Over the weekend, the Senate voted to open debate on health care reform. While this seems like a simple and harmless progression of events, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent trying to prevent this very event. Throats have been made raw through vocal and angry rhetoric while reputations have been slandered out of misplaced fear and lack of understanding.
Let’s make one point clear, ALL POLITICIANS ARE ON THE TAKE. With the current crop we have in Washington and our state houses, I dare someone to logically challenge this assertion. Because our political process has been corrupted by money and corporate influence, we get dogma instead of a comprehensive analysis of the problem and the BEST solution.
It is very interesting to see that the 10 states with the worst health stats: obesity, child mortality, rates of heart attack and stroke, have representitives in the Senate that will vote against any change of our current system. How can these people claim to vote for their constituents when their votes counter the documented need of their constituents? Upon further review, you see that these people accept generous funds from corporate interests that would lose profit margin if there were a change. This is not government by the people for the people.
#1 by Jason on November 23rd, 2009
I agree with you 100% when you say “pour political process has been corrupted by money…” How else can you explain a $300 million bribe to get Sen. Landrieu to vote for cloture?
#2 by Jason on November 23rd, 2009
*our
#3 by Joseph on November 23rd, 2009
So then, what would you suggest?
#4 by Paul Cunningham on November 23rd, 2009
Your assertion that our political process has been hijacked by corporate special interest groups is very accurate. However I fear that you may be alluding that you support measures that only prolong the problem. The simple truth is that congress does not have the constitutional authority to be involved in medicine or insurance for that matter. I agree with you that our current system serves the special interest more than it does the common man and it is in desperate need of reform. However rather than imposing more central planning on an already overpriced and overregulated industry, we should be focusing our efforts on restoring freedom to this aspect of the market. If the federal government not only stopped imposing regulations, but also deregulated the industry, the special interest would no longer have laws in place granting them special privileges. This would also allow the laws of supply and demand to intervene and help raise the quality of the product while simultaneously lowering costs.
#5 by Rocco on November 24th, 2009
The problem is rooted in 2 areas. The first is that we must ask of ourselves what we ask our politicians to do. We must be honest and fair in our assesment of the issues, listen to points of view that may differ, but have some merit, and completely dismiss charlitans who’s only goal is to enrich themselves (this includes the Sharptons, Jacksons, Becks, and Limbaughs and assorted others. We must vote for those people that demonstrate their ability to work for us, not their peers and friends.
The second part is that we must push our elected officials to abolish all corporate and union donations to politicians. Campaigns should largely be funded through a public system. This would enable them to spend more time working and less time campaigning. It would also level the financial playing field so bad and self-serving pols could not flood the market. Each candidate would have to stand on their own merits.
This last part is only one of many different ideas, but the goal to eliminate corporate influence should be the top priority.
#6 by Rocco on November 24th, 2009
Not sure what has happened, but there were comments by Paul Cunningham (campaignforliberty.com) that did not show up, but I wanted to give an audience to and respond:
Submitted on 2009/11/23 at 10:41pm
Your assertion that our political process has been hijacked by corporate special interest groups is very accurate. However I fear that you may be alluding that you support measures that only prolong the problem. The simple truth is that congress does not have the constitutional authority to be involved in medicine or insurance for that matter. I agree with you that our current system serves the special interest more than it does the common man and it is in desperate need of reform. However rather than imposing more central planning on an already overpriced and overregulated industry, we should be focusing our efforts on restoring freedom to this aspect of the market. If the federal government not only stopped imposing regulations, but also deregulated the industry, the special interest would no longer have laws in place granting them special privileges. This would also allow the laws of supply and demand to intervene and help raise the quality of the product while simultaneously lowering costs.
#7 by Rocco on November 24th, 2009
Congress’ authority over insurance is derived from the commerce clause and the broad powers afforded congress to regulate commerce.
The lack of competition is not a fault of the fedral government, but rather state governments that actually approve the sale of insurance in each state. Individual states regulate how many or few compete in each state.
While deregulation helps in certain instances in what companies can sale and what business they can participate in, deregualtion centered around letting firms make up their own rules is not wise or pratical. We already have an issue with firms dropping customers or prolonging claims in order to maintain profit levels. In this area, more regulation is needed to protect the rights of customers.
Insurance is the law of large numbers and statistical averages. This means that the normal state of this industry is an oligopic state. Without regulation, firms use their market power to exploit the market. This is the basic foundation of our anti-trust laws.
What I envision is private firms selling insurance and setting their rates, but denied the right to drop customers without cause, withhold payment, or deny pre-existing conditions.
The poor could be subsidized by the government, and the government would act on their behalf to negotiate the best rate. This is very similar to the private system in Switzerland, often regarded as the best all private system in the world.
