By Paul Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
The Gold Coast Chronicle, a Florida-based publication, recently solicited opinion pieces from physicians opposed to ObamaCare. I'm glad to report that on March 15, 2010, they published my piece, "What America Needs to Know What’s at Stake with Obama Care". (Title theirs.)
Here's the opening:
President Obama is now determined to ram his health care bill through Congress by any means necessary, despite the fact that it will drive the government hundreds of billions of dollars further into debt and despite the fact the polls consistently show a majority of Americans opposed to his plan.
Why is this?
In a speech to Congress, he piously declared that health care was "a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
President Obama is right, but not in the way that he means. Thousands of Americans at Tea Parties across the country have rallied precisely to oppose the fundamental principles behind the President's plan.
These protests were not just about health care, but about the proper scope of the government -- and ultimately, the future of America...
Modern Paleo offers writings and other resources by Objectivists on the principles and practices of nutrition, fitness, and health most conducive to human flourishing.
Here are the highlights:
This Modern Paleo Blog contains writings on those topics by people who seek the best that modern life has to offer, informed by a broadly paleo approach. It is managed by Christian W., and its contributors are paleo-eating Objectivists. (Christian will introduce himself in the next few days.)
I've written a fairly detailed list of core paleo principles, each with a slew of links for additional reading.
We'll be adding more resources to Modern Paleo with time.
What does Modern Paleo advocate?
We -- the contributors to Modern Paleo -- advocate a "paleo" perspective on nutrition, fitness, and health. We use the evolutionary history of mankind, plus the best of modern science, as a broad framework to guide our daily choices about diet, exercise, supplementation, and medicine. The core of the paleo approach to health is the diet: we eschew grains, sugars, and modern vegetable oils in favor of high-quality meat, fish, eggs, and vegetables.
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
We live by that philosophy. We do not seek to return to the past: we want to fully enjoy the amazing benefits of modern life. We do not cling to dogmas or submit to authority: we think and act for ourselves, based on our best grasp of the relevant facts. We do not sacrifice our judgment or our values to others, nor ask others to sacrifice to us. We seek the best for ourselves by producing and trading voluntarily with other rational, productive people. We reject government controls and welfare on principle: every person should be free to live as he pleases, so long as he respects the rights of others.
As a philosophy, Objectivism is silent on scientific questions about nutrition, fitness, and health. Yet we regard Objectivism as compatible with a paleo approach.
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
This upcoming week will be the critical week in the health care fight. Speaker Pelosi is expected to start the process for the House to hold its final vote to approve the Senate bill. The vote will probably take place at the end of this upcoming week.
Right now, they are probably still a few votes shy of the majority they need:
This is an extremely risky move by the Democrats. Normally, a Speaker wouldn't plan on voting on such major legislation unless he or she was sure of having enough votes.
But the Democrats are also (correctly) concluding that time is not on their side. They have made the calculation that if they push for it now, then maybe then can squeeze out the last few votes via a combination of political carrots and sticks. For example, they have "sweetened" the deal for the wavering moderates by promising billions of dollars of new student loan subsidies.
On the other hand they recognize that if they wait much longer, then when these wavering Congressmen go back home for the Easter recess, they will get an earful from their constituents who are strongly opposed to the bill, and they'll lose even more support.
Hence, from the Left's perspective, it's now or never.
If you (like me) support free-market health reforms, this means three things:
1) We are winning. We have a chance to defeat this terrible bill.
In particular, do not uncritically accept the inevitable news stories about how the Democrats are "close to getting the votes" or how Pelosi is "confident she'll have the votes". She has to exude an aura of public confidence, otherwise her coalition will quickly unravel.
Polls repeatedly show Americans opposed to ObamaCare:
If they had the votes, they'd have already passed it by now.
2) We must keep up the pressure.
The Democrats are pulling out all stops to find some way to get this through now, before the critical Easter recess.
At this point in time, the single most important thing you can do is contact your Congressman and tell him or her what you think: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
This is especially important if your Congressman is one of the undecided or swing votes on these "Code Red" lists:
Even if your Congressman is a firm "Yes" and you disagree, it's still important to let them know where you stand. If even the liberal Democrats from "safe" seats consistently hear that their constituents are against it, it will give the wavering moderates more political cover to vote "No". They can then tell Pelosi, "Even your constituents hate this thing -- there's no way I can support it".
*** Our counter-pressure is our best weapon against the pressure that the statists will exert on these wavering Congressmen. ***
Your letter doesn't have to be long or eloquent. It just has to convey certainty, passion, and moral conviction. One short letter that I've seen against ObamaCare runs something like this:
"Please vote NO on this terrible health care plan! If you vote yes, you will destroy the ability of me and my family to receive good health care in the future. This is personal! If you vote yes, we will never forgive you for hurting our lives and trampling on our basic freedoms."
(Of course, you should express your opinion in a fashion that reflects your own style and values.)
Feel free to use all contact methods -- phone, fax, and e-mail. And please feel free to contact them multiple times over the upcoming week. In this context, repetition is a virtue!
And of course if you agree with your Congressman's position, then thank him or her. They also need our moral support.
3) If you have friends or family in other parts of the country, tell them to contact their Congressmen.
If you need intellectual ammunition for them, one of my personal favorites is from the AFCM website:
I personally think that the most important thing we can do in the next few days will be to directly contact our Congressmen and have friends/family do the same. LTEs and OpEds will still be important, but not as much as before. (That said, I'm still going to continue writing and/or disseminating some of my earlier writings to people I know around the country.)
