“I've also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it...

President Obama July 22, 2009 (Footnote 1)

I believe this is a laudable and praiseworthy goal and I hope it is true. However, in what reasons, assurances and truth do I have to hope?

The American people have no basis upon which to believe anything from Washington D.C. when spending money is concerned. If you need proof of that, as of the moment this post was being written, our National Debt was $11,889,652,785. What does that look like? According to CNBC.com, “If denominated in $1 bills, the cash would stack as high as the tallest building in the world, the 2,683.7 foot Burj Dubai skyscraper… 1,474,918 times. At this height, it would create a block of bills with a base approximately twice the size of the Empire State Building's, which is just under the size of three American football fields.

If consolidated into a single stack of $1 bills, it would measure about 749,666 miles, which is enough to reach from the earth to the moon twice (at perigee), with a few billion dollars left to spare... It is also interesting to note that this number is approximately 13 times the amount of US currency in circulation, according to the Treasury bulletin, which lists the amount at $853.6 billion as of December 31, 2008 (Footnote 2).”

If you need further proof, think of the Iraq War, Medicare, Medicare Part D, and the War in Afghanistan. Almost all of this debt is from former administrations and we cannot blame the current president for past errors. Our national debt and recent events however show a long train of abuses when it comes to the public purse. Even now, President Obama continues to fund our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through supplemental bills just as President Bush did so he can say how his budget cuts the deficit when it really doesn't. Four weeks ago he touted on Prime Time TV how he had cut the deficit by $2,200,000,000,000 (Footnote 1). Yesterday the White House announced that they had reduced it by only $200,000,000,000 (Footnote 3). That is a two trillion dollar error in a matter of weeks.

The President said, “I'm not going to sign a bill that, for example, adds to our deficit.” However, this year the Federal Government has spent $1,580,000,000 that it didn't have (Footnote 3). Granted, a lot of that was emergency spending for things that many believe may help our economy in the short term. However, not all of it has been helpful and some would argue that none of it was necessary or helpful - including the non-partisan congressional budget office (Footnote 4).

So, on what grounds do we have to believe the current President's projections for how much health care reform will cost? We have no such grounds. Those who do believe the government's projections are disregarding not just history, but the present reality.

If we can't trust the cost projections, how can we trust the President when he says “health care reform is not going to add to that deficit”?

Reality has proven to us that costs are always higher than they tell us. The president tells us that health care reform will cost $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 10 years (Footnote 5). Is that all? Some project health care reform to be $8 trillion over 10 years…60% as large as our current national debt (Footnote 6). Even the current house bill has a projected budget shortfall of $13,600,000,000,000 (Footnote 7) – far more than the $1 Trillion being discussed. According a Walt Street Journal article last year, Medicare alone has an unfunded liability of $74,000,000,000,000 (Footnote 8). How will all of this be paid for? It will be paid for by deficit spending – that is, taxing the unborn to pay for expenses today.

The fact of the matter is, they are not being honest with us regarding the costs of the bill in an effort to pass it. This will cost much, much more then they are telling us because a) it always does, and b) government programs always expand over time. We have to account for this.

To not be honest about the costs and what this means for us in the near and long term is irresponsible and misleading at best, reckless and dishonest at worst. In either case, it is a far cry from good government and representative democracy.

The right way to do this would be to be open and honest about the costs and the reality of what it will take to pay for it. But we're dreaming if we think that will happen...

The president and those who are pushing for this change and trying to sell it with these cost projections are peddling dreams – not reality. And even worse, their dreams will become our financial and economic nightmare in the not too distant future as the public becomes straddled with the true costs of government health care reform and are forced at all levels and in more than one way to pay for it.

__________________________________________

Footnotes

1. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html

2. http://www.cnbc.com/id/30108264/?slide=12

3. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821

4. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

5. http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/article/health-care-reform-what-it-will-cost-you/330206/

6. Health Reform 2009: Watershed or Waterloo? A Lockton Benefit Group Webcast

7. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10422

8. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120373015283387491.html

For those who have read any of my recent articles, it is no mystery what my views are regarding most of the parts of the proposed health care overhaul bill. I want reform just as badly as the President but I want a different kind of reform and, throughout these posts, have been making part of that case. However, before proceeding, I must first declare how utterly wrong and contemptible many of the techniques are that are being used either to sell or thwart the proposed legislation.

I do not support the derogatory label of “Obamacare” or the likening of this legislation to that of the Nazis. I am disappointed in those who would attend a public forum and use it to turn it into a shouting match. I am disappointed at those who would deface property, resort to calling names and make crazy accusations about our government with such things as death squads and fascism. They have deceived themselves into thinking that the desired end justifies the means. And importantly, it seems as though they have failed to remember that Americans are generally good people and that our Representatives generally try to do good and to help our country – in both Parties.

Conversely, the techniques of not being honest about the reasons, alternative solutions, true costs, and possible outcomes of this proposed legislation is dishonest, sinister and wrong. They too have fooled themselves into thinking that the desired end justifies the means.

They both err in that you cannot separate the end from the means – the means become the end. The means being used on both sides will not lead us any closer to a society of peace, unity and brotherly love. In fact, they lead us further away from the very thing we seek to create.

