The Freedom Bulletin

Yes! Economist Joel Waldfogel wrote an article in the Globe yesterday saying exactly what I’ve been saying for years: the custom of exchanging gifts decreases people’s utility.

“When you spend $50 on me, you’re operating at significant disadvantage. You don’t know what I like. I might not have been willing to pay anything for the item you purchase for me with $50. While $50 in spending normally produces at least $50 worth of satisfaction, there’s no guarantee that $50 in gift spending will produce nearly as much satisfaction for the recipient. And if you buy me something worth nothing to me, you have destroyed at least $50 worth of value.”

Check it out!

I’ve been hearing and seeing a lot of criticism of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s recommendation that women get fewer mammograms and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendation that women get fewer pap smears. I’ve noticed a lot of the same arguments in articles and opinion pieces from, to give a few examples, CNN, the Herald’s Margery Eagan, and the Globe’s Joan Vennochi. Let me explain why I think that the less strict recommendations are a great thing, and libertarians and feminists should as well.

First of all, government agencies (and even non-government agencies) should not be telling people what medical procedures they should be getting in the first place. The role of medical organizations should be to provide facts, not normative claims. Although their recommendations do not have the force of law, they still violate people’s liberty rights. People who do not undergo medical procedures are doing nothing wrong whatsoever (in fact you could argue they should be admired for having a mind of their own instead of mindlessly submitting to what society tells them), and they have a right to make that choice without being punished. Being bombarded by propaganda, being nagged by your doctor to undergo medical procedures, and having guilt imposed on you if you don’t, are all punishments. This punishment of innocent people is unjust and places an undue burden on people’s right to decide what medical procedures they do or don’t want.

So lessening recommendations for medical procedures, while only a small step, is a step in the right direction. Both new sets of recommendations increase liberty. They don’t harm anyone – people can still get as many mammograms or pap smears as they want. They significantly help people who don’t want to get mammograms or pap smears, because these people are now more able to do what they choose without others trying to browbeat, nag, or pressure them into submission.

One point that almost all the commentary on this debate seems to miss is the fact that medical procedures are unpleasant, take time and energy, and in the case of pap smears and mammograms are undignified, humiliating, and degrading. Justifications for the new guidelines are almost entirely based on the drawbacks of false positives and the associated anxiety and unnecessary treatment. However, it is extremely important to figure in the fact that medical procedures are bad in themselves. All else equal, a life with fewer pap smears and mammograms is happier (and even morally better) than a life with more.

That’s why I really don’t understand the sentiments (see the end of this article) of people who feel like they are losing out on a benefit because of the reduced pressure on them. The predominant belief in saving lives and being “safe rather than sorry” no matter what the cost is mistaken. You also need to take quality of life into account. Saving one life in exchange for significantly decreasing hundreds of people’s quality of life is probably not worth it. But even if you do share the predominant belief, the new recommendations don’t stop you from acting on that and getting tested yearly if you want to. The only people who will stop or decrease the frequency of these tests are those who did not truly want annual testing but were pressured into it. These people will therefore benefit from decreased testing because it is more in line with their preferences.  

Some people argue that the new recommendations might lead to insurance companies refusing to cover yearly mammograms and pap smears. This doesn’t seem highly likely, but even if it does end up happening, the financial harm to people who want lots of tests is outweighed by the benefit (or decrease in punishment) to people who don’t want lots of tests. You always have the option of paying for any tests you want yourself.

To people who argue that the reduced recommendations are somehow sexist or hurt women, the truth is exactly the opposite. The government’s website recommends about twice as many medical screenings for women as men. This, I claim, is sexist and should be fixed. Why should women have more health needs than men? Why should women be expected to undergo so many more unpleasant, time-consuming, and sometimes degrading medical procedures than men? True feminists believe that women and men should be treated equally. The new guidelines are a step toward gender equality.

It seems that for as long as I can remember, medical organizations have been recommending more and more tests, more and more often, starting at younger and younger ages. The most recent changes are a breath of fresh air. There’s nothing wrong with treating men and women more equally or lessening the informal penalties that society unjustly places on people who choose not to undergo screenings. Mammograms and pap smears are degrading, unpleasant, and have only a tiny chance of having any benefit. It’s good for people to have less of them. Medical freedom, on the other hand, is a great thing, which America desperately needs more of.