This is the endgame, folks. Most political observers regard the health care bill as a 50-50 "toss-up" or "too close to call". It really could go either way. What happens this week will determine the course of this great country (for good or for ill) for decades to come.
Your voice could be the critical difference in swaying the right one or two minds. If you value your lives and your freedom, the time to speak up is now!
(Anyone is welcome to forward or repost this to any appropriate recipients or venues.)
Too many people seem eager to blame Amazon for the termination of its "Associates" program.
I've been an Amazon Associate for years. I learned that my account was closed in the wee hours of Sunday morning. At the time, I was hard at work on a new website -- a labor of love that I hoped would earn me some money by links to relevant Amazon products.
I was horrified. In an instant, so much of my work was wasted and so many of my future plans were destroyed.
Yet I don't blame Amazon. I blame our Colorado politicians for enacting an unjust law. They've made business through affiliates impossible in Colorado by imposing a mess of costly red tape and taxes. Amazon is not just a victim in this mess, but the primary victim.
Honest people do not blame business for the sins of government.
Repeal the "Amazon tax"!
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
However, consider the lead letter:
I've heard Amazon.com's talking points about how horrible Colorado is for taxing people who do business online but don't pay sales or other taxes to the state where they derive their revenue. They say nexus legislation will cost us jobs. The reality is online predators such as Amazon.com don't pay their fair share of taxes and suck dollars out of local communities that normally go to funding parks and park maintenance, police services, local jobs, and other programs that improve our quality of life.
The real issue is how international online retailers continue to get away with tax-dodging while our local businesses -- companies that do pay local taxes, create local jobs, hire local people, and fund local services -- can't compete with these online giants. These predators have sold books and other products below wholesale cost to dominate a market while being subsidized by the U.S. government and states with outdated tax laws. Fair taxation helps level the playing field for independent business people and helps local communities survive.
Next time you hit a pothole your city can't fix, thank Amazon.
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
Due to a horrible new law (HB 1193) recently passed in Colorado, Amazon terminated all of its "Amazon Associates" accounts in Colorado. (Amazon Associates is an affiliate program: members earn a small commission on Amazon sales via their links.) Much to my dismay, I found out about this change in the wee hours of Monday morning, while working on a new web site. I received the following e-mail from Amazon:
Dear Colorado-based Amazon Associate:
We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to inform you that the Colorado government recently enacted a law to impose sales tax regulations on online retailers. The regulations are burdensome and no other state has similar rules. The new regulations do not require online retailers to collect sales tax. Instead, they are clearly intended to increase the compliance burden to a point where online retailers will be induced to "voluntarily" collect Colorado sales tax -- a course we won't take.
We and many others strongly opposed this legislation, known as HB 10-1193, but it was enacted anyway. Regrettably, as a result of the new law, we have decided to stop advertising through Associates based in Colorado. We plan to continue to sell to Colorado residents, however, and will advertise through other channels, including through Associates based in other states.
There is a right way for Colorado to pursue its revenue goals, but this new law is a wrong way. As we repeatedly communicated to Colorado legislators, including those who sponsored and supported the new law, we are not opposed to collecting sales tax within a constitutionally-permissible system applied even-handedly. The US Supreme Court has defined what would be constitutional, and if Colorado would repeal the current law or follow the constitutional approach to collection, we would welcome the opportunity to reinstate Colorado-based Associates.
You may express your views of Colorado's new law to members of the General Assembly and to Governor Ritter, who signed the bill.
Your Associates account has been closed as of March 8, 2010, and we will no longer pay advertising fees for customers you refer to Amazon.com after that date. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to March 8, 2010, will be processed and paid in accordance with our regular payment schedule. Based on your account closure date of March 8, any final payments will be paid by May 31, 2010.
We have enjoyed working with you and other Colorado-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program, and wish you all the best in your future.
Best Regards,
The Amazon Associates Team
On reading that, I just wanted to cry. My new project is a labor of love -- as you'll see when it's launched on Monday. But dammit, I was hoping to be compensated somewhat for my past and future hours of work by those small commissions from Amazon. The same applies to other projects of mine. In an instant, the new law meant that so much past work was wasted and so many future plans derailed.
As if that's not bad enough, the media and the leftists in Colorado are blaming Amazon for closing the program, rather than Colorado Democrats for enacting the law. Consider the opening of Mike Litwin's column: Amazon's use of human shields evil:
I don't like to say that Amazon is evil, because I'm not in the corporations-are-people legal camp.
But it turns out that Amazon is evil. And now that Amazon has fired all its Colorado affiliates — mostly mom-and-pop outfits, and who can resist an outfit with a mom or a pop? — I find I have no choice.
In a sales-tax war between Amazon and the Colorado legislature, Amazon has dropped the big one on the innocent affiliates, who have done absolutely nothing wrong except get caught in the crossfire.
No one seems sure exactly why Amazon fired its Colorado affiliates — people who, after all, send business Amazon's way — unless it was simply to enjoy watching the ensuing chaos. Amazon has done something like this before. That's why, before passing the new law, Colorado legislators specifically exempted affiliates from the battlefield.
The affiliates, numbering in the thousands, are angry — either at the legislators or at Amazon or, probably, both.
...in a move leaders from around the state have called 'tyrannical' and 'pure duplicity,' Amazon, with no warning, closed the accounts of Colorado website owners--many of whom are individual bloggers and nonprofit organizations--in protest of routine collection of state sales taxes. What they've done won't allow them to evade the new law. All they have done is punish our neighbors in order to score cheap political points.