This is still America and we all still love our Country – no matter what side of the isle we are on. The primary difference is not in what we want to accomplish but in how we wish to accomplish it. Just as you cannot separate the means from the end in the legislation being discussed, you cannot separate the means from the ends in the techniques that are being used to thwart or pass it.

Respect, honesty, reason and building on common ground must be the means as it is the only end we truly desire. The current tactics will only further divide the ground we are on and cause us to no longer be One and Indivisible.

Those exalted and noble means are what we must expect from ourselves and one another – on all sides of this argument. That is the only way we will actually become anything better as a result of this debate. We want to build a better society; the place that begins is within each one of us and in the choice of means we use to get there. In this debate and all others, let us all make the choice to take the road less traveled – that of respect, honesty, reason and building on common ground – as that is the one that makes the difference.

Discovering the true cost of Health Care Reform is paramount to finding the proper way to fund it. To do that, we have to look at many different sources, including the White House and the press. I found this article provided an important perspective on the debate. I hope you enjoy.

by Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters

This article appeared in National Review (Online) on August 6, 2009.

Even a popular president like Barack Obama cannot win arguments against two forces: God and mathematics. While the president has openly shared his reverence for the former, he has decided to take on the latter. It's a fight that he will lose.

Upon taking office, President Obama decided to postpone his campaign promise to implement a true cost-saving reform of Social Security and Medicare. Instead, he's trying to expand the nation's entitlement offerings with massive new government spending on health care.

The Congressional Budget Office's mid-July "score" of the main House health-care bill puts the price tag at about $1 trillion over the next decade; the Blue Dog Democrats managed to shave off only about $100 billion. But ten-year budgets, as even the CBO has warned in the past, are not reliable for assessing entitlement programs. Most of the spending in the House plan is phased in over several years, making the ten-year cost look deceptively small. Extending the budget window by just three years doubles the program's cost to over $2 trillion.

This enormous shortfall is equal to about 1.6 percent of all future projected GDP, or 3.5 percent of all future payrolls subject to Social Security taxes. From those numbers, this additional burden might actually seem manageable. But President Obama promised that he would raise taxes only on those in "rich" households.

That's where the arithmetic gets especially interesting. Funding the new health-care plan on the backs of households making $200,000 or more per year would require permanently increasing their annual total tax payments by about 50 percent. So, for example, a household that currently pays $50,000 in federal income taxes would need to pay another $25,000. Remember, however, that Social Security and Medicare already face enormous shortfalls. Shoring up these programs — another Obama campaign promise — would require collecting 328 percent more tax revenue from the rich. No, we didn't forget a decimal point: That is three hundred and twenty-eight percent.

Most households making between $200,000 and $500,000 per year would not have enough money to pay their federal, state, and local tax bills, much less eat. Rich households in California or New York would not be able to pay their tax bills regardless of their incomes. And a family of four living in a low-tax state (South Dakota) would need to gross almost $900,000 per year to have enough income left over to reach the poverty line. In fact, there is no mathematical configuration of taxes on the current rich alone — including additional levies on the "super-rich" making more than $1 million per year — that is compatible with putting the nation's entitlement programs and the new health-care plan on a sustainable course.

U.S. federal income taxes are already very progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners pay the majority of federal income taxes. The top 1 percent of income earners pay a quarter of all taxes.

But can't we expect the rich to pay even more? Maybe for a few years — but not without disastrous consequences to America's future.

A major tax increase causes the tax capacity of the rich to shrink gradually as two factors kick in. First, many of the households falling into Obama's "rich" definition are married couples in which both partners are working professionals. When tax rates rise, the lower-earning spouses in these couples tend to work less. Often, they quit work entirely. Second, many of the "rich" are budding entrepreneurs and small-business owners. They finance their operations using their own after-tax income, or with after-tax resources from family and friends. Small-business innovation is the fuel for long-term economic growth. In fact, many of the largest companies in the United States today were either small or nonexistent just 25 years ago. Killing small business kills the American economy.

We cannot allow federal health-care subsidies — mainly Medicare and Medicaid — to continue to grow faster than inflation indefinitely. The challenge is to find ways to make the nation's commitments to retirees and others sustainable without harming economic growth prospects. In this regard, the Obama administration is charting a course in the wrong direction — expanding entitlements on the backs of our nation's job creators. The math will work against the Obama administration and, eventually, against us all.

Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Kent Smetters is a professor at the Wharton School and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

More by Jagadeesh Gokhale

Accessed at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10422 on August 16, 2009

In my last post I showed how the government has usurped, in many ways, the role of the family in providing certain kinds of care that Nature intended the family to provide for one another. Today I will show how the government weakens the family by providing that care.

If a Nation is to become stronger, its families must become stronger. And, as with exercise where weight must be added for the muscle to grow, families must lift together the burdens placed on their shoulders.

State Welfare & the Metaphorical Arch

When the government steps in and takes upon it the responsibility of providing shelter, loans, certain kinds of education, medical care, food, utilities, and personal income to name a few, it usurps the role of family and removes the “weight” off the family’s shoulders. As with exercise, by lessoning this burden, the family is prevented from growing at best, or weakened at worst. It eliminates the struggle and the tension necessary for growth and the gaining of strength.

