The Freedom Bulletin

I just watched the State of the Union Address. My verdict? Well, I have to admit, the first half was pretty good. President Obama actually seemed moderate and reasonable. I like his idea to reward companies that hire new workers or raise wages and to eliminate the capital gains tax on small businesses.

But the second half of his speech…not so great in my opinion. One thing that I strongly disagree with is Obama’s idea to double the child tax credit. Child tax credits are unfair and discriminatory. Why give tax breaks only to people who have children? It would be a lot simpler and fairer to just reduce the federal income tax, since that would help everyone, both people who have children and people who don’t.

Although he started off with a strong emphasis on jobs and the economy, I knew that Obama would eventually mention health reform. I have written a lot about health insurance on this blog, so you probably know that I’m no fan of Obama’s reform plan. He spoke a lot tonight about the rights of people who can’t afford insurance or are denied it because of pre-existing conditions, but I wish he would pay more attention to individuals’ rights to decide how they want to spend their own money, a right that would be violated by the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which is part of the “reform” plan that Obama supports.

And while Obama’s idea of a three-year freeze on the federal budget sounds like a step in the right direction, it cracked me up when he said something to the effect of, “spending on national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.” Those four things are most of the federal budget!

On a side note, Biden’s facial expressions were too funny, nodding solemnly at everything Obama said. It was hilarious when he broke into a huge grin and started laughing. I also loved how all the Republicans laughed when Obama said that the budget freeze won’t go into affect until next year because of the recession (“that’s how budgeting works!”).

Obama invited anyone who has a better health reform idea to share it with him. I have one, which I have mentioned before in bits and pieces but have never explained all together in one essay. Soon I will do just that. Maybe I’ll even send it to Obama, too!

Today (Sunday, January 17) I attended a demonstration by Scott Brown supporters at President Obama’s speech endorsing Martha Coakley at Northeastern University in Boston. It was totally awesome. There were about 100 (or maybe more) Scott Brown supporters holding sings and chanting “Make Obama frown, vote Scott Brown” and “Don’t do coke” (as in Coakley ). We definitely outnumbered the Coakley supporters. We spread out all along Huntington Ave and then marched across the street to the massive line of (mostly pro-Coakley) people waiting to get in to see Obama’s speech. At least 3 cars covered in Scott Brown signs passed by, and we got lots of honks and thumbs up from passing cars, including a fire truck. We even got free hot chocolate from people who I think worked in the Northeastern cafeteria. Many of the Boston cops who were keeping order at the protest indicated that they supported Scott, too!

When we crossed to the side where the Coakley supporters were, one guy kept going on and on about how Scott Brown supporters are defending sex offenders and want them walking around on the streets. Apparently he was referring to the case of Gerald Amirault, who was falsely convicted of child molestation but was kept in prison due to Coakley’s lobbying, even though there was no evidence supporting the charges. A couple of Scott supporters and I pointed out that actually, opposing the jailing of innocent people is not the same as wanting sex offenders out on the streets, and that putting innocent people behind bars is not so great. He replied, “She was a prosecutor; that’s her job.” Oh, yeah. Putting innocent people in jail, that’s a prosecutor’s job, all right!

Here are some photos I took at the rally. Enjoy!

I also made some videos of the Scott Brown rally, which I have uploaded to Youtube and which you can see here.

For some mainstream media coverage of Obama’s appearance and the protests, check out:

• Boston Globe
• Boston Herald

I have been so sad about the fact that the Dems seem to have the 60th vote in the Senate for their health “reform” bill that I haven’t been blogging about it. I use quotes because the bill doesn’t really reform anything at all. The only big change is that everyone is required to have health insurance, which is evil and blatantly unconstitutional.

Some pretty messed-up things have been going on:

• The Senate voted for cloture at 1 AM last night. What’s up with that?
• President Obama called the bill “a big victory for the American people.” A big victory for the insurance companies, yes, since everyone will be required to buy their product. A victory for the American people, no. This bill is a huge blow to people who believe in liberty and individual responsibility.
• RNC Chairman Michael Steele (very reasonably and sensibly) said “I am tired of the Congress thumbing their nose and flipping a bird to the American people.” Right on, Steele! But then Harry Reid fired back at him and said…”I’m more worried about an example being set by a party leader with something so obscene.” What is he talking about?? How is it obscene to say “flipping the bird”? Flipping the bird is obscene, but not saying “flipping the bird.” What Reid and the Dems in the Senate are doing, now that’s obscene.
• And of course, it looks like Sen. Ben Lincoln of Nebraska, sold his vote in exchange for millions of $ for his state. Just like Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Big surprise!