In fact, Amazon did not decide to terminate its Colorado affiliates on a lark or for revenge: they did so because the existence of those affiliates would have subject them to an onerous and expensive confusion of red tape, such that the program was no longer of value to them.
Democratic legislators have disingenuously claimed that the tax law is merely about equalizing the tax standing between local retailers and online retailers. Such claims stray far from the truth.
A local retailer is located within a particular set of tax zones (state and county, and possibly city and various special districts). Within that location, the percentage of the tax is exactly the same for each purchase. The retailer calculates the percentage, tacks on the fee to the sale, and the customer pays it. Then the retailer pays the various taxes to the various taxing entities at the alloted times.
That is most certainly NOT what the Amazon Tax requires of online retailers. Here's what the final version of Bill 1193 actually says:
"Each retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax shall notify Colorado purchasers that sales or use tax is due on certain purchases made from the retailer and that the state of Colorado requires the purchaser to file a sales or use tax return."
Failure to do so results in a $5 fee per infraction. Retailers must also submit an annual tax report to customers, stating that they owe the Colorado taxes. "The notification specified... shall be sent separately to all Colorado purchasers by first-class mail and shall not be included with any other shipments."
Furthermore: "Each retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax shall file an annual statement for each purchaser to the Department of Revenue on such forms as are provided or approved by the Department..."
The bill is also quite vicious in its enforcement: "If any retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax refuses voluntarily to furnish any of the information specified in [another part of] this section when requested by the executive director of the Department of Revenue [etc.], the executive director, by subpoena issued under the executive director's hand, may require the attendance of the retailer" at a government hearing. Moreover, the director is authorized by the bill "to apply to any judge of the district court of the State of Colorado to enforce such subpoena by an appropriate order..."
Obviously, this scenario is nothing like what local retailers must endure. Consider: if Amazon makes a $10 sale to somebody in Colorado, under the law Amazon is required to send out tax documents to the customer (via first-class mail) as well as to the state, and the customer is required to pay the sales tax. The postage and time required to comply with this bureaucracy --for both Amazon and customers -- could easily overwhelm any profit that Amazon makes from the sale, and it would add considerably to the total purchasing price (including the value of time spent complying with the controls).
As Amazon recognized in its letter to Associates, the obvious intent of the bill is to make doing business in Colorado living hell unless retailers "voluntarily" collect the sales taxes directly.
In other words, the bill is a vicious combination of blackmail and threat of physical force.
Ari Armstrong and I are frantically putting together a campaign on this issue. People need to recognize that Amazon is the victim -- the primary victim -- of very destructive legislation. The repeal of this awful law should be first on the agenda after the election in November, presuming that the Republicans gain control of the legislature again.
I'll have a very basic web site up and running at RepealTheAmazonTax.com later today. [Now done!] I've also created a low-volume, moderated e-mail list. To stay informed about the battle against the "Amazon Tax," subscribe to NoAmazonTax @ GoogleGroups.
Honestly, I do not want to fight this fight. I've got a dozen other projects that I'm really desperate to develop. I've got career plans that I want to get underway. Instead of doing something positive, I'm battling some already-passed tax insanity. As if that's not depressing enough, I'm seriously worried about burning myself out, given that I'm not yet fully recovered from hypothyroidism. However, I cannot afford not to fight this fight. So many of my future plans are derailed by this law that I cannot ignore it and hope for the best.
In a recent New York Timescolumn, Frank Rich attacked and smeared the nascent tea party movement. While most of his diatribe received the fiskings it deserved, one significant fallacy went unchallenged. Perhaps it was overlooked because the left has committed it for so long now that it seems unquestionable. All the more reason to bring it to light.
The fallacy is the equation of violence with force. The error and its consequences are manifest in what the left condemns and condones...
What I especially liked about her piece was that she cut to the heart of the health care policy debate:
Medicine often focuses only on the physical act of living -- breathing in and out, keeping the heart beating. But human life is more than the functioning of the moving parts. Although healthcare may be the only requirement for a brain-dead accident victim on life support, it is not the only requirement for the rest of us. To live, we need food, we need shelter, we need companionship and work, and hundreds of other material and spiritual requirements. Healthcare is a necessity -- and after a car accident, or during a flu infection, it may be the most important necessity. But it is not the only requirement for life.
When people talk about a 'right' to healthcare, they mean an entitlement to healthcare. They mean that unlike other goods and services that must be earned through individual work or trade, healthcare should be provided for free.
Medicine is not the only industry that fulfills a necessity for life, so what entitles us to the products of this particular industry, and not others? Why not food or clothes? And why not those products that provide a good life -- feather beds or paintings or tickets to the movies? Or are we entitled to those as well?
The issue goes far beyond healthcare. It is a question of what the government's role should be in providing for its citizens. Should the government collect taxes to provide citizens with whatever goods and services they deem 'necessary?' Or is it the responsibility of individual citizens to work for whichever products and services they can independently earn -- with the government existing to secure their freedom to pursue these ends?
In particular, she challenges the popular misconception that the irrational actions of men like Tiger Woods and Bernie Madoff were "selfish". Here's an excerpt:
By its most basic definition, to be selfish is to be interested in attaining something for oneself, to act in pursuit of one's own needs or desires.
But observe what these men attained for themselves: Madoff will spend the rest of his life behind bars, his stolen wealth lost, while Woods, once the highest paid athlete in the world, has lost his endorsements, his reputation, and possibly even his family. Clearly, such were not the desired outcomes.