The hard and difficult experiences of life that force us to grow, necessarily create a type of tension within us and the family unit. However, that tension is not destructive and shouldn’t be removed at all costs. What should happen is that by the individual and family growing as a result of the tension, those burdens which once were hard to bear become bearable. By becoming stronger ourselves we are then able to bear one another’s burdens. By the family becoming stronger, we can bear the burdens of those not part of our own immediate family, but reach out to the broader family of neighbor, community and world. However, without first becoming strong ourselves we have no strength to offer to those in need.

With the tension gone because of the lack of sacrifice, it weakens the individual and family unit. When we become weaker as individuals, our families become proportionally weaker. When our families become weaker, the Nation likewise weakens. What we need is not an elimination of tension and opportunities to bear our burdens; what we need is to bear them together. This is illustrated by the following quote.

Victor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor, wrote in his moving memoir Man’s Search for Meaning:

“I consider it a dangerous misconception of mental hygiene to assume that what man needs in the first place is equilibrium or, as it is called in biology, “homeostasis,” i.e., a tensionless state. What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him… If architects want to strengthen a decrepit arch, they increase the load that is laid upon it, for thereby the parts are joined more firmly together.”

The family is the arch. The responsibilities of life are the load. When the government decreases the load upon individuals and families by supplying out of its seemingly boundless resources the necessities Nature intended the family to supply for each other, it succeeds most often in this one thing: keeping this metaphorical arch – the individual and the family – from rising to their potential. Furthermore, their help is, often times, actually not help at all and can be detrimental. For me to say otherwise would be to deny my years of personal experience and observations.

Human Potential

Is humanity not the crowing creation of Nature? Indeed we are. We are not here because we are lacking in capacity or natural endowments. We are in the position we are because we are strong and endowed with gifts that must be used for the benefit of ourselves and each other. The mind, imagination, moral perception, imagination, industry and science placed in the being of Mankind is awakened, instructed, strengthened and refined through the experiences nature provides us in supporting ourselves, supporting others, and, at times, allowing ourselves to be served by those around us.

A baby chick hatching from its egg struggles to make its way through. If aided, it will die as it didn’t gain the strength necessary to survive upon its arrival into the world. So too has Nature deemed that through struggle and sacrifice we should live as well as grow in strength and capacity. Through these experiences we can become refined as polished stones – both as individuals and families – and thus become more fit to help and serve one another. We learn that we are entitled to nothing but our own freedom but instead are indebted for everything we have and are. We learn that through love we become One.

Conclusion

I believe in a society where love and peace prevail and where we are all our brother’s keeper. To do this, we must be the keeper – not the government. The government weakens us and our families by taking away the opportunities for struggle, service and sacrifice. If we can no longer bear our burdens by having been weakened through inaction, how can we expect to bear one another’s burdens that theirs may be light? Is not that our divine responsibility? A welfare state weakens our ability to fulfill that.

The families of America are in trouble. There is no disputing this fact. Again, we turn to Confucius, “To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order.” Just as architects who desire to strengthen a decrepit arch increase the load that is laid upon it, so should we allow families to work together to carry the burden life has entrusted them to carry, and thus they, like the arch, will be more firmly joined together.

No one likes to struggle. No decent person likes to see another person struggle. However, as much as we hate to see people struggle, the government should not be the hand that reaches out to help. It should be the hand of Mother, Father, brother, sister, son, daughter, Grandmother, Grandfather, aunt, uncle, cousin – it should be yours. Strengthen those hands – the hands of Family – and you will strengthen the Nation that we all might bear one another’s burdens that they may be light.

In this post and the next I will briefly illustrate how government welfare weakens the family unit in two ways:

Just governments institute laws to protect, among other things, life, liberty and property. As with all laws, there are consequences for breaking those laws.

What happens when the government institutes laws that directly oppress the rights that governments were instituted to protect, and then punish the people for not obeying or complying with those unjust laws?

That is the very situation the government is creating with the current versions of the health care reform legislation. As shown in one of the last essays, the government does not have the right, even when a majority wills it, to take away the property from one group and give it to another.

Recently the President held a press conference on health care reform. In that conference he said that Health Insurance would be mandated for all (Footnote 1). All able (able as defined by the government) Americans will be forced to participate or be fined. The fine as written into the bills at the moment is an additional 2.5% of your income (Footnote 2). Additionally, all wealthy Americans will be forced to have more of their income taxed to pay for the insurance of those who cannot afford it (Footnote 1). As written in an earlier post, forced “charity” and government intervention where it has no moral authority to act is tyranny and injustice.

Laws are instituted to primarily protect Natural Rights. When those laws are broken, there are consequences. So I ask of you, what natural right is a person transgressing when they, of their own free will and accord, choose not to purchase health insurance? Are they stealing another person’s property when they choose not to purchase a service – for themselves (Footnote 3)? Are they taking another individual’s life when they choose not to purchase a service – for themselves? Are they taking away another person’s liberty when they choose not to purchase a service – for themselves?

Indeed not!

Then what punishment that is just can possibly be levied upon a person who is not trampling upon the rights of another? No such just punishment can exist.

On the contrary, it is the Government that is taking away the Liberty of its people when it forces them to purchase a service when it may be against their will and it is the government who is taking away property when it takes it from one group to give to another.