I oppose this bill for one main reason:

The government has no right to require people to buy a product.

Compared to this, I don’t really care whether the bill reduces the deficit, increases the deficit, increases taxes, increases spending, lowers costs, raises costs, hurts the economy, helps the economy, expands coverage to more people, or whatever. For the government to require people to buy a product is just wrong, period.

Barack Obama recently claimed that requiring everyone to have health insurance, which is part of all of the health reform plans that have been considered recently by Congress, does not amount to a tax increase.

I agree with him, but only because I think that mandatory insurance is worse than a tax increase. Forcing people to have health insurance is degrading, unconstitutional, and unfair, it is a huge assault on our liberties, and it will make the cost of health services go up and the quality go down. I am categorically opposed to any health reform bill that includes an individual mandate, and I think that anyone who believes in liberty ought to be as well.

First, an individual mandate is degrading because the government is basically telling us that we don’t know what’s good for ourselves. There are two ways of paying for health services: getting insurance (paying a flat fee no matter how many services you get), or not getting insurance (paying separately for each service you get). These are two legitimate ways of paying, which people have a right to choose between. By requiring everyone to do the first option, the government is telling us that it doesn’t trust our judgement. Supporters of an individual mandate don’t believe it’s possible for someone to rationally choose to take the risk of paying out of pocket for any services they receive. Instead, they want to tell you that you don’t know what’s good for you – you’ll end up incurring medical expenses that you won’t be able to pay, even if you don’t think you will. That is paternalistic and insulting.

Second, an individual mandate is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to require people to buy a product or service. The closest the Constitution comes to allowing an individual mandate is the commerce clause, which authorizes Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This doesn’t come very close at all though – whether or not an individual person has insurance doesn’t really affect interstate commerce. 

Third, an individual mandate is unfair. People who don’t need many health services have a right to not pay for many health services. They have a right not to get insurance if that is what makes the most financial sense for them. Forcing them to buy health insurance equates to forcing them to subsidize people who receive more health services. It is simply unfair to make people pay for things they don’t use.

Fourth, and pretty straightforwardly, an individual mandate shrinks our liberty. It eliminates the choice of whether or not to buy health insurance, something that people have every right to do because it hurts no one and is not immoral.

Fifth and finally, an individual mandate would make health insurance costs increase and quality decrease. Why? Well, in a free market, companies have an incentive to keep their prices as low as possible and their quality as high as possible. This is because if the product is too expensive or too low quality, people won’t buy it, and the company won’t make money. With an individual mandate, however, people don’t have the option of not buying the product. Therefore, health insurance companies can charge as much as they want and make their product as confusing and bad as they want, and they won’t lose any business because people are forced to buy it.

Here are some awesome posts from other blogs about the injustice of the individual mandate:

• Below the Beltway – Republican Senator Expresses Support for Mandatory Health Insurance
• Washington Post – Illegal Health Reform
• Cato at Liberty – That Costly Mandate

President Obama recently did several interviews, where he said that race is not the main reason why people dislike him and his policies. I agree with Obama on this. I really disagreed with Jimmy Carter’s comments that Rep. Joe Wilson’s “you lie” comment was “based on racism.” How do you figure that? Wilson was expressing his opinion that Obama was lying when he said that his health reform plan would not extend coverage to illegal immigrants, an opinion that is pretty reasonable. (See this blog post from the Humble Libertarian for a great argument that Obama was, indeed, lying).

If Wilson only yelled at Obama because he is black, how do you explain the behavior of the Democrats in Congress who booed President Bush at his 2005 State of the Union Address, as seen in this YouTube video? If one party heckles the president during a speech when they disagree with his opinion, the other party should be able to, too! To my knowledge, the Democrats who booed Bush did not apologize, nor were they officially censured. Yet Wilson quickly apologized and even then was censured by the House of Representatives.

I believe that the House resolution officially condemning Wilson was unnecessary, excessive, and mean-spirited. I also think it’s stupid to call Wilson’s comment racist. Wilson called Obama a liar because he disagreed with what he was saying, and I bet he would have done the same if the president happened to be white. Disagreeing with Obama is not racist (unless you disagree with him because of his race), and by claiming that it is, Carter seems to expect people never to criticize Obama. But people have been criticizing their leaders for all of history, as they should. Equality means that all races are treated the same. A world where people criticize white presidens but not black ones would certainly not be a world of equality, and to expect people to behave that way is racist.

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?

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?