Passes Job-Killing Bills”, Grand Junction Free Press, 5/11/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Udall's credit controls punish the responsible", Colorado Daily, 5/24/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Invasion forces headed for Japan", Grand Junction Free Press, 5/25/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Are you a conservative or a liberal?", Grand Junction Free Press, 6/8/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Reject political control of health care", Grand Junction Free Press, 6/24/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "More poison, not an antidote: Mandating employer health insurance”, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/28/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Politicians Cause Mortgage Meltdown", Grand Junction Free Press, 7/6/2009

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "DeMint's health handouts violate liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 7/20/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Hope and change in Harry Potter", Denver Daily News, 7/22/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Don’t ban or force abortions", Boulder Weekly, 7/23/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Federal Health Care Muggers", PajamasMedia, 7/24/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "In health debate, left and right need to check premises", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/3/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Rationing inherent in Obamacare", Colorado Springs Gazette, 8/14/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "That government is best which protects individual rights", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/17/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Not a health care remedy", Denver Daily News, 8/21/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Debunking health care reform myths", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/31/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Free Market Is Not Another Form of Rationing", PajamasMedia, 9/2/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Is Not a Privilege... Nor Is It a Right", PajamasMedia, 9/8/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Atlas Shrugged relevant for modern times", Longmont Times-Call, 9/14/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Restore free market to address preexisting conditions", Grand Junction Free Press, 9/14/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Is Your Doctor Getting Ready To Quit"?, PajamasMedia, 9/18/2009. Edited version also appeared as "Health Overhaul Could Force Doctors to Quit", Health Care News (Heartland Institute), 10/13/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Republican plans for health care reform similar to Obamacare", Colorado Springs Gazette, 9/18/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Fifty Ways to Leave Obama", Grand Junction Free Press, 9/28/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Healthcare in Massachusetts: A Warning For America", Christian Science Monitor, 9/30/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Real Stakes", Denver Post, 10/1/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Pay Your Own Doctors", Colorado Daily, 10/2/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "James Warner Shares Light of Liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 10/12/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Radical environmentalists undermine human progress", Grand Junction Free Press, 10/26/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare", PajamasMedia, 11/2/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Bizarro Health Care 'Reform': Expect Less, Pay More", PajamasMedia, 11/5/2009.

Hannah Krening, "Dissent and Nationalization of Health Care", Denver Post, 11/8/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "If planet did warm, low-cost tech could cool it", Grand Junction Free Press, 11/9/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Why we should keep selling low-priced books", Denver Post, 11/12/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Mafia-Style Health Insurance: An Offer You Can't Refuse", Washington Examiner, 11/16/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Environmentalist clowns threatening human life", Colorado Springs Gazette, 11/20/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "People vote for freedom with their feet and effort", Grand Junction Free Press, 11/23/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Have a Harry Potter Christmas", Grand Junction Free Press, 12/7/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "ObamaCare: Tightening the Noose Around Private Health Care", PajamasMedia, 12/15/2009.

Monica Hughes, "Animal fat, sugar and diabetes", Denver Post, 12/17/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Ralph Carr shows politicians can stand for liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 12/21/2009.

LTEs: 48

Paul Hsieh, "'Concierge' model offers a free-market solution", Baltimore Sun, 1/2/2009.

Brian Schwartz, " Come together... right now: It's the law", Boulder Daily Camera, 1/3/2009.

Gina Liggett, "Science adviser pick is pure politics", Rocky Mountain News, 1/6/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Economic grief started with Hoover, not FDR", Denver Post, 1/7/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "New insurance law wastes taxpayer dollars", Denver Post, 1/7/2009.

Richard Watts, "Let's try capitalism for a change", Rocky Mountain News, 1/9/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Year-round Schooling", Boulder Daily Camera, 1/10/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Kefalas readies comprehensive health-care bill", Northern Colorado Business Report, 1/16/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Government paternalism saps desire to make own decisions", Colorado Springs Gazette, 1/22/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Medicare For All", Boulder Daily Camera, 2/7/2009.

Hannah Krening, "The Stimulus Plan", Denver Post, 2/11/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Single-payer health care has failed in every other country", Rocky Mountain News, 2/18/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Heads they win, tails we lose", Rocky Mountain News, 2/19/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "No food stamp soup for you!", Westworld, 2/19/2009.