Rather than protect rights, government has sought to re-define rights and thereby re-define what it can punish. It wants the people to believe that they have the right to demand that the rich pay for the poor’s health care. It wants the people to believe that if one citizen doesn’t participate in the system that they are actually taking away health care from another. It wants the people to believe that Government was instituted to create a more glorious outcome rather than administer Justice and ensure Liberty. It wants the people to believe that the ends justify the means. It wants the people to forget that there is no way to separate the ends from the means. Tyranny to get there will mean tyranny when we get there. Injustice as a path means injustice as a destination.

Can we not see how backwards things have become?

_________________________________________

Footnotes

1. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/22/transcript_of_obama_prime-time.html Accessed on August 6, 2009
2. http://keithhennessey.com/2009/07/14/house-taxes-the-uninsured/ Accessed on August 6, 2009
3. Additional Information for the Interested Reader:

Is someone stealing another person’s property when they choose not to purchase insurance for themselves? No. When someone does not pay for a service then it can constitute stealing or theft. For most people though who get a bill that is $5,000 or more and who are required to pay it within a few short months, it is almost certain they will not pay. This is not because they don’t want to, but because the terms don’t allow them to.

If a person who is without health insurance receives a service and is left with a bill in the tens of thousands of dollars, there needs to be a way prepared for such a person to pay their bill. This is one of the areas in which reform is needed but is being neglected. Ways to reform this area include:

1. Reduce the gap between the rate the uninsured pay verses the rate the insurance companies reimburse providers. For many services this gap is enormous. This could be adjusted by a regulation that says the difference should be no greater than X %.

2. Change the way bills are collected from the uninsured. To have 100% of a $5,000 bill due in 120 days is not feasible for most Americans. Allowing individuals to pay off providers for health care bills at a pace they are capable of would help ensure that the bills are paid. Such a schedule could be based on the individual’s income, debts, and family resources.

3. Reduce taxes or increase the deduction allowed for charitable giving. This would help more non-profit organizations to have the resources needed to support those in need.

Amazingly, one of the factors that contributes to the exorbitant amount the uninsured have to pay is the low reimbursement levels from the government and insurance companies. Providers then pass on the loss to other customers paying out of pocket. When those customers don’t pay, they pass them off to the insurance companies. And, at the moment, the health care industry has no incentive to change the way they bill the uninsured because they can quickly pass off those unpaid expenses back onto the insurance companies through higher costs. They cannot, however, pass off those costs at the same rate to the government which in turn forces private insurance rates to increase at an even higher rate.

The reason why the insured often pick up the tab for the uninsured is because of the way the uninsured are billed and of their forced payment arrangement. Change the way the uninsured are billed and the way they are able to pay and you will see them more able to pay their own expenses. This is the kind of reform that is needed. When the government forces compliance with an immoral law it is oppression. When the government punishes the People through fines for non-compliance it is tyranny. When the government takes, by force, the fruits of other people’s labors it is stealing. Reform must align itself with Natural Rights and the protection of them. There is a way to do that and I believe it is the only just and right way that will lead to a better America and a better outcome. Again, tyranny to get there will mean tyranny when we get there. Injustice as a path means injustice as a destination.

In a book I recently started, I was impressed by John H. Groberg’s stories from his time serving in Mongolia. The people there were so humble, so simple, so kind and so close to God. They lived in a desert but yet they experienced no violence over scarce resources. The desert people lived in a state of community and oneness that many philosophers only dream of.

In that desert community, families leave their tent doors open for any traveler, known or unknown, who happens to need food or drink. They live after the manner of happiness because they love and respect one another. There also is an understanding about what you could take in another’s home and what you couldn’t. Respect for those unwritten laws created a peaceful society. Sadly, most of the western world, while being a place of great plenty, is fraught with much violence. We have not yet learned to live as One. The difference between Mongolia and the West is that Mongolians freely and willingly give of their substance, not just their excess, to their fellowman. What we consider “mine” in many cases they might consider “ours.”

Nevertheless, in both societies there is a respect for the property of others. There are boundaries. Wherever you are, if a person takes something that is yours without your permission, we call it stealing. If a person takes your wallet or purse we call this stealing. If a person in Mongolia were to enter the tent of another, which is opened to him for food and water, and takes the person’s clothes, bed, or money, it is clearly stealing. In these cases the person would have a right to call the police and report a crime. Stealing is an evil act.
As shared in my previous post, for evil to succeed most it must appear normal – and the best way to make it seem normal is to legitimize and legalize it. It is important to realize that just because something is legal, it does not mean it is right. For example, prostitution, non-medical Marijuana use, pornography, abortion, gambling and other sins and vices are legal in many parts of the country or world. Again, just because it is legal it does not mean it is right. The government’s redistribution of wealth is one such immoral, but legal, activity.

Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture, explained it this way:

"In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:

'Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?' (The Law, p.6)

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three - defending themselves, their property and their liberty - in what properly was called the "Lawless West." In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves - nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:

'If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right.' (The Law, p. 6)

So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.

If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:

'For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.' (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)

The Proper Function Of Government

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals (Footnote 1).”

Redistribution of wealth by the power of the government is the opposite of the Mongolian approach. There, the people of their own free will invite people in and give of what they have. Their leaders don’t make them open their doors and if a door is shut the travelers cannot open it. Furthermore, the rich don’t open their doors wider than the poor nor do the poor keep their doors shut but all are alike and care for each other. That is the society that I want.