This raises a question: can these men, whose actions led not to their success and happiness but rather to their self-destruction, really be characterized as selfish?
Basu is completely correct. Woods and Madoff were self-destructive, not "selfish". Lying, cheating, and stealing are tremendously self-defeating behaviours (even if their practitioners might temporarily delude themselves into believing that they are "getting away" with some short-term illusory gains.)
The truly selfish person thinks and acts in the long range. This requires living according to rational principles, which in turn requires a commitment to cultivating virtues such as honesty, integrity, independence, justice, productiveness, pride, and rationality. This may seem counter-intuitive to those who equate "selfishness" with a willingness to violate such moral principles. But a deeper examination of the genuine requirements of the pursuit of long-range rational self-interest reveals that living according to these moral principles is essential for a selfish life.
On a related note, I want to observe that the Undercurrent writers are generating some consistently good current affairs and cultural commentary from an Objectivist perspective and getting this material in the hands of college students across the country for free.
My theme is that we have to oppose ObamaCare on moral grounds, not just economic or procedural grounds. I'm especially glad to be able to cite Dr. Peikoff's essay, "Health Care is Not A Right" in my piece.
Here is the opening:
President Obama has finally demanded an "up or down vote" on his health care plan. Republicans have already raised numerous economic and procedural objections, arguing that his plan relies on economic "smoke and mirrors" and that the president is now endorsing the same controversial "reconciliation" process that he denounced in 2005 as a senator as "the wrong place for policy changes." Yet the president and his supporters remain committed to their goal of government-run "universal health care." Why is that?
The key is Obama's declaration, "I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right." Ultimately, Obama and his liberal base believe that government-guaranteed health care is a "moral imperative" -- i.e., "it's right." And that will also be the key to defeating it.
As Leonard Peikoff once wrote, "So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance."
Hence, one must challenge ObamaCare not merely on the economic or procedural levels but on the moral level.
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
The February 2010 issue of the British magazine Re:new has published a story on the American health care debate and how it relates to ongoing problems with the British National Health Service. They quoted me as a representative of the free-market side.
The story is entitled, "A Bitter Bill".
Although the article is generally supportive of the concept of "universal health care", the author quoted me fairly and she gave me and FIRM a lot of space on the first page. In contrast, the representative for the pro-"single payer" US group, Physicians for a National Health Program, was not named and received less column space.
The online version of the story is not available yet, but you can see the print version here:
Despite living in the only Western country without universal healthcare, millions of Americans are keen to keep things as they are. The current system may not be perfect, but the alternative, or so they believe, is unthinkable.
To them, the idea of paying for others is a socialist one, going against their definitions of rights and freedom. Collective responsibility is an alien concept that means spending your hard-earned money on someone else. To these Americans, Obama's "socialism" is only a short step away from communism, the great fear of the 1950s.
Lobbying groups, such as Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM), argue that universal health care infringes on individual rights. "There is no such thing as a right to healthcare any more than there is to a car or a house," argues FIRM's Dr. Paul Hirsch [sic]. "President Obama's health care plan -- or any other form of universal health care -- is wrong, because attempting to guarantee an alleged right to health care must necessarily violate the actual rights of those forced to provide such care and those forced to pay for it".
The British National Health Service has often been dragged into the American debate, and Dr. Hirsh believes that government provision of healthcare like that in Britain results in unnecessary bureaucracy. "Whenever the government attempts to guarantee health care, it must necessarily also control it," he says. "Hence crucial medical decisions are inevitably made by government bureaucrats, rather than physicians and patients. Healthcare becomes just another privilege to be dispensed at the discretion of bureaucrats."
(The author apologized for misspelling my name and she told me that it would be corrected on their website.)
Overall, I thought she represented my views fairly, and I'm honored to have FIRM's ideas circulated to readers in the UK!
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:00 PM
A note from The Undercurrent:
I have some exciting news for you -- the next edition of The Undercurrent will be in color, and will be twelve pages instead of our usual eight! This will make for a more eye-catching and content rich newspaper. I encourage you to preview all the articles, as they were just published on our updated website here. The PDF version of the newspaper will also be available on our website soon. I'll let you know as soon as it's ready.
Don't forget -- the deadline to order the Spring 2010 issue of The Undercurrent is Thursday, March 4th! That's right, you only have eight days left to put in your order. To order, visit the order page, or e-mail your name, address, and the number of copies you wish to purchase to contact@the-undercurrent.com.
If you can't afford to distribute, let us know. In all likelihood, we will be able to match you with a donor who would be pleased to sponsor your distribution efforts. Please do not hesitate to contact us about this opportunity at contact@the-undercurrent.com.
Or, if you are of means but not of time, please consider making a donation to The Undercurrent, so that we can continue providing papers to students free of charge. For more information about donating, visit the donation page or email us at contact@the-undercurrent.com.
My theme is the seemingly innocuous compromise "reform" of requiring insurers to cover all pre-existing conditions would gradually lead to a full government takeover of health care.
I was very glad to be able to cite John Lewis' excellent TOS article observing that the Democrats' last secret weapon against the American people was the Republicans' willingness to compromise (in the final paragraph).
Here is the opening:
President Obama attempted to revive his faltering health care initiative by releasing a revised version of his plan on Monday. But as Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute noted, the president's basic approach remains to "Tax, Spend, Regulate, Mandate" -- i.e., to impose massive new government controls over health care that Americans have already rejected in tea party protests across the country and in the polling booths of Massachusetts.