Richard Watts, "Lincoln did not value unity above liberty", Rocky Mountain News, 2/25/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Free market alternatives to zoning", Boulder Daily Camera, 2/28/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Legislator’s comments on promiscuous women", Denver Post, 3/4/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "HB 1256 would aid health coverage", Denver Business Journal, 3/6/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Ward Churchill", Boulder Daily Camera, 3/28/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Our Health, and the Health of Insurers", New York Times, 3/30/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Eliminating the charitable tax deduction", Denver Post, 3/30/2009.

David Weatherell, "Employee Free Choice Act", Denver Post, 4/1/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Prepare For More Expensive Medical Insurance", Boulder Daily Camera, 4/12/2009.

Doug Kreninng, "Denver's Tea Party", Denver Post, 4/18/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Drug legalization", Boulder Daily Camera, 4/19/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Taking guns won't hike safety", Colorado Springs Gazette, 4/24/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Don't Raise Taxes, Legalize Marijuana”, Boulder Daily Camera, 5/16/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Sotomayor for Supreme Court", Boulder Daily Camera, 5/30/2009.

Anders Ingemarson, "Is Canadian Health Care Better?", Denver Post, 6/14/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Reform: Coverage Is Not Care”, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/16/2009.

Hannah Krening, "Time to fight for your rights", Colorado Springs Gazette, 7/3/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "The Public plan will be the only plan", Boulder Daily Camera, 7/4/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Systems", Boulder Dail Camera, 7/18/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Democrats' health care 'reform' would reform nothing", Boulder Daily Camera, 7/25/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Cash For Clunkers", Boulder Daily Camera, 8/8/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Debate", Denver Business Journal, 8/10/2009.

Anders Ingemarson, "The Heart of the Health Care Debate", Denver Post, 8/19/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Health Care Statistics", Denver Post, 8/29/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Single payer: rationing both ideas and medicine", Boulder Daily Camera, 9/5/2009.

Doug Krening, "Health Care Debate Renewed", Denver Post, 9/13/2009.

Briain Schwartz, "Boulder land use restrictions undermine rights & personal responsibility", Boulder Daily Camera, 9/18/2009.

Diana Hsieh, "Government’s attempts to stifle speech", Denver Post, 10/20/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health care reform and the public option", Denver Post, 10/30/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Incentives Aren't To Help You", Wall Street Journal, 11/2/2009.

Gina Liggett, "Governor’s proposal to tax candy and soda", Denver Post, 11/18/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Why To Condemn Insurance Companies", Boulder Daily Camera, 12/5/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Climate Science Isn't Settled", Wall Street Journal, 12/7/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Raising Federal Debt Ceiling", Denver Post, 12/20/2009.

Remarkable!

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

'Doing Nothing' Is An Option

Posted by Paul Hsieh at 2:30 AM

Remember when President Obama insisted that health care "reform" had to be done his way, and that doing nothing was "not an option"?

Well, the American people disagree.

In "Do Nothing, Majority Says" (Wall Street Journal, December 10, 2009), James Taranto notes a recent Fox News poll showing:

While 41 percent of Americans want Congress to pass major health care reform legislation this year, a 54 percent majority says they would rather Congress "do nothing on health care for now," up from 48 percent who felt that way in July.

Taranto also adds:

...[A] CNN poll found that an even bigger majority—61%—oppose the Senate's version of the ObamaCare bill.

One of the core principles every first-year medical student learns is "Primum non nocere", which is Latin for "First, do no harm". In other words, it's better to do nothing than to take a positive action that will make the situation worse—a principle that should apply to politics as well as to medicine.

Our current health care system has many problems. But the proposed ObamaCare "reforms" would make things worse, not better. In this case, doing nothing is an option, at least until genuine free-market reforms are on the table.

The American people understand this. Will our politicians?

Reposted from We Stand FIRM

Labels: , ,

Two New Audio Articles

Posted by TOS Admin at 2:27 AM

Audio versions of Paul Hsieh's article "How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability" and Richard M. Salsman's article "Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis" have been posted to our Audio page. These recordings are accessible for free and can be played directly on our website or downloaded to your MP3 player.