Here, the Government takes by a majority rules vote in congress money from those who have and gives to those who don’t in the form of welfare checks, housing, education, government contracts and free medical care. Such forced “charity” is everything but charity and will further continue to create a divide between to poor and wealthy. It will continue to create a society of selfish and self centered people in all classes. It will continue us down the path we are on, and further from the path we actually think we are on. These policies make us less One Nation, and more divisible.

Although well meaning, such policies are tyrannical, immoral, unjust, and evil. The Government has no authority to do this – even if a majority of citizens through their leaders vote for it. If the majority through their leaders does vote for it and legalize redistribution activities, the majority becomes the mob, the Rights of all are trampled and the minority is villainized, the protector becomes the oppressor and the securer of liberties becomes the destroyer of liberties. The tables turn and, what do you know, everything appears right and perfectly normal.

_________________________________

Footnotes

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/benson.htm (Accessed on August 4, 2009)

The other evening, my wife and I were discussing the original “Bewitched” series. You know the one, Samantha & Darren? It was a series we both enjoyed when we were kids. With our Netflix membership, we decided to order it so we could watch it again and share it with our children.

We were both surprised at how non-wholesome in many ways that series was. It really epitomized the culture of the era:

1.Wives stayed home, cleaned and cooked. Period.
2.Men worked and did nothing at home.
3.Wives supported their husbands in their ambitions but should have none of their own.

It also showed things such as:

1.It was okay to harass women who worked.
2.Cheating on your wife was easy to do.
3.Women were supposed to dress a certain way for men.
4.Husbands could look at edgy magazines, in front of their wives, without a problem.

Truly many positive changes have been made over time which make the “good old days” not quite so good – just old. During the discussion I stated, “Evil succeeds most when it is made to appear perfectly normal.” That epiphany has been said in other words. Isaiah said it this way, “Men shall call evil good and good evil.”

As you think about those two statements, you will come to realize the truth of them. People generally repulse evil because of their nature. Evil, when put in stark contrast with good, is easily detected and mostly not accepted. It is when that evil is made to appear good that it is chosen.

Think of it this way:

Could slavery have persisted for so long, and a war wherein over half a million people died, had not the institution of slavery been accepted by many as good and normal?

Could there be such a huge drug using community if, to them, it didn’t seem right or normal to do so?

Could women have been denied their equal political rights for so long had it not seemed right and normal to do so?

Could Robin Hood have stolen from the rich to feed the poor had it not seemed right and normal for him to do so?

Could the bigotry against the Jews have been so deadly had it not seemed right to be prejudiced against them?

Could discriminating in employment decisions against people because of their gender, race, religion, age, disability or sexual preference take place if it didn’t seem normal and right?

Could the harassment of women by men have happened on such a regular basis if it wasn’t acceptable?

Could the wars fought by aggressors have happened wherein sovereign peoples were enslaved and oppressed, had it not seemed right and normal on the part of the oppressor nations to do so?

Could immoral laws be signed into law if the majority of people did not find them right?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding NO. These evils could not have been if the people did not think them right or normal. Because all of these evils have or do now exist, we can see how successful evil has been in the past as it has prevailed many, many times – and will ever try to succeed and oppress the freedoms of mankind. It has cost the lives, dignity, and potential of billions of our brothers and sisters.

All of mankind has a conscience and knows the difference between right and wrong. However, evil will conceal itself under the disguise of good. It makes it easier for people to accept. People also have a remarkable ability to convince themselves that what they do is right – even when it isn't.

To be Free is to know what is Right, Good and True and to live thus circumscribed. It is to be an agent for one's self – free to act, and not to be acted upon. Evil entangles, strangles, and eventually destroys according to the degree it is indulge in; whereas Freedom increases the capacities of those who abide in it to bless, care for, and contribute to the welfare of themselves and those around them. Those who abide in Freedom are never content with blessing themselves only but roam their communities, cities and world to bless all humanity.

Because of this reality, there lies on our shoulders, the shoulders of a Free people, to do all we can to not be deceived by what appears to be right and normal. President Lincoln said that “freedom (is) the last best hope of earth.” It is. Therefore, you and I should do all we can to protect our Freedom – at all costs.

It is up to us to seek truth and live accordingly, and, above all, to beware of those who call evil good, and good evil.

Throughout my life I have been touched by the stories of people who have exercised their individual liberties to become more than they were and to live life as they choose is best. These stories are being written on all scales in all places by the millions. They are trying to be written in Iran even as I write this post. People there are craving for the right to choose for themselves, and not by their government, how to live their lives. The world will also never forget the image of Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank, staring down a military coup at the beginning of a Russian movement for personal and economic freedom. Atop that tank he stated, “The people of Russia are becoming masters of their own fate.” The coup was defeated and the democratically elected Yeltsin returned to office.

The end of the Soviet Union, together with China’s movement towards free-market capitalism, proved to the world that the planned economy of controlling supply and demand had failed. Free market economies are engendered in Liberty.

In any economics class, you learn the law of supply and demand. All other things unchanged (technology, shipping, efficiency, productivity, etc.), as the supply goes up and demand remains constant, prices go down. As the demand goes up, and supply remains unchanged, prices go up. As prices go up and the opportunity for a return is seen, individuals jump into the market and offer new innovations or comparable services, thus bringing the price back down and giving those individuals part of the wealth they created. Naturally, the best way to bring down prices is to increase the supply or decrease the demand.