GOP leaders have been appropriately skeptical of the president's demand that his plan be the basis for their "summit" negotiations, calling it a "nonstarter." But while they've avoided that obvious trap, the Republicans are still in danger of falling for the subtler trap of agreeing to seemingly benign limited compromise "reforms" that would merely result in a slower government takeover of American health care.
One of the Democrats' favorite limited proposals has been to require insurance companies to accept all customers regardless of pre-existing medical conditions -- an idea supported by many Republicans...
In this piece, I criticize the latest Obama Administration proposal to convert some of our private 401(k) retirement money into government annuities in order to help prop up the failing Social Security system. I also attempt to make the moral argument for the phasing out and eventual elimination of Social Security.
The Obama administration has just solicited public comment on their proposal to take money from Americans' private 401(k) retirement accounts and convert it into government-backed annuities. In other words, they want to take your money now to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, then pay you a monthly sum later after you’ve retired.
Although this proposal is being initially portrayed as a voluntary choice, Americans already have the ability to purchase Treasury Bonds with their retirement money. Moreover, the Obama administration is considering making these annuities the default option. And as analyst Karl Denninger noted, "'choices' have a funny way of turning into mandates." Nor is his concern unjustified.
In 2008, Professor Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School of Social Research testified before Congress proposing a similar scheme to convert private 401(k) accounts into government-run "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts" that would pay a 3% return. And in 2008, the Argentinian government attempted to nationalize private retirement funds to help cover its runaway deficit.
As the U.S. Social Security system moves ever closer to bankruptcy, the billions of dollars Americans have saved in their private retirement accounts will become an increasingly tempting target for our politicians...
My theme is that Boulder's congressman Jared Polis (a very liberal Democrat) should drop has latest proposal for a "public option" and instead support free market health care reforms -- because it would be both good policy and good politics.
Here is the introduction:
Boulder's Congressman Jared Polis recently made national headlines when he and fellow first-term Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) teamed up to petition the U.S. Senate to include the so-called "public option" in its next version of health care legislation.
Polis' move was an attempt to break the political stalemate between the House and the Senate following Republican Scott Brown's upset election victory in Massachusetts. After Brown's election deprived Senate Democrats of the 60-vote supermajority necessary to pass the current version of ObamaCare, the House and Senate have struggled to bridge the differences between their respective versions of health legislation. In particular, one key difference has been the government-run "public plan" to compete with private insurance plans, which House liberals (including Polis) supported but which the Senate rejected.
Unfortunately, Polis' "public plan" is both bad policy and bad politics...
In particular, I mention the fact that Polis' views are out of step with what Americans want. Hence, he could alienate many independent voters here in Colorado.
Could a version of the Massachusetts election upset also happen here in liberal Boulder, Colorado?
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
This fall, I returned to Toastmasters -- the super-effective organization of clubs for training people in the skills of public speaking and leadership -- by joining Denver's brand new "Liberty Toastmasters." The club was created by Brad Beck, a classmate of mine from the Leadership Program of the Rockies (LPR). The members include most of my favorite people from that LPR class, a number of friends from Front Range Objectivism, and various other good folks.
Liberty Toastmasters is somewhat unique, in that it focuses on "issues such as personal responsibility, individual / property rights, limited government, free markets, and a strong national defense." Of course, not all members do that effectively or consistently, but the group doesn't assume that they do. However, I hope and expect that we will all learn to be more effective advocates for liberty -- not only by cultivating our speaking and leadership skills, but also by refining and augmenting our understanding the theory and practice of individual rights in politics.
Happily, the club was written up in the Denver Examiner, with the focus on Yuriy Belits. I had the pleasure of evaluating his speech at that meeting.
If you're interested in becoming a more effective activist, I'd definitely recommend joining a local Toastmaster club. If you're already an experienced Toastmaster, you might think about creating a similar "Liberty Toastmasters" in your area. From what I've seen, it's a great way to network with -- and influence -- people interested in defending this country from the statism of left and right.
If this report from HotAir.com is accurate, the Democrats will use the "budget reconciliation" technique to ram ObamaCare through Congress.
Basically, the House has to first approve the Senate bill without changes. Then they would use the "budget reconcilation" technique to make changes in a pre-arranged deal to satisfy the various special interest groups. This only requires 51 votes in the Senate, not 60. This tactic is necessitated by the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts which deprived them of their prior 60-vote supermajority.
The good news is that several Democrat Senators have already expressed opposition to using this method. (Whether they actually vote against it is a separate issue). So the Democrats may only have just barely over 50 votes they can count on. Which means if 1 or 2 more Democratic senators decide to oppose this tactic, then it will fail.
Here's an example of a great letter that David Crawford sent to his Senators from Washington state (reposted with his permission):
Senator XXX,
I have heard news that there is a plan to pass the Senate version of the health care bill with modifications made through "budget reconciliation", which requires fewer votes.
None of this seems to be confirmed, so I don't know what is true, but if there *is* such a plan, it seems to be a total subversion of the legislative process! Please do not support efforts that are obviously intended to force a major new set of laws and regulations on a people who are trying to make it clear that they don't want it.
The Massachusetts election was the latest of many efforts of voters to communicate that we do *not* support this massive intrusion into our health care. I believe the Senate bill was passed too early, without a real understanding of your constituents concerns.