Yes, special interest have undo influence over the law, but what they really want is for all laws to be repealed. This would allow industry to do whatever it chooses. Everyone remebers those days: rampant air and water pollution, and unsafe products. We need the right laws to keep people honest.
While a basic tennet of economic theory is balance between law and demand, the next chapter in modern economic theory says that economies can not function in a healthy and overall beneficial manner for society without guidence. For instance, economics says that products should be made with no thought to waste dumped in the closest river, because that adds cost that does not add value to the product. Society (people), however, benefit from having clean rivers. It is, therefore, a larger economic benefit to society to impose extra cost on one industry to offset burdensome cost in another.
This is the complex macro-economic system we live in. While gun production may be most efficient by using all available resources, we know we must sacrafice some efficieny to produce butter.
#8 by Paul Cunningham on November 24th, 2009
Rocco, Rocco, Rocco
“Congress’ authority over insurance is derived from the commerce clause and the broad powers afforded congress to regulate commerce.”
I am sorry, but that line of thought is based more in tyrannical precedence rather than fact. There is nothing “broad” about the powers given by this clause.
The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a tax and tariff free zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over businesses that have no connection with interstate commerce.
The text of this clause reads in Article 1, Section 8:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
If you do not believe me, how bout we see what “The Father of the Constitution”, James Madison, had to say. He touched on this subject in Federalist Paper #41 and said it was for,
“The regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States.”
In an 1832 letter to Professor Davis of the University of Virginia he says:
“The power to regulate commerce among the States was well known and so explained by the advocates of the Constitution when before the people for their consideration, to be as a necessary control on the conduct of some of the importing States toward their non-importing neighbors. A recurrence to the angry legislation produced by it among the parties, some of whom had passed commercial laws (tariff’s) more rigid against others than against foreign nations, will well account for the constitutional remedy.”
It is sad when a constitutional provision designed to protect free trade among states is erroneously used to promote central planning.
The power “to regulate” interstate commerce is one of the most abused portions of the constitution by Congress. This is why it is so sadly referred to as the “everything clause.”
They use it to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control. (Which just so happens to be everything)
“The lack of competition is not a fault of the federal government, but rather state governments that actually approve the sale of insurance in each state. Individual states regulate how many or few compete in each state.”
Here is another question raised. If the federal government is going to use the interstate commerce clause to somehow regulate insurance, why don’t they use it to allow people to purchase insurance from outside their state? Since insurance is a product and not a right this should be a slam dunk! The removal of legislative and regulatory barriers to competition across state lines for health insurers would increase competition and expand your options for healthcare.
The remainder of everything you said deals with either Keynesian economic theory applied to central planning or illegal regulation by a central figure.
If you feel you need stricter regulations fight for them in your state government or local governments. The constitution grants your local authority the right to regulate things. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved. The federal government has only specific enumerated powers. The Ninth and 10th Amendments, limit Congress’s powers only to those granted in the Constitution.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
If the constitution does not specifically say that the federal government can do something, it is a state matter! Read the 10th amendment, it is very clear on this!
#9 by Rocco on November 25th, 2009
The final clause in the powers of Congress reads:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It is not the first clause, but rather this one that give Congress the authority to add new laws and or regulation as is deemed necessary. The Supreme Court has ruled many times in these types of cases.
A recent case concerning the EPA, ruled that the federal government has ultimate authority over the environment and should act to protect it through laws enacted by Congress. This is not a power granted by the constitution, but through precedent and judicial rulings of both left and right leaning courts.
The point is, that the Supreme Court has ruled that these type of expansions are not in violation of the Constitution.
People should be allowed to purchase insurance from across state lines. Similar to car insurance, this does foster competition. Again, this gets to our mutual point that lobbying by corporations at times stifles growth.
My question to you is what is the problem with a system like Switzerland?
About Keynsian theory, this is the dominant theory of economics today. It is widely accepted that central monetary and economic planning is needed. The level of control is, of course, debated.
#10 by Paul Cunningham on November 25th, 2009
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It is not the first clause, but rather this one that give Congress the authority to add new laws and or regulation as is deemed necessary. The Supreme Court has ruled many times in these types of cases.”
The purpose of federal government is to secure liberty, not well being. This is yet another gross misuse of yet another clause. “Necessary” is a restrictive adjective meaning essential. This is not essential to liberty. When we abuse these clauses in an effort to pass legislation that appeal to us we start a precedent. Although you may feel it is justified to abuse these clauses so that your agenda can be reached, it allows conflicting agendas to have the same abusive power. I believe that you summed it up quite nicely when you said that,
“This is not a power granted by the constitution, but through precedent and judicial rulings of both left and right leaning courts.”
The key words being “left and right” leaning courts.
There is no room for lefteousness or righteousness in federal government. Both ideologies are quite repressive of liberty.
