The Freedom Bulletin

Even though I don’t like his politics at all, he is an important historical figure and I think it’s fitting to make a little post in his honor. The Kennedy brothers are together now. I always liked this picture of them.

It looks like President Obama and the Democrats might be starting to give up on the public option as part of their health insurance reform plan. However, they don’t seem to be giving any consideration to the idea of dropping the individual mandate to purchase insurance, which I think is unfortunate. An individual mandate, in my opinion, is immoral and unconstitutional. It’s one thing for the government to tax people, but telling people how they must spend their money is going too far. Check out this great post at Q and O which discusses an often-ignored issue, the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of Congress forcing all Americans to buy health insurance.

I think it would be a much better idea to have a compromise bill that included the public option but dropped the individual mandate. The public option, although it might result in higher taxes, is not as objectionable to me as the idea of the government requiring people to buy a product. I wrote a little letter to Obama through the WhiteHouse.gov contact page telling him as much:

President Obama,

I hope you are enjoying your vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.

I have an idea for a health bill that would be a good compromise between liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I strongly oppose an individual mandate to purchase insurance. I believe that it is simply wrong for the government to require people to buy a particular product. People have a right to make their own decisions about what to buy with their money and to decide whether or not they want to take the risk of not having insurance.

However, I actually like the idea of a public option that is open to everyone. I have really disliked every private insurance plan my family has had (I am a college student so my parents, not me, get to choose our insurance). Private health insurance companies seem to always charge exorbitant prices for a confusing, bad-quality product. I would like the option to try something different.

So, my humble suggestion is that you consider supporting a bill that includes a public option, but no individual mandate. Dropping the public option but retaining the individual mandate, as some people are suggesting, is a bad idea because it would disappoint liberals who support the public option, as well as libertarians and conservatives like me who oppose the individual mandate. Keeping the public option but getting rid of the mandate would give Democrats something they want while also getting rid of the thing that most offends libertarians and Republicans. Such a bill would be a real compromise that gives all sides something they want.

Obama will probably never see my letter since he gets so much mail, but if enough people tell him what they think, you never know, he might listen. If you oppose the individual mandate (or no matter what your views are), why not send him a letter, too?

Three cool things I’ve come across recently:

• Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest – and it’s legal. I didn’t really get the outrage over the fact that people had guns near Obama’s town halls. The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms, so as long as you’re not shooting an innocent person with your gun, I don’t see what the problem is.
• Charles Krauthammer and Michael Graham explain why preventive medicine and early detection don’t save money.
• A better way of stopping uninsured people from being free-riders, by John McClaughry at the National Review and Michael Cannon from the Cato Institute.

Carla Howell and the folks at the Center for Small Government are trying to get an initiatie to roll back the sales tax on the 2010 ballot. Toward that end, there is a new campaign called the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes and a new website, RollBackTaxes.com. (I designed the header for it ). We’re aiming to get the sales tax reduced from the new rate of 6.25% to 3%. Check it out!

Facebook: Roll Back Taxes

Twitter: @CarlaHowell

According to Fox News, the federal Office of Management and Budget is considering overturning a 9-year ban on using cookies on government websites.

Cookies are files that websites place on users’ computers to track some aspects of users’ online behavior. Things like online shopping carts and any websites that involve signing in, need cookies in order to work. Cookies, however, are also used to track the web pages that people view - for example, news sites use them to automatically suggest articles that might interest you, and shopping sites use them to suggest products.

“Our main goal in revisiting the ban on using persistent cookies on Federal websites is to bring the federal government into the 21st century,” said Vivek Kundra, the nation’s chief information officer.

While it is true that many websites use cookies today, I think the ban on cookies on government websites is a good thing and shouldn’t be overturned. The trend toward more tracking of visitor behavior takes away people’s privacy rights more than it provides them with useful features. Some cookies are needed in order for people to make online purchases and sign in, but websites should try to limit their use of cookies beyond that. I don’t find recommended products and news stories very useful, and definitely not worth giving up any of my privacy for.

Judge Andrew Napolitano pointed out in the same article that the Privacy Act of 1974 forbids the government from monitoring which books people browse for or borrow from libraries. Using the Internet in one’s own home carries a higher expectation of privacy than using a public library, so it makes sense that the law prohibits government tracking of Internet activities as well.