We all want better health care, but the proposed changes may have a devastating effect on the existing system, especially at a time when the economy is still very unstable. Please listen to what your constituents are trying to tell you and vote NO on any "budget reconciliation" efforts to get ObamaCare into law.
My theme is that the recent election in Massachusetts (as well as the earlier November 2009 elections in NY, NJ, and VA) show that independent voters want limited government. Specifically, they want "the Democrats out of their pockets and the Republicans out of their bedrooms."
Here's the opening:
In the aftermath of Scott Brown's stunning upset election victory in Massachusetts, pundits will be debating the meaning and political implications for weeks to come. However, one fact is incontrovertibly clear. The race hinged on the independent voters.
In Massachusetts, 50% of the registered voters are independent, as opposed to 37% Democratic and 12% Republican. In this week's election, independents voted overwhelmingly for Brown, giving him a 52-to-47% victory -- in a state where Barack Obama easily won 62% of the vote in 2008. This enormous swing shows that the independents represent a powerful political force that neither party can take for granted.
Independents are also the driving force behind the tea party rallies. Many tea party supporters have been quite explicit in warning that their opposition to the policies of our current Democratic president and Congress should not be mistaken as automatic support for the Republicans.
So what do the independents want? In a word, limited government...
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
In the wake of the Massachusetts special election, Bryan Armentrout sent the following letter to his elected officials (reposted here with his permission):
I oppose any effort by the government to control my healthcare and I hope that the developments in Massachusetts will serve as a clear wake up call at your office. No one wants this legislation and the elections and polls strongly support this assertion.
I urge you to reverse your support and publically oppose healthcare legislation in any form.
If you continue your support for nationalized healthcare, I will actively work to remove you from office during the next election cycle.
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:00 PM
[This a special guest post from Jared Rhoads highlighting the work he's done for The Lucidicus Project. I hope other Objectivists find this as informative and inspiring as I did. -- Paul]
NoodleFoodler Paul Hsieh recently invited me to write about the healthcare activism that I do under the banner of The Lucidicus Project.
For those who haven't heard of it before, The Lucidicus Project is a small educational initiative that I started back in 2005. Our mission is to help med students learn more about the moral and economic case for capitalism.
(This, of course, is done with the selfish hope that they will go on to become better defenders of their own rights -- and in so doing, help create a freer system in which they can deliver the type of high-quality care and innovative treatments from which everyone can benefit.)
We engage in a variety of activism, including publishing editorials on Lucidicus.org, getting involved in Tea Parties, writing LTEs, and so on. But by far what we enjoy most is sending out our "self-defense kit" to med students.
The kit we have put together contains an assortment of pro-capitalism books and materials, including Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's article "How Not to Fight Against Socialized Medicine."
One of the biggest hits with recipients is the audio CD of Dr. Peikoff's Ford Hall Forum speech, "Medicine: Death of a Profession." It's a very stirring overview, and it's perfect for busy med students to listen to on the go. It also demonstrates the power of thinking in principles, since it was delivered nearly 25 years ago yet every word is still relevant today.
On January 2nd, we awarded our 50th kit. It's a proud achievement for a grassroots project with such a niche focus. As you can imagine, med students are about as challenging a demographic as one can choose. For starters, there are relatively few of them and they are extremely busy with courses, labs, and rotations. Many are not interested in politics. Some believe that philosophy is nothing more than the hogwash that their freshman-year humanities professor taught.
To make matters worse, the culture in med school is thoroughly altruistic; the desire "to help people" and "to serve others" is often pushed as the only valid reason for entering medicine.
Despite the challenges, though, each med student we reach represents a potentially tremendous gain. Imagine how beneficial it would be to have 100, 200, or 1,000 doctors stand up and defend their right to practice medicine free of coercion, controls, and social welfare programs. Big-government advocates pushing socialized medicine wouldn't stand a chance.
So that's what we're shooting for. Chipping away at the unearned guilt; ending the sanction of the victim.
I'm thrilled that there are multiple groups out there with similar values and goals -- namely AFCM, FIRM, the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. We have lots of different angles covered, including different niches, issues, geographies, you-name-it. In a world where conservatives don't know what they believe, and the Tea Party movement is at risk of drifting away, we need all the help we can get.
Lately our focus has been on health reform. We've been writing letters to Congress, LTEs to newspapers, Tweeting, and more. Typically we concentrate on long-term philosophy rather than narrow politics, but these health reform bills are not your average pieces of legislation. In 2010, we'll be getting back to our core focus on getting more kits out to med students.
Please -- if you're interested in healthcare as an issue -- get involved. There are lots of ways to do so.
If you have the time and can put pen to paper, consider writing a guest editorial for Lucidicus.org. If you don't have the time, but have the money, consider making a donation. (In case you're curious, it costs us roughly $37 to send out a kit, but donations of any size are always a big help.) If you have neither time nor money, but have a blog, then give us a link and send some traffic our way.
Or go solo. Or help out with one of the other organizations mentioned above. The point is, if you enjoy doing it and if you think it makes a difference, then give it a shot. More people are listening than you think.
The Wall Street Journal warns us that under ObamaCare, we may see yet another "czar" -- this time, in charge of our mandatory health insurance. This would be in addition to the long list of czars President Obama has already appointed for "green jobs," executive pay, domestic violence, international climate change, and the auto industry.
Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily determine what constitutes an "acceptable" plan. The health insurance czar would be in charge of a new bureaucracy called the "Health Choice Administration," which would regulate what prices insurance companies could charge for policies, who they must cover, and what benefits they must offer...