Enjoy!

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

The Winter Issue of TOS

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:11 PM

The print edition of the Winter issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning December 20. For promotional purposes, we are making Robert Mayhew’s review of Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right available on our website early and for free.

The contents of the Winter issue are:

From the Editor

Letters and Replies

ARTICLES

Pharmacide: The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Self-Destructive Effort to Loot America
by Cassandra Clark

Antitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration’s Anti-Business Cudgel
by Eric Daniels

What the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” HR 3962, Actually Says
by John David Lewis

The California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Governmental Assault on Property Rights
by Paul Beard

The Barbary Wars and Their Lesson for Combating Piracy Today
by Doug Altner

Objective Moral Values
by Craig Biddle

BOOKS REVIEWED

Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns
Reviewed by Robert Mayhew

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer
Reviewed by Gus Van Horn

Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh
Reviewed by Andrew Lewis

The Israel Test by George Gilder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

Due to popular demand, we have extended our 60% off sale through January 1. Online subscriptions—including gift subscriptions—are only $19. If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the perfect time to give it a try. And if you are looking for the perfect gift for an active-minded friend or relative, what could be better than a steady stream of clearly written, easy-to-read articles addressing current events and cultural issues from a rational, principled perspective? You can purchase gift subscriptions online or by calling 800-423-6151.

Enjoy your holidays!

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Lin Gilbert's Rationing Story

Posted by Paul Hsieh at 1:02 PM

Canadian Lin Gilbert tells of the wait she endured for over two years for her MRI and spine surgery, and the toll it took on her life:

In Canada, health care is never truly a "right". She was repeatedly told that she hadn't suffered for long enough to receive the surgery she needed, and that older patients were ahead of her on the waiting list.

Do Americans really want this kind of medical system?

(Via Instapundit.)

Reposted from We Stand FIRM

Labels: ,

Friday, November 06, 2009

The Best Option For The Public

Posted by Paul Hsieh at 3:42 PM

In the November 4, 2009 Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby outlines the best option for the public. (Hint -- it's not the "public option".)

From his article, "An option for public: less government, more choice":

A government-run health insurer would radically tilt the health-insurance playing field. It would amount to a new entitlement program, able to undercut the price of private insurance by squeezing hospitals and doctors, reimbursing them at below-market rates. "Just like Medicaid and Medicare," which also underpay medical providers, the public option would force hospitals and doctors to charge private insurers more. Insurers would be compelled to raise their premiums, eventually losing millions of customers to the government plan.

Obama insists that any public option would have to be self-supporting, properly balancing its premiums and risk and not expecting the government to cover its losses. Sound familiar? The same assurances were made about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Instead, he recommends the following free-market reforms:

* Tear down the barriers to buying insurance across state lines
* Repeal mandatory benefits that make health insurance needlessly expensive
* De-link health insurance from employment

(Read the full text of "An option for public: less government, more choice".)

These are all excellent ideas. Let's hope our politicians are listening!

Reposted from We Stand FIRM

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Praying Won't Make It So

Posted by Stella Daily Zawistowski at 1:03 PM

I'm a second-year student in the Objectivist Academic Center, and the class is currently working through the difference between the metaphysically given (such as the law of gravity) and the man-made (such as traffic laws). The man-made is the result of choice, and as such is subject to praise or criticism. The metaphysically given simply is what it is, and all the whining, crying, and pleading we do will not change it. Neither will praying.

What's this got to do with health? According to the Los Angeles Times, religious Congressmen have slipped into the healthcare "reform" proposal a provision that insurers be required to pay for "religious and spiritual healthcare," including "prayer treatments" offered by Christian Scientists.

If an individual believes he can deny the metaphysically given, that by praying or paying someone else to pray for him, he can kill the cancer cells growing in his body, or heal a broken bone, that is his problem. He should be left to his own devices. He can go ahead and waste his money on "treatments" that do nothing—that can do nothing. As long as he spends his own money or money given to him voluntarily, he violates no one else's rights, and he will be the only victim of his own poor decision.