As you probably know, the Senate is trying to vote on their version of the health “reform” bill tomorrow. If you’ve ever thought about emailing or calling your Senators, now is the time! Tell them that you oppose further government interference in people’s lives, especially forcing everyone to buy health insurance. Google their name to find their official Senate page, which will have contact information and probably a handy contact form. Also try contacting Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Joe Lieberman, whose votes may be pivotal in determining whether the bill gets passed. Tell them that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and (if they’re your senator) that you will never vote for them again if they vote for this bill!

$660,000 of federal tax money is going to Massachusetts police to help them crack down on people who don’t wear seat belts. This includes both propaganda encouraging people to wear seat belts, as well as additional patrols to pull over “offenders.”

So tax dollars are being used to step up enforcement of a law that shouldn’t even exist because it decreases people’s freedom and benefits no one. Just another example of our paternalistic government sticking its nose into people’s business.

Source: Associated Press/Boston Herald

Check out this verbal goof-up by Steve Pagliuca, who is running for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. During a radio debate yesterday, he said…

“I would support a military draft because I think it talks about equality, so I’d support a draft.”

He then issued a statement clarifying his stance:

“I incorrectly interpreted the question to be asking if I would support a mandatory draft in the event we needed additional troops and my answer was yes. I now realize that was not the question posed to me, and I want to be clear that I do not support reinstating the military draft at this time.”

This mess-up is worse than anything George W. Bush has said. From Pagliuca’s answer to the question, it seems he didn’t even know what a draft is. It looks like he thought it was some sort of report or publication. Bush often got his words confused, but at least everyone knew what he meant, and what he meant made sense, although his words didn’t always capture it perfectly.

Another reason to vote for Scott Brown for Senate!

Here is the roll call for HR 3962, the ill-named Affordable Health Care for America Act.

This is not a health reform bill – all it will do is take the bad things about our current health system and make them even worse. There are two main problems with the health system in America (and much of the world):

First and most importantly, people have no freedom. Doctors give orders and unsolicited advice, we need their permission in order to have the medicines that we need, and they write notes on us that we don’t see or have any control over. HR 3962 doesn’t even attempt to do anything about this.

Not quite as important, but still very important, the system of paying for health services is unjust. Socialist government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP steal money from people in order to pay for health services for other people. Doctors charge exorbitant prices, and insurance companies will not tell you for sure whether or not they will cover a service until after you’ve already received it. HR 3962 forbids insurane companies from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions, which is good, but it also forces everyone to get health insurance, which is terrible. If insurance companies had any incentive to keep their costs down and quality up before, they certainly won’t now, if everyone is required to buy their product.

Thanks to the courageous Democratic reps who voted against this bad bill: Adler, Altmire, Baird, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Boucher, Boyd, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Edwards (TX), Gordon, Griffith, Herseth Sandlin, Holden, Kissell, Kosmas, Kratovil, Kucinich (pictured above ), Markey (CO), Marshall, Massa, Matheson, McIntyre, McMahon, Melancon, Minnick, Murphy (NY), Nye, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, and Teague!

Google just released a new tool called Google Dashboard, which basically allows you to see all the information Google has collected about you. In my opinion, Dashboard does not go far enough in respecting people’s privacy rights.

Why? The main reason is that Dashboard only applies to data associated with people’s Google accounts, which is primarily data that you voluntarily give to Google. This includes Google profiles, emails in Gmail, events in Google calendars, and blogs at Blogger. I believe, and I think most people would agree, that these are not the most important things to people who believe in privacy. I don’t mind Google having information about me that I intentionally gave them. What I have a problem with is Google’s tracking of people’s searches, along with our IP addresses, which uniquely identify users’ computers. Google says that it keeps this data separate from people’s Google accounts, which I guess is better than keeping them together, but Google really shouldn’t be collecting this data at all, or at least it should allow people to opt out.

People have a right to use the Internet without being punished by having their privacy invaded. Unfortunately, Google has such a large market share that it has no incentive to respect people’s rights. The more Google invades your privacy, the more effective its ads will be and the more money it will make. It is situations like these that demand government intervention to secure people’s liberties against companies that want to take them away.

If you support Internet privacy, I would really recommend visiting the Network Advertising Initiative page to opt out of personalized advertising from some of the most widely used ad providers.