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Jason Crawford has started sending the following letter to his elected officials. With his permission, I am posting his text below:
Dear _______,
I am opposed to the health care bill for several reasons:
First, I just read an important editorial in Saturday's Wall Street Journal explaining why the health-care bill is unconstitutional in multiple ways. In particular: "the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance."
Further, I oppose a mandate to buy insurance from a company where I can't negotiate freely.
Finally, I oppose any further restrictions on abortion rights.
In general, I oppose socialized medicine, "universal coverage", any "public option" or "single-payer" system, and any expansion of government control over health care.
Real reform would be increased freedom in health care, especially repeal of insurance mandates, opening insurance across state lines, and opening HSAs to everyone.
Health care is not a right! It is a service to be bought and paid for. And doctors, hospitals, and patients should have the right and the freedom to deal with each other any way they want.
- Jason A. Crawford
Thank you, Jason, for a fine letter! I encourage anyone who agrees with his ideas to send something similar to their elected officials.
In particular, FRO members published the following at the regional and national level:
Articles: 3 OpEds: 57 LTEs: 48
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.
Congress' plan to cut the deficit by raising the debt limit now, then reducing spending later, is like trying to lose weight by eating a box of chocolate chip cookies now, then promising to exercise next week.
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia
(The Denver Post has a dedicated LTE section called "To The Point" for short LTEs. This one came in at 37 words.)
My theme is that some little-discussed provisions of the health care bill will increasingly limit the freedom of patients to seek (and doctors to deliver) medical services based on the patient's best interest. Instead, doctors will be increasingly forced to practice according to collectivist "cost-effectiveness" government criteria.
Here is the introduction:
The U.S. Senate is making increasingly Byzantine backroom deals in an attempt to pass some form of universal health care by the end of the year. But even though the final bill isn't settled yet, one fact is becoming increasingly clear. Any plan they pass will result in the government seizing an unprecedented degree of control over previously private health spending decisions.
Two of these proposed new controls are worth highlighting, because they are not often discussed in most mainstream media reports...
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:00 AM
Duke University professor John Lewis give the following lecture to the Davison Council, Duke University Medical School on November 13, 2009.
If a respected MIT scientist like Mr. Lindzen argues that "the science isn't settled," and other scientists disagree, then doesn't the very dispute itself prove that the science isn't settled?
Paul Hsieh Sedalia, Colo.
(The title applies to the first letter on the page, not to mine.)
This is also my new record for LTE brevity -- 30 words!
Dear Subscribers and Friends of The Objective Standard,
Now through November 30, online-only subscriptions to TOS are 60% off the regular rate. An online subscription, which includes instant access to all current and past content, is only $19!
If you know anyone who might be interested in trying the journal, please let him know about this special offer. And if you've considered subscribing to TOS yourself but haven't yet done so, this is a great time to subscribe.
You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Paul and I have given quite a few gift subscriptions to The Objective Standard over the years to non-Objectivist friends interested in free markets, and they've always been super-impressed with the journal.
By Paul Hsieh @ 5:00 AM
As several political observers have noted, the Senate Democrats scraped together just barely enough votes this weekend to start the health care debate.
At least 4 Senators who voted to begin the debate have stated that this should not be construed as support for the bill itself. Hence, the battle is not yet lost.
The actual debate in the Senate is expected to begin after Thanksgiving and will extend through December. The goal of the statists is to have a bill that Obama can sign by Christmas (or at the very latest by his State of the Union address in January 2010).
Our side has definitely suffered some setbacks lately, but we still have a chance to win:
1) Public opinion momentum has shifted slowly but steadily in our direction as more Americans start realizing that they will suffer under health care "reform".
2) The controversy over the proposed federal mammography restrictions has made the claims that "government care = rationing" very real for many ordinary Americans.
3) There have been a steady stream of articles and OpEds in high-profile outlets like Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, etc., making pretty good economic arguments (and sometimes good moral arguments) against universal health care.
4) The other side is still deeply concerned that their health care agenda will collapse at the final step. Numerous news stories discuss the Democrats' internal divisions on this issue and their fears about polling data against their proposal. (For example, "How health care reform could fall apart".)
Hence, if we keep up the pressure, we can still pull this out. So DON'T GIVE UP YET.
As a form of motivation and encouragement, I also encourage folks to read this fairly good analysis from the Washington Examiner written right after the crucial Senate vote:
Suppose the mafia came to your town and forced everyone to purchase all their meals at mob-approved restaurants. The mafia would also select the menu items.
If you liked broccoli but their vegetable choice was spinach, then tough luck. Everyone would also have to purchase dessert, whether they wanted it or not. And if some customers couldn't afford the high-priced meals, the mafia would force you to "contribute" to cover their bills.
Most Americans would be outraged at such violations of their basic rights. But this is precisely what the president and Congress want to do with health insurance...
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:00 AM
A friend who asked to be identified only as "Christian W" recently posted this excellent essay on Facebook. Christian used to live in a country with socialized medicine. Hence, he has some valuable advice in case America goes down that path.
I originally found Christian's essay here at ReasonPharm, Stella Zawistowski's blog. They were both kind enough to grant me permission to repost his piece in its entirely (along with one parenthetical note by Stella). I've also added one parenthetical comment of my own.
Folks, socialist medicine is likely inevitable in the United States. I think that it will either be implemented by means of sweeping bills like the one now approved by the House, or by a continued gradual strangulation of freedom in healthcare. The trends towards fascism and socialism have grown increasingly stronger over generations, and little will change their essential trajectories in our lifetimes. (I hope to be proven wrong.)