But this law would force insurers to act against their own judgment, so that some individuals can indulge their fantasies that their own wishes and prayers can change nature. Any insurer willing to examine the facts of reality—and it had better examine them, if it wants to stay in business— would eliminate coverage of such "treatments," knowing that they would never produce any value in return for the money paid for them. The "religious and spiritual healthcare" provision would force insurers to act against their rational judgment and pay for these services, and it would force those of us who know the difference between the metaphysically given and the man-made to pay for them, since insurers would have to distribute the cost of "prayer treatments" across all customers.

It doesn't seem like a big issue—after all, "prayer treatments" cost an awful lot less than MRIs. But it's an illustrative one. There is no benefit—not "prayer treatments," not in vitro fertilization, not autism therapy, not even heart transplants—that justifies the violation of the rights of insurers to offer coverage on whatever terms they choose, nor the violation of the rights of consumers to purchase the coverage that best suits their personal needs. And that's why a mandate is so evil—it turns decision-making about insurance from a voluntary exchange between insurer and insured into a dictate from bureaucrats and whatever special interest of the month is calling. That insurance mandates are evil is something all the prayer in the world won't change.

Reposted from ReasonPharm

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 02, 2009

Debate: 'Is Government Intervention in the Free Market Moral?'

Posted by John David Lewis at 1:15 AM

This Wednesday, November 4, I will debate UNC Adjunct Professor of Economics Ralph Byrns on the question: "Is Government Intervention in the Free Market Moral?"

When: Wednesday, November 4, 7:00 PM

Where: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Murphey 116

Website:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=178947119387&ref=ts

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, October 01, 2009

The Fall issue of TOS has been Posted and Mailed

Posted by Craig Biddle at 4:11 PM

The print edition of the Fall issue has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. (Due to production difficulties, the print edition was mailed a few days late. I apologize for the delay.) The contents of the Fall issue are:

From the Editor

Letters and Replies

ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David Lewis

America’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein

An Unwinnable War?
by Elan Journo

The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig Biddle

The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael Dahlen

How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul Hsieh

How Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig Biddle

BOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein Federman

The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

Fred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott Holleran

The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, there is no time like now. You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 18, 2009

John David Lewis on Scoreboard

Posted by TOS Admin at 4:23 PM

On Thursday, September 24, at 7:00 PM (EST) Dr. Lewis will appear on Scoreboard with David Asman (Fox Business News) to discuss why there is no ‘right’ to health care.

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 14, 2009

The Fall Issue of TOS

Posted by Craig Biddle at 3:54 PM

The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making both John David Lewis’s article “Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” and Paul Hsieh’s article “How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability” available on our website early and for free.

The contents of the Fall issue are:

From the Editor

Letters and Replies

ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David Lewis

America’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein

An Unwinnable War?
by Elan Journo

The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig Biddle

The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael Dahlen

How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul Hsieh

How Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig Biddle

BOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein Federman

The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

Fred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott Holleran

The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not subscribe today? You can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Yaron Brook Interviewed by Larry Greenfield

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:10 PM

Here is part one of a four-part interview with Yaron Brook, conducted by Larry Greenfield of The Claremont Institute.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, August 31, 2009

John David Lewis Interviewed on KOGO, August 31

Posted by John David Lewis at 7:37 PM

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: , ,

Friday, August 28, 2009

The Dire Message of Mr. David Walker

Posted by John David Lewis at 3:13 PM

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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: , ,

Saturday, August 22, 2009

John David Lewis on the Bill LuMaye Show August 27

Posted by TOS Admin at 1:03 AM

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: , , , ,

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Suppose Car Insurance Was Considered to Be a 'Right'

Posted by John David Lewis at 11:42 PM

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: , ,

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

John David Lewis on the Tara Servatius Show

Posted by TOS Admin at 2:24 AM

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: , , , ,

Monday, August 17, 2009

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:57 PM

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: , ,

Friday, August 14, 2009

John David Lewis on BBC Radio August 14

Posted by TOS Admin at 12:13 PM

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: , , , ,

Thursday, August 13, 2009

John David Lewis on the Bill LuMaye Show August 13

Posted by TOS Admin at 3:30 PM

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: , , , ,

John David Lewis on the Brian Wilson Show August 14

Posted by TOS Admin at 1:59 PM

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: , , , ,

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

TOS Contributors on ‘The Big Biz Show’