The bleeding hearts preach personal liberty all day long but will contradict themselves when it comes to economic freedom.
The Right wingers will fight for economic freedom at all costs so they can fill their pockets, yet they will try to impose their conservative lifestyles upon the nation through oppressive laws on lifestyle.
It is hypocrisy! Pure and simple. People abuse the constitution in order to pass an agenda that they see as justified and can’t seem to understand when a person with a conflicting viewpoint abuses it for their legislation.
This is the unavoidable tyranny of a partisan majority. It needs to end! If the federal government would stay within the confines of the constitution and let freedom ring all across the board, the people could regulate themselves however they see fit.
If they want to enact legislation they can do it in their perspective states or local governments. If they don’t feel that they can achieve such a goal, they can vote with their feet and move to a state that better suits their needs.
My question to you is what is the problem with a system like Switzerland?
The Swiss actually have a decent system due to their noninterventionist foreign policy. But as far as healthcare is concerned, their system is not better than a free-market system. We used to have a healthcare system that was the envy of the world until it was hijacked by special interest several decades back. Even if their system is operational, it isn’t constitutional and it can’t beat the loving touch of the invisible hand.
About Keynsian theory, this is the dominant theory of economics today. It is widely accepted that central monetary and economic planning is needed. The level of control is, of course, debated.
Ludwig Von Mises would tell you that it is the reason that our dollar has declined in value at the rate it has. The boom and bust cycles creates by this economic theory are not fun at all. The dollar is at around 4% its 1913 value and sinking. The dollar did have some ups and downs before that but it actually had a higher value in 1913 than it did when we started.
#11 by Rocco on November 25th, 2009
Paul,
I must say I am impressed and admire your arguments. On average there is not much I would disagree with. The libertarian view is well reasoned, but the problem is most of our fellow citizens are not sophisticated enough to understand it or be responsible for themselves. Too many people want to project their sense of morals on everyone else instead of living at let living. In fact history has shown people are not capable of doing so without the force of the federal government.
Which comes back to my point that the problem comes back to corporate influence, religious ideology, and lack of morals by our elected officials. Why do you think states would be better suited for governing than the federal government? I see the same issues there.
As for leaving states that you don’t agree with, the same could be done at the national level. Canada is really nice I hear. LOL
In a way, it is very much like the EU: a group of semi-autonomous states bound only by monetary, tax, and trade. There could be some merits to that, but even they are moving to a more centralized model to foster more cohesion.
You have touched on a few topics that I was thinking about adding to my next 2 blogs. I will deal with two issues of hypocrisy for both the left and the right. I hope you enjoy those and can add your insight and continue to bring logic and class to the debate.
Thank you very much.
#12 by Paul Cunningham on November 25th, 2009
Rocco,
Thank You for your kind words and I admire your desire. I actually want the same goals that you do. Limited corporate influence, easily accessible and affordable healthcare, and I imagine a clean environment.
I just know that the apostle Paul said evil does not begot evil.
I say that not in an effort to preach the word but as words of wisdom.
The goal of federal government must always be to protect personal liberty. It is clear that the framers were very specific on this.
Whereas you say the problem is “most of our fellow citizens are not sophisticated enough to understand it or be responsible for themselves.” I say that congressmen are not sophisticated enough to understand liberty and are not responsible enough to regulate our lives. We are citizens of our prospective states and unite together for the common goal of defense, unfettered trade, and personal liberty.
In order to protect freedom we must keep all regulation at a minimum. There will always be a degree of tyranny but that is the unavoidable product of democracy. The idea is to minimize such injustice for the benefit of the individual, not maximize it for the benefit of mob rule.
“Which comes back to my point that the problem comes back to corporate influence, religious ideology, and lack of morals by our elected officials. Why do you think states would be better suited for governing than the federal government?”
When a law becomes federal law, it essentially becomes immovable. Dr. Milton Friedman said that, “Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.” It is true. If laws are set at as small a level of government as possible they are more likely to resemble the opinions of the citizens that they govern. In the event that they are not just laws or if they do not properly represent the values of the citizenry, they are much more likely to get changed in an environment where election cycles are more frequent and leaders have to answer to their constituents at the grocery store.
This gives the people more options and more flexibility. Whenever the federal government is in the business of intervention there is going to be an injustice. Whether this injustice is committed against our citizens or the citizens of a foreign country doesn’t matter. Interventionist foreign and domestic policies are too expensive and often tyrannical.
“As for leaving states that you don’t agree with, the same could be done at the national level. Canada is really nice I hear. LOL”
LOL, so is Wisconsin, doesn’t mean I want to go there. I worked there for 9 months and it is not for me.
Whenever you get started on your next blogs send me a link on @
http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=name&id=17118787
Or
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/profile.php?member=Theballasaul