Businesses come and businesses go according to their ability to meet the demands of the consumers in the marketplace. If the business can supply a service that enough people find value in and are willing to pay an amount that is sufficient for the business owners and operators to continue to work for, it will succeed. If not, it will fail and some other business will generally take its place.

Because the Government can no longer afford to be in the health care market, it is seeking to adjust these laws to their own circumstances. Rather than accept the natural laws of economics, government wishes to change the rules.

If government can become the primary insurer of health care for Americans, it can limit the demand by helping Americans avoid, what it deems to be, unnecessary services. By limiting the number of people who get CAT scans for example, the supply appears to go up because “demand” goes down and thus prices go down. Additionally, we may even see government built and ran hospitals as it attempts to increase the supply of services. By increasing the supply of hospitals and doctors, it would cause prices to go down, all other things unchanged.

“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan you can keep your plan.” That is what the President keeps repeating, over and over again. However, let us think through this. If you can get the same, or similar plan, for less money (because it is subsidized by the US taxpayer), and still keep your doctor, why wouldn't you go that route? The truth of the matter is, the government's plan will eventually put your plan out of business.

Because of the taxes that will be laid on what the government is calling “Cadillac plans,” mandates to have health insurance, and the heavy subsidies that will be involved in the “public option,” there will eventually be no viable alternative to government ran health care and private insurers will not be able to compete. It is a simple law of economics; the ignoring of which would set aside ages of experience. Even the health care exchange, although an excellent idea in concept, will bring more and more people and businesses onto the “Public Option.” Thus the government will eventually have a vast monopoly on services and will be able to dictate the price it will pay for them. This will appear to bring down costs. It will - but it won’t be natural – it will be by force, and the industry, and therefore our citizens, will be hurt.

What the government doesn’t take into consideration is the human condition. Within each individual there exists varying degrees of desire for freedom and liberty. Some would rather be told to do what needs to be done, some would rather tell others, while still others would rather just tell themselves, and others would do nothing at all. Those individuals who capture the moment and make things happen are the ones that bring about the greatest innovations, changes and events in families, communities and nations. Those individuals who catch their vision and support them by following their lead make those events or innovations occur. And together, we all have brought the world ahead.

The government monopoly over health care reimbursements, payments and costs will ultimately lead to a decline in the innovations and quality of care that has distinguished American health care worldwide. How will it do so? By reducing, or altogether limiting in some areas, the individual liberty of the citizens who make up the health care industry. When the laws of supply and demand are controlled by government, they can control the prices and therefore how much they may pay for the services, but it also will take the opportunities that the human condition needs, opportunities for gain, risk and reward, out of the equation. The reduction, or elimination of these opportunities, will lead to fewer innovations, poorer quality of care, and fewer of our best and brightest going into the Health Care Industry as has been witnessed in other countries with a government monopoly on health care. I can attest to this from my own experience.

By reducing the liberty available, we will be reducing mankind. If we were created to act, and not to be acted upon, the more we are forced to be acted upon rather than to act for ourselves reduces the very fundamental purpose of our existence.

Interrupting this natural balance and flow of human forces is destructive to both the individual Human and the supply/demand balance for the good or service rendered. This destructive force is called oppression or tyranny.

I remind you of what Adam Smith wrote in his 1775 Lectures on Jurisprudence:

“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel or which endeavor to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”

There is an option besides the status quo and the President's plan. Essentially, that option is the one that will break up insurance monopolies, cut back the government’s involvement as an insurer, elevate the government to a role of supervision and regulation where they can setup the right structure for free market forces to work, find a way that the uninsured can pay rates comparable to that of the insured, and create a model for affordable, private insurance not obtained through an employer.

That is the best chance for America.

As our founders stated in the Declaration of Independence, “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” However, let’s not volunteer for more eventual suffering, oppression and tyranny at the hands of government – no matter how subtle it may appear at first. Let the government govern, protect and regulate and let the People remain the masters of their own fate.

We hear stories from the President of the daily letters from people who cry to him to reform health care. I have no doubts regarding those people's sincerity nor do I dispute the need for reform. I hope there is reform – true reform. I personally believe that there is a place for Government in health care. That place however happens to be in governing and not in running an industry.

One of the problems with the government running health care is the inevitable rationing of care that will take place. This is more than a notion or a scare tactic. It is something that is happening even now with Medicare and Medicaid. One such example recently came too close to home for me.

Within the past week I received some sad news regarding a friend of mine. She was blind and lived in the inner city. I used to wash her windows (why she wanted clean windows was beyond me) and we were a part of the same congregation together. She had her struggles but was one of the kindest, and most soft spoken people I have ever known. She really was a sweet heart. Tragically, a few weeks ago she fell and severely injured herself. I do not know all of the details of her fall. However, I know that her injury was very bad. Nevertheless, because she was on Medicaid the hospital wouldn't take her because it didn't cover the hospital stay for that kind of injury. Because she didn't receive the care she needed, she passed away a little more than a week ago. Her passing is the sad and real fruit of rationing care. She will be missed as she was loved by all those who knew her.