Posted by Craig Biddle at 6:48 PM

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: , , , ,

Monday, August 10, 2009

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,' Says

Posted by John David Lewis at 3:26 PM

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:

  1. This section amends the Social Security Act
  2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
  3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
  4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
  5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
  6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
  7. 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:

  1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
  2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
  3. 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:

  1.  The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
  2. 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:

  1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
  2. 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.”
  3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
  4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
  5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
  6. 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:

  1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
  2. Tax surcharges  are levied on those with the highest incomes.
  3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
  4. 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:

  1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
  2. 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:

  1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
  2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
  3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
  4. 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:

  1. Do nothing and you are in.
  2. 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:

  1. 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.”
  2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

Labels: , ,

Friday, July 31, 2009

Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine? by Yaron Brook

Posted by ARC Media at 12:05 PM

Government intervention in medicine is wrecking American health care. Nearly half of all spending on health care in America is already government spending. Yet President Obama’s “reforms” will only expand that intervention.

Prior to the government’s entrance into medicine, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market—no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.

Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans’ rising productivity would have afforded them better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn’t for food or clothing.

But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product—for which each individual must assume responsibility—had given way to a view of health care as a “right,” an unearned “entitlement,” to be provided at others’ expense.

This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).

The resulting system aimed to relieve the individual of the “burden” of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. Today, for every dollar’s worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out of pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14 percent.

Shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them led to an explosion in spending. In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a “right,” demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.

As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the “right” to health care: from regulations mandating various forms of insurance coverage to Bush’s massive prescription drug bill.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a “right” to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a “right” to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as the Founders conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but to freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services—no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a “right” to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

Real and lasting solutions to our health care problems require a rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights. This would provide the moral basis for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the tax and regulatory incentives fueling our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.

Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.

Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

The Spring Issue of TOS

Posted by Craig Biddle at 8:41 PM

The print edition of the Spring issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning March 20. For promotional purposes, we are making “Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and the World Today: An Interview with Yaron Brook” and “Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis” by Richard M. Salsman available early and to all.

The contents of the Spring issue are:

From the Editor

ARTICLES
Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and the World Today
An Interview with Yaron Brook

America’s Unfree Market
by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis
by Richard M. Salsman

Lest We Be Doomed to Repeat It: A Survey of Amity Shlaes’s History of the Great Depression
by Ari Armstrong

Of Freedom and Fat: Why Anti-Obesity Laws Are Immoral
by Stella Daily

Houston, We Have a (Zoning) Problem
by J. Brian Phillips

Doubt vs. Certainty
by Gena Gorlin

Religion vs. Subjectivism: Why Neither Will Do
by Craig Biddle

BOOKS REVIEWED
Greenspan’s Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve, by William A. Fleckenstein with Frederick Sheehan
Reviewed by Joe Kroeger

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, by Dan Ariely
Reviewed by Eric Daniels

Concierge Medicine: A New System to Get the Best Healthcare, by Steven D. Knope, MD
Reviewed by Michael Garrett, MD

If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not subscribe today? You can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151.

Enjoy!

Craig Biddle, Editor
The Objective Standard

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Anti-Smoking Paternalism: A Cancer on American Liberty by Don Watkins

Posted by ARC Media at 1:51 PM

Newport Beach is considering banning smoking in a variety of new places, potentially including parks and outdoor dining areas. This is just the latest step in a widespread war on smoking by federal, state, and local governments—a campaign that includes massive taxes on cigarettes, advertising bans, and endless lawsuits against tobacco companies. This war is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

According to the anti-smoking movement, restricting people’s freedom to smoke is justified by the necessity of combating the “epidemic” of smoking-related disease and death. Cigarettes, we are told, kill hundreds of thousands each year, and expose countless millions to secondhand smoke. Smoking, the anti-smoking movement says, in effect, is a plague, whose ravages can only be combated through drastic government action.

But smoking is not some infectious disease that must be quarantined and destroyed by the government. It’s a voluntary activity that every individual is free to abstain from (including by avoiding restaurants and other private establishments that permit smoking). And, contrary to those who regard any smoking as irrational on its face, cigarettes are a potential value that each individual must assess for himself. Of course, smoking can be harmful—in certain quantities, over a certain period of time, it can be habit forming and lead to disease or death. But many understandably regard the risks as minimal if one smokes relatively infrequently, and they see smoking as offering definite value, such as physical pleasure.