I think that it is still very worthwhile to wage an intellectual battle against the collectivist juggernaut, but it is also time to consider some personal strategies for coping with the coming deterioration of healthcare in this country.
Here are a few general practical guidelines for personal survival:
1) Rationing and shortages are inevitable under socialism. Therefore you must plan your life as if no healthcare will be available for you at all except in cases of acute trauma requiring ambulance transport. (There are some other exceptions, but this is the essence of health care in countries like Sweden.)
Absence of modern medical services means that you have to take meaningful steps to minimize the risk of acquiring a chronic illness or disease of aging and/or lifestyle. You will have to become your own doctor, primarily focusing on disease prevention. Special emphasis should be put on proper diet and exercise. Know these fields as if your life depends on it.
Note: Don't become overly reliant on supplements as a way to mitigate less-than-optimal dietary and lifestyle choices, because supplements that are in any way effective will gradually be outlawed, as they already are in Europe. The pharmaceutical industry lobby, in collusion with power-lusting congressmen/bureaucrats, will ensure this.
2) Treat your body as a delicate vintage automobile that you must take exquisite care of, since spare parts and/or access to a professional mechanic are either nonexistent or excruciatingly expensive. Many organs and systems of the body have good self-repair mechanisms, while others, unfortunately, have not.
Thus, for example, participating in sports that may wear down joints or cause other permanent damage should be minimized. (Services like hip replacements will not be readily available.) Many health-conscious people are unaware that the modes of exercise that they are applying may have short term health benefits, but could be detrimental in the longer term. Be informed, and always apply the ancient medical maxim "First, do no harm."
3) Avoid contact with the public healthcare system as much as possible. It can be deadly to be sucked into the machinery even for a minor issue. Misdiagnosis and faulty, dangerous, treatments and medication regimens are commonplace under socialism (just as in Dark Ages "medicine").
In many areas of medicine, particularly those related to especially politicized areas like CVD and other "life-style" diseases, government-franchised practitioners are often dangerously ignorant of essential facts. Remember that the worst aspect of socialist medicine is that medicine as a rational science is epistemologically destroyed by eliminating the role of the doctor as a sovereign, independently thinking, professional.
[SDZ: I consider that last point an incredibly important observation that needs to be spread widely.]
4) Don't trust at face value any pronunciation or recommendation that comes out of organizations like the FDA, USDA, NIH, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, the medical industry lobby, or your medical insurance company.
I deliberately lump together government agencies and some influential private entities here, because these are all primarily (or, in the case of the private organizations, to a very significant degree) vehicles for dissemination of propaganda having scant to do with the furtherance of objective health information.
Obtain your health information from honest clinical practitioners with proven track records, and from primary scientific sources. The latter can be done either directly, for example, by reading research papers (if you have the time and appropriate background knowledge to do so) or by finding experts that apply sufficiently rigorous epistemological standards to interpret and explain the content of such scientific sources for the layman. (Aim to get a second opinion on all important issues.)
5) Consider becoming a "medical tourist". Medical services are already cheaper, safer, and provided with better care for the patient in many former third world countries. (Thailand comes to mind.) If you'll ever need to travel overseas to save your own life, swear to never forgive those of your countrymen who let America deteriorate to such a despicable state.
My advice: Maintain your private medical care if at all possible. If you are relatively healthy, look into a high-deductible health insurance plan linked to a Health Savings Account (HSA). Start putting money away in that HSA for a rainy day. Find a "concierge physician" or doctor with whom you can establish a direct financial relationship; someone who will act as your medical advocate in a system that is broken and will only get worse. You get what you pay for and medicine today is no different.
Of course the best way to protect yourself from the dangers of government-run universal health care is to stop it in the first place. So let your friends, family members, co-workers, and elected officials know that you don't want it! After all, it's your life that's at stake...
I am a law-abiding citizen and breast cancer survivor, and I completely disagree with the current move to nationalize health care. Dissent is not new to me. As a teenager I worked to abolish the draft. Now, as then, my dissent is as a thinking American, not a member of an "un-American mob."
If government owns and pays for my health care, they own my body just as a farmer owns his cow. If government is paying, it will decide what kind of care I get and when I will get it. Under "free health care for all," access will diminish as lines lengthen, and my care may not be there when I really need it.
Although supporters of free-market health care reform lost a battle last night in the House vote, the war is not over -- it has merely shifted to the Senate.
The Democrats wheedled, cajoled, begged, and finally abandoned its defense of abortion -- truly a watershed moment -- in order to get their version of ObamaCare passed ...in the House of Representatives, where they enjoy a 75-seat majority. In the end, they could only muster a five-vote win on Nancy Pelosi's bill out of that strong majority. Until this week, most had assumed that any ObamaCare bill would pass the House easily, but that the fight would be in the Senate.
So what does this 220-215 vote tell us? Capitol Hill Democrats know that this bill is an albatross. It's true that Pelosi was able at the end to negotiate votes to allow a few at-risk Democrats that supported the bill to oppose it in the final vote, but even that tells a tale of fear and consciousness of unpopularity. The razor-thin vote, as well as a number of earlier, more sincere defections, show that this bill was a radical and expensive approach to fix a 13% problem -- and even most of the Democrats know it.
...We always thought the fight was in the Senate, so the only real surprise yesterday was how weak Pelosi actually was on ObamaCare.
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