The rationing of care is not something that can be trusted in the hands of politicians, appointed committees, or Capital Hill lobbyists. Surely we can see that this power is best left in the hands of the people and regulated, not administered, by our Government. Government is to govern - not to own and operate businesses.

To learn more about the rationing of care by one who knows, please see the included video.

Crises are times for action. Things happen in times of crisis that never could or would have happened otherwise: Presidents invoke Executive privilege; congress cooperates to move legislation through and the people unite around their leaders in a moment of rare support rather than dissent. Such was the case during our Revolution, the Great Depression and immediately following 9/11. The people realized the true gravity of the situation and looked to leaders to help navigate the Country through those perilous times.

Because of the hope for leadership during those events, the people are generally supportive of the policies proposed at the time. In short, it is a time when, politically speaking, things get done and bills get signed into law. It is also an opportunity for ill meaning or self serving politicians to put bills through that appear to address the crisis but are intended to boost their political careers and win votes. We also sadly learn that Executive powers invoked in times of crisis are never forfeited – even when the crisis has subsided. Temporary government programs are the closest thing to immortality.

Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, recently said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.” Also, recently secretary of state Hillary Clinton stated, “Never waste a good crisis.”

We can see that the White House has, as have other administrations before them, no intention of letting the current crisis pass them by without taking full advantage of the opportunity to push things through that the American People in every other circumstance would not have allowed.

Crises are either real, exaggerated or created. One does not have to think long before they realize this is a true statement. To name just one, think of the War on Terror during the Bush Administration. Certainly there was and is a real threat and crisis from Al Qaida terrorists attacking US interests at home and abroad. However, the crisis that was Al Qaida quickly enveloped Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. It also morphed into terrorists at home leading to a loss of individual liberties through warrantless wiretaps and other surveillance activities on American citizens. The crisis involving Al Qaida is real. The crisis involving Iraq was created at worst, exaggerated at best. And at one time, a majority of Americans fell for it.

Such is the case with health care reform. We are not in a crisis and should not be tricked to think we are in one. The only crisis involving health care is the $68 trillion un-funded Medicare liability on the government’s books. This is a crisis of government – not health care.

However, the crisis that is being portrayed from Capital hill is not that one. It is a crisis that the health care system is broken – not one that says the government’s insurance agency, or Medicare, is broken. It is the painting of a picture that small businesses will be hurt by the insurance companies – not that every American will be hurt by the additional $1 trillion in annual taxes they will have to pay for this new system. They are painting the picture that millions aren’t getting the care they need under our current system – not that 10 years from now, if the status quo is unchanged, anyone on Medicare won’t receive the care they need. Finally, the President is also framing health care reform as the key to our economic recovery. Excuse me? Health care was not the cause of, nor is it the solution out from, our current economic woes.

They are trying to scare the public into a support role by creating a health care crisis. They have done this with other crises a hundred times before. Other notable ones would be the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on energy, and the war on global warming.

It is good for us to take a quick look and refresh our minds about one of the basic pillars of the Government's argument that a crisis in health care exists: the 47 Million uninsured Americans.
Julie Seymour of the Business & Media Institute published an excellent article on the census data the 47 million number comes from.

For centuries governments were, and many still are today, essentially private businesses for the “Royal” families. The United States of America was the first country in modern times to be founded on the principle that the People, and not a person or group of persons, was the Sovereign. Government was to be the servant of the people and not the master. It was to secure their rights and claim none for itself. However, those times and those ideals are largely in the past.

Sadly, one must ask after all of the government involvement in energy, agriculture, price fixing, retirement programs, grants, nation building, foreign wars & entanglements, mandates and entitlement programs, is the Federal Government now a business or a government? It cannot be both, but sadly it is trying to be. For a free people, it is unnatural and wrong for the government to be a business just as it is for a business to be a government. The government’s place in business is generally in regulation or in supplying a good or service that is owned, by Natural Right, by the public. Such services would include national defense, public water, and law enforcement.

Sadly, the government has done much, much more in the health care industry than regulate or supply the basic services the public has empowered the government to provide. In the health care industry, it has become an insurer by representing low income and elderly Americans as the payer of their medical goods and services, determining which services should and shouldn’t be covered, and a dictator of prices to the private sector by informing them how much they will receive for their life maintaining and saving goods and services. While it has thus been playing the role of Business, it has neglected its role as Government by failing to break monopolies in the insurance industry and setup the proper and just guidelines requisite for a free market health care system.

Additionally, the government assumes the role of master, rather than servant, when it plays in business. How? First, It dictates to Americans what they have to do to remain on health care. In a previous life, we lived in the inner city where many people were on government aid. One such family was very close to us. The mother was single and could barely walk due to her weight as well as a degenerative disease in her feet. She was in need of surgery to correct the problem and was on Medicaid. Thankfully, she had surgery on one foot and was in the 6 month recovery time before she could receive the surgery on her other foot when she received a letter from the Government stating that her son made too much money for her to remain on Medicaid. She either had to go off of Medicaid or her son would have to quit his job or move out. He chose to leave home and we took him in. He left not because that was his intention had he been left alone, he left because of the role of master the government had assumed. Also, this is not an isolated incident but is one that is repeated every day across this great land. Granted, if they supply health care for all, this becomes a moot point. However, the principle remains unchanged in the authority delegated to Government.