Are they right? Can it be a value to smoke cigarettes—and if so, in what quantity? This is the sort of judgment that properly belongs to every individual, based on his assessment of the evidence concerning smoking’s benefits and risks, and taking into account his particular circumstances (age, family history, etc.). If others believe the smoker is making a mistake, they are free to try to persuade him of their viewpoint. But they should not be free to dictate his decision, any more than they should be able to dictate his decision on whether and to what extent to drink alcohol or play poker. The fact that some individuals will smoke themselves into an early grave is no more justification for banning smoking than that the existence of alcoholics is grounds for prohibiting you from enjoying a drink at dinner.

Implicit in the war on smoking, however, is the view that the government must dictate the individual’s decisions with regard to smoking, because he is incapable of making them rationally. To the extent the anti-smoking movement succeeds in wielding the power of government coercion to impose on Americans its blanket opposition to smoking, it is entrenching paternalism: the view that individuals are incompetent to run their own lives, and thus require a nanny-state to control every aspect of those lives.

This state is well on its way: from trans-fat bans to bicycle helmet laws to prohibitions on gambling, the government is increasingly abridging our freedom on the grounds that we are not competent to make rational decisions in these areas—just as it has long done by paternalistically dictating how we plan for retirement (Social Security) or what medicines we may take (the FDA).

Indeed, one of the main arguments used to bolster the anti-smoking agenda is the claim that smokers impose “social costs” on non-smokers, such as smoking-related medical expenses—an argument that perversely uses an injustice created by paternalism to support its expansion. The only reason non-smokers today are forced to foot the medical bills of smokers is that our government has virtually taken over the field of medicine, in order to relieve us inept Americans of the freedom to manage our own health care, and bear the costs of our own choices.

But contrary to paternalism, we are not congenitally irrational misfits. We are thinking beings for whom it is both possible and necessary to rationally judge which courses of action will serve our interests. The consequences of ignoring this fact range from denying us legitimate pleasures to literally killing us: from the healthy 26-year-old unable to enjoy a trans-fatty food to the 75-year-old man unable to take an unapproved, experimental drug without which he will certainly die.

By employing government coercion to deprive us of the freedom to judge for ourselves what we inhale or consume, the anti-smoking movement has become an enemy, not an ally, in the quest for health and happiness.

Don Watkins is a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

This is Your Future on 'Universal Healthcare'

Posted by Craig Biddle at 3:19 PM

Paul Hsieh has an excellent op-ed titled “Universal healthcare and the waistline police” in the Jan 7 issue of the Christian Science Monitor. It begins:

Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.

Is this some nightmarish dystopia?

No, this is contemporary Japan.

The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs. This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated dangers of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles.

Other countries with universal healthcare are already restricting individual freedoms in the name of controlling health costs. For example, the British government has banned some television ads for eggs on the grounds that they were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. This is a blatant infringement of egg sellers' rights to advertise their products.

In 2007, New Zealand banned Richie Trezise, a Welsh submarine cable specialist, from entering the country on the grounds that his obesity would "impose significant costs ... on New Zealand's health or special education services." Richie later lost weight and was allowed to immigrate, but his wife had trouble slimming and was kept home. Germany has mounted an aggressive anti-obesity campaign in workplaces and schools to promote dieting and exercise. Citizens who fail to cooperate are branded as "antisocial" for costing the government billions of euros in medical expenses….

Read the whole thing, and pass it along. The future is closer than one might think.

Labels: ,

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Universal Health Care: The Cure or the Disease?

Posted by ARI Media at 6:32 PM

What: Informal debate between Professor Mark Kleiman (UCLA Department of Public Policy) and Dr. Peter LePort, M.D. (Ayn Rand Institute Board of Directors)

Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100

When: Thursday, October 30, 2008, from 7 to 9 PM

FREE Admission

For maps and directions, click here: http://www.ucla.edu/map/

Health care has been an important issue in politics, especially in the last several years. Amidst much specific policy analysis and political quibbling over superficial issues, the fundamentals have been ignored: What are the underlying philosophic and economic considerations? Is universal health care moral? Does it achieve its stated goal? Is there an ethical and practical alternative?

