United Liberty

I just read Matt Wittlief’s thoughts on Scott Brown, and since I have only tweeted about the Massachusetts special election and talked about it on the radio, I must be falling behind as a “political blogger” myself.  I started this as a comment, but my opinions turned this into a post itself.

As I see it, the GOP needed solidarity in the Senate (41 votes) to derail ObamaCare, and Scott Brown is that 41st vote for ObamaCare in 2010. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it, Scott Brown is nothing more than a “short term compromise.” His positions are not that different from Coakley, when you compare them across the board for all three candidates that ran. He also supported RomneyCare in Massachusetts a few short years ago. His support of government intervention into the marketplace is unquestionable, and he confirmed it with his comments on Wednesday, that every libertarian that tweets or is on Facebook cited.

Jason and Brett traveled to Birmingham, Alabama this weekend, gathering quite a panel to discuss the political news of the week.  They were joined by Charles Kennedy, Austin Wilkes, Shana Kluck, Stephen Gordon, and Brooklyn Roberts.

The discussion covered:

In analyzing the data from the latest polls coming from Massachusetts with regard to the upcoming special election on January 19th, I have some things to note.

• Rasmussen polled 500 likely voters on January 4, releasing their results the following day.
• The Boston Globe polled 554 likely voters January 2-6, releasing their results this morning.
• Public Policy Polling polled 744 likely voters January 7-9, releasing their results last night. (full .pdf of the results available there)

Beginning linearly with the commencement of the polls, the Boston Globe began first, though it concluded on the 6th. It was not released until this morning, but I think that its results were not influenced by Rasmussen’s numbers, as Rasmussen conducted their poll in the midst, releasing the results toward the end.  They also included Joe Kennedy as an option, whereas neither of the other polls did.  Who knows why it took the Globe four days to release their results, but I think for the time their polling spanned, it is likely accurate.

On November 16th, the national debt for our nation broke the $12 trillion dollar mark.  Jason, Brett and Doug had joked on Twitter about getting together to “celebrate” this accomplishment by having a few drinks.  Since geography prevented us from meeting together in a physical location, we took this opportunity to officially toast to the federal government’s mortgage of our futures and those of future generations with their out of control spending.

Joining us as a guest for such a “joyous” occasion, we were joined by Mike Hassinger, a political consultant with Landmark Communications.

Together, they discuss:

Yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters that the House version of the health care legislation will cost under $900 billion and reduce the deficit, claiming to have estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO, in its score of ObamaCare in the Senate and in previous preliminary scores, pointed out any budgetary savings aren’t a given:

The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

Uncertainty or skepticism over projected budget savings is entirely reasonable because history shows these estimates to be entirely inaccurate, at the Wall Street Journal points out:

In my last post, I outlined my thoughts on a more ideal health care system. I recognize that these thoughts describe a system which is much different than what we have today. Justified criticism is often directed towards such ideas for being too ideological, theoretical, or impractical. So, I’d like to close my series on health care (for now) with some ideas which may be more practical. I do recognize that some of these ideas may be politically untenable at this time and also concede that true health care reform requires hours and hours of research beyond what I’m able to provide. Here is my six-point plan for reform.

1. Authorize and Promote the Establishment of Health Care Subscription Programs

As noted in my thoughts on a more ideal health care system, the idea of a health and wellness subscription service seems like a great idea. Such a service may not be technically illegal today (I have not researched this), but the regulatory system and network of insurance providers are not aligned with such a model. This is not fundamentally different than prepaid health care which is a more accurate description of today’s health “insurance” products. I would allow Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare Advantage plans to use federal dollars towards such programs if the patient chooses to do so.

2. Provide Significant Tax Incentives for Private and Corporate Donations to Non-Profit Health Care Providers

The president and members of Congress claim that the uninsured must be held accountable for their care by imposing a substanial tax because they fail to take out coverage, despite only accounting for 2.7% of total health spending. However, a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in October 2008, says the uninsured are not responsible for crowded emergency rooms (emphasis mine):

The JAMA study also found that patients with public insurance, such as Medicaid and Medicare, are more likely to crowd into emergency rooms for minor complaints than are the uninsured. Only about 17 percent of E.R. visits in the United States in the last year studied were by uninsured patients, about the same as their share of the population.

That isn’t the only way people with subsidized insurance add more burdens to the system than people with no insurance at all. A 2007 study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine looked at charges and payments for 43,128 emergency department visits between 1996 and 2004. “What surprised us was that uninsured patients actually pay a higher proportion of their emergency department charges than Medicaid does,” reported co-author Reneé Hsia, a specialist in emergency medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. “In fact, 35 percent of charges for uninsured visits were paid in 2004, compared with 33 percent for Medicaid visits.”

This will now be my fifth post on the issue of health care over the last several weeks. I will recap these posts as they establish key principles for a more ideal health care system.

In the first entry, I argued that the business of insurance should not be regulated as a public utility. While the insurance industry may exhibit “too big to fail” characteristics which must be managed, it is a fundamentally profitable business model which does not require a massive initial capital investment like other infrastructure such as roads or a power grid.

The second post then focused on the concept of rights. A government guarantee of health care provision constitutes a positive claim right against either the health care providers and/or those who are forced to fund the guarantee. The state should not support or guarantee positive claim rights as this creates a state without limitless power.

I then turned to the concepts of human needs and the social safety net in my third post. In this I concluded that a social safety net is important to meet the human need of security by protecting those who have from those who have not. This introduces the potential need for state funded health services.

In my most recent post, I presented data gathered from the World Health Organization for a comparative analysis of national health care finances (public and private) as well as services and outcomes. My conclusion is that the U.S. system is inefficient as the costs do not justify the level of service - nor are Americans more healthy as a result.

Racist, Nazi, greedy bastard, angry mob, AstroTurf, brown-shirt, unpatriotic, goon, heathen, liar, rich, skinhead, moron, gun nut, ignorant fool, manipulator. Those are sixteen words and phrases used to describe me, used by the media, in person, on the phone, and on the Internet in response to my opposition to ObamaCare. I think that I should note that these are the ones I can publish due to the tameness of language. Of the sixteen, I find only two to be accurate: angry mob and skinhead (only because I cut my hair REALLY short). Friends and acquaintances who have seen or heard these suggest that I collect them as trophies for my efforts. Needless to say, I have a thick skin when it comes to name-calling, mostly because I know what it really means. It means only one thing: I. Am. Winning.

After attending several Atlanta area health care town hall forums sponsored by legislators in support of HR 3200, I decided to participate in one hosted by MY Congressman, Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA, 11th). I should note that I did not vote for or against Dr. Gingrey in 2008, as I lived in Georgia’s 13th Congressional District then. The convenience of the location of August 31st’s event could not have been better, unless it took place in my living room (the Cobb Civic Center is across the street from my neighborhood), however a 5:30 PM start time made it difficult for many constituents to attend.

I arrived at the Civic Center shortly after 5 PM to find a parking lot approximately half-full, some cars present as early as 3:30 PM. Outside the venue, there were a few individuals and groups handing literature to those entering, including members of GOP gubernatorial candidate, John Oxendine’s You Can Stop ObamaCare. I expected police-enforced restrictions that I encountered at previous town hall events, so my only tool to capture and share media of the event was my cell phone.

Once inside, I noted many of Rep. Gingrey’s older constituents in attendance, as I expected from reports of his previous forums on the subject. I also expected that most in attendance would be opposed to the health care reform bill known as HR 3200, also known as “ObamaCare,” like their Congressman, Rep. Gingrey. There were a handful of