Overall, I think one of the last things America needs is more government tracking of people’s behavior. Until it’s clear exactly what they will be used for, I think government cookies are a bad idea.

I did not go to this, but there was a brief hearing today in the case of Philip Markoff. According to Suffolk D.A. spokesman Jake Wark and the BU Daily Free Press, the only topic was the discovery process. Prosecutors have been on time with providing materials to defense counsel, and some forensic testing is still pending. The hearing took place in courtroom 906 of Suffolk Superior Court in front of Judge Frank Gaziano. It was part of the Homicide Session, which, as you might guess, handles only homicide cases. Markoff did not attend.

The next hearing in this case will be on October 7, not September 24 as originally scheduled.

In a USA today column, Nancy Pelosi called opponents of Obama’s health insurance reform plan “un-American.” She writes:

“These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

Pelosi, of course, is referring to the protesters at the Democrats’ health reform town halls. It seems like she’s fine with protesters whose political views match her own – according to Fox News she once said about anti-war protesters:

“It’s always exciting. This is democracy in action. I’m energized by it, frankly.”

I’ve noticed a lot of health-protester-bashing in the past few days. A letter to the editor in today’s Boston Globe said the following:

“As a teacher of 31 years, I have learned how to quickly recognize a bully, and how not to be intimidated by one. We have fought wars in order to stop the bullies of the world. Now they are in our own backyard. We are not just talking about healthcare, but the very foundation of our free society.”

Right. So the Democrats, who control the presidency and both houses of Congress, are the victims, and people who dare to voice unpopular views are the bullies? Funny, I thought bullies were people who gang up on others and force them into doing things they don’t want to do. To me, that sounds an awful lot like what the Democrats are doing. The protesters are bravely standing up to bullies. To label them as bullies themselves is preposterous.

Another preposterous thing that this letter writer says is that the Democrats’ plan is “a healthcare system that would benefit everyone.” The Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for more health services for the poor. This clearly doesn’t benefit the people who will be paying those taxes. The Democrats also want an individual mandate – in other words, everyone will be required to have health insurance. This certainly doesn’t benefit people who would rather pay for their health procedures individually than buy insurance.

Earlier, the Globe ran an article entitled “Foes’ decibels replace debate on healthcare.” I object to the implication that loudly protesting the Democrats’ plan prevents debate. I get the point that the protests could be a little more civil, but yelling is a lot closer to debate than blindly accepting everything Obama says.

Additionally, Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson recently bashed Republicans for not agreeing to everything Obama says. He writes…

“The Senate voted 60 to 37 to extend the (cash for clunkers) program, with 33 Republicans voting against it. This was worse than the 31 Republicans who voted against Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. And, of course, the Republicans have declared war against meaningful healthcare reform, despite the fact that the nation has 46 million uninsured people, one of the greatest travesties in the developed world.”

First of all, I’m not sure why voting against something is always “worse” than voting for it. Why doesn’t Jackson use the word “better”? Second, I wouldn’t call Obama’s health reform plan “meaningful.” None of the laws under consideration in Congress would significantly change anything for the better about the health system (except requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who applies; that’s a slight improvement). Health insurance will remain ridiculously expensive, complex, and confusing, only there will be more taxes to provide it to poor people, and everyone will be forced to buy it. Third, Jackson thinks that people being uninsured is “one of the greatest travesties in the developed world”? Not having insurance isn’t a travesty – it’s a good thing! People should be free to choose whether they would rather buy insurance or pay for each health service individually. I can think of many far greater travesties – the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, the fact that you can’t get a gun without going through tons of paperwork and fees, machines that show the naked bodies of everyone at airports, and the progressive income tax system are just as few examples. And then Jackson concludes by saying…

“In 2008, the nation said Nay to the party of Nay. It is rapidly coming time for Obama to do the same.”

I don’t really see why he criticizes the GOP for saying no to things. When the issue in question is whether or not to raise taxes and force everyone to buy insurance, I think “nay” is a pretty good response. Angry protests are also a pretty good response. What does Jackson want the Republicans to do, automatically agree with everything the Democrats do? Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having two parties?