Come hear Professor Mark Kleiman and Dr. Peter LePort answer your questions about the issue of universal health care.

Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

America's Anti-America Candidates

Posted by Mark V. Kormes at 7:58 PM

Last night’s debate offered further proof—if any was necessary—that neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama is a champion of the basic principle of America: the principle of individual rights.

Obama, when asked if he believes health care is a “privilege, right or responsibility,” replied: “Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills ... there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.” If health care is declared a “right,” then insurance companies, doctors, and taxpayers in general will have to be forced to provide “the poor” and the uninsured with goods and services. There is a name for such an arrangement: involuntary servitude. In declaring health care a “right,” Obama demonstrates that either he has no idea what a right is—or he knows what a right is yet will evade that knowledge for his socialist purposes.

McCain is no better. Not only did he eagerly support the disastrous bailout; now, he adds: “...it’s not enough. That’s why we’re going to have to go out into the housing market and we’re going to have to buy up these bad loans and we’re going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans … can realize the American dream and stay in their home [sic].” Government violations of property rights (such as mandates that mortgage companies loan money to unworthy borrowers) are responsible for the current economic catastrophe, yet McCain’s “solution” is to compound the problem by nationalizing large segments of the real estate market and banking industry—thereby further violating the rights of sellers, buyers, and lenders—and further blocking the logical consequences, positive or negative, of their choices and actions.

These attacks on individual rights are attacks on the individual’s life and happiness as such. Barack “I Am My Brother’s Keeper” Obama and John “Country First” McCain believe that an individual pursuing his own individual happiness is evil or, at best, morally suspect. The individual’s right to the pursuit of his own happiness is at the heart of America’s founding principles, but our presidential candidates ignore it—when they aren’t attacking it—and spend their time arguing over who can best defend the “right” to health care or the “right” to a manageable mortgage or other so-called “rights.”

It is time for Americans to demand that our politicians recognize and uphold the basic principle of America: the individual’s right to act on his own judgment for his own sake. But in order for Americans to do so, they must first understand that principle themselves. Toward that end, a good place to start is with Ayn Rand’s essay “Man’s Rights.”

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Don't Ban Trans Fats

Posted by ARI Media at 3:09 PM

Irvine, CA—California recently became the first state to ban trans fats. Praising the ban, Governor Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying, "California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats. Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California."

But according to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "This ban is really just an instance of nanny state paternalism. Keeping healthy should be the individual's responsibility.

"To the extent trans fats pose a real threat, these bans are unnecessary. No one is forced to consume trans fats and, indeed, under pressure from consumers, many food makers have voluntarily stopped using them.  

"The fact that some people will choose an unhealthy lifestyle is no justification for dictating what the rest of us can and can't eat. Individuals have a right to decide for themselves whether and how much trans fats are safe to eat—and they, in consultation with their doctors, are perfectly able to do so. But under the ban, those who occasionally enjoy the cheaper, tastier, longer-lasting foods trans fats make possible are being unjustly punished—along with the food industry—to protect the irrational from themselves.

"Instead of trying to 'lead the nation in fostering health' at the point of a gun, California should lead the nation in advancing individual responsibility and individual freedom. A good place to start would be rescinding the trans fats ban." 

### ### ###

Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews. To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrand.org.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

Monday, August 04, 2008

End the Fast Food Ban

Posted by ARI Media at 3:45 PM

Irvine, CA—The Los Angeles City Council approved a one-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles. The first ban of its kind, its aim is to address America's alleged obesity epidemic.

"This moratorium will do nothing to make people lose weight," said Don Watkins, a writer at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But it will expand the government's control over our lives.

"Despite the demonization of the fast-food industry, places like McDonald's and Wendy's provide Americans with a convenient source of tasty, affordable food. Millions of Americans enjoy these restaurants without ever becoming obese. To punish them--as well as potential fast-food restaurant owners and employees--in order to control what they eat is a shameful violation of their rights.

"The government has no business dictating where and what people eat, or what their waistlines should be. Those are decisions that properly belong to individuals. The L.A. City Council should rescind this disgraceful ban."

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,