It becomes master by dictating what services a person needs and what services they don't need – even if their doctor recommends them. It becomes Master by forcing citizens to pay for the government's coverage. It becomes master by dictating what it will pay to American businesses in reimbursement. It becomes Master by being able to become involved in the health of every American. Whether it chooses to exert this role or not will largely depend on the people at the head of government and this agency. Nevertheless, these are not the roles upon which good government is based.

Furthermore, the government’s unnatural role in health care has certainly been part of the problem that has brought us to our current situation. Its low reimbursement levels to doctors and hospitals have actually pushed prices up for private insurers and even higher for the uninsured individual – forcing them to cover the costs the government refuses to pay. It has also caused small clinics and doctors to suffer (1). The government has also failed miserably in its role as government by failing to break the Insurance Industry’s monopoly on health care by not repealing the Federal anti-trust exemption and creating the proper framework for a free-market system in health care (2). These failures have contributed to an unprecedented increase in health care costs which has made it impossible for lower wage Americans to purchase affordable health insurance. Because of this, the government has actually contributed to the elimination of the market for low-income insurance plans.

Who is to blame for this? In part, the government. Last year, Congress received a 9% satisfaction rating – its lowest in history. Also, 1/3rd of Americans thought that Congressmen were corrupt (3). Amazingly, Americans are still looking to the government to fix the problem with health care. They should think again – unless their fix is government getting out.

Adam Smith wrote in his 1775 Lectures on Jurisprudence:

“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel or which endeavor to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”

The government’s increased involvement as a business in health care has, as we are now seeing in the problems we are facing, disrupted the natural course and balance with the market place and will disrupt, directly or indirectly, all three pillars necessary for a successful society. And, according to one of the world's greatest economic philosophers, this will lead to more oppressive and possibly tyrannical government as it is forced to find methods for payment to cover its ever increasing budget shortfalls caused by its very involvement in the business side of health care (4).

Unless we wish for the natural balance of market forces to continue to be thwarted by the Government’s involvement in the business of health care - which would bring on additional hardships for American citizens through increased taxes, poorer service, and more government intervention in their lives - we need to seek to limit, or end, the Government’s involvement almost entirely in the business side of health care – not expand it.

Although the government’s role in health care has served the needs of many Americans, its role has created an imbalance in the market place that cannot be corrected except by creating a free-market system. Further nationalization will not correct the problem. As it has been shown over and over again, it will further it (5). The time has necessarily come when it becomes critically important to limit, or end, the government’s business involvement in health care or we risk an unprecedented financial disaster and a limitation on our individual Rights. It is time to elevate the government back to its role as regulator before it takes on further roles as Master.

I pledged allegiance to the Republic – not a business – and I want my Republic back.

_______________________________________

We live in a land of peace, plenty and opportunity. Surely Americans can find a way to better use those resources to take care of those in need. How we do this is the debate we need to have. Sadly, the debate that is taking place is making us think that is what we are doing when, in reality, we are not. The debate in Washington is not about a better way for health care. It is about government setting up a public option or a single-payer option.

If the debate can become how to use the plenty and opportunity of our great Country to better care for the health of one another, then I would argue that the direction we need to go is one of breaking up insurance monopolies, cutting back the government’s involvement as an insurer, elevating the government to a role of supervision and regulation where they can setup the right structure for free market forces to work, finding a way that the uninsured can pay rates comparable to that of the insured, and creating a model for affordable, private insurance not obtained through an employer.

Because the question before us is a public or single payer government option, my posts will focus on convincing any reader that any increased government intervention on the business side of health care, rather than on regulation, is folly. I have shared what the economic cost of increased government involvement in health care will be, one of the likely outcomes of government run health care and laid out an argument that health care is not a Right that governments have the Natural power to secure and that when they attempt to, they trample on the true Rights governments were intended to secure.

Over the next several weeks I will lay out additional arguments that address Health Care Reform. Each argument can be taken in isolation but, in the end, these arguments form the case that should be considered collectively.

However, in the end, if Americans can succeed in defeating the proposals for more government involvement in the insurance side of Health Care, we still will have the real work to perform. This work is reforming the American Health Care system to see that the free market can at last prevail and that you and I as part of that free market and as brothers and sisters of the human family can be our brother’s keeper.

Not too long ago, Anji and I, along with our children, stood in Independence Hall at 5th and Chestnut. That that was one of the most hallowed houses I have ever been in for that was the place where, “our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

For both Anji and I, they are more than just our Founding fathers, two of them are our grandfathers. I am descended from Benjamin Harrison of the Virginia delegation and Anji is descended from Samuel Adams of the Massachusetts delegation.

There, in those small halls, I felt a sense of great humility for those great founders who sat in those chairs – founders such as our grandfathers and George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson who ascribed their names and pledged their sacred honor to that inspired document that begins:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. “

It was also in that room, that again our great founders ascribed their names to that inspired document that begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

For these freedoms countless numbers have lived, served and died. Next to life itself, the ability to choose how to live that life is the greatest of all of God’s gifts. I love our country and proclaim, along with the Prophet leader Moroni of old, that the spirit of God is the Spirit of Freedom. It is therefore a part of our religion to preserve and promote that freedom.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

And for you and I, let this day refresh our recollections of these rights, and stir within us, an undiminished devotion to them.