If you have ever wondered how socialism can advance in a country founded on the principle of inalienable individual rights, take a look at the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Created in 1997 by a Republican congress and signed into law by President Clinton, ostensibly to extend government health insurance coverage to uninsured children of the “poor”, this federal program is now up for renewal in Washington.
The reauthorization bill, which as of this writing has passed both houses of congress, greatly expands the program beyond its original intent. The Associated Press reported on the intent of the program’s advocates earlier this year: “[Senator Hillary] Clinton said she would introduce legislation to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program to all families, regardless of income.” ( N.J. Star Ledger, 1/22/07, emphasis added). On the face of it, this would seem to make no sense. Why, it’s opponents ask, would one want to set up an incentive for parents to drop their private insurance and shift their children’s coverage to the government-run program? Indeed, President Bush has vowed to veto this legislation on these very grounds.
Viewed within the context of the motives of the bill’s sponsors, however, this is precisely the point. It is intended to drive out private insurers. As syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported in a June 28 op-ed in the New York Post, “this proposal is the thin edge of the wedge to achieve the longtime goal of government-supplied universal health insurance and the suffocation of the private system”. As noted by Novak, SCHIPs already has been expanded to cover some adults, and this provision will be extended and presumably expanded in the reauthorization bill. Likewise, Investor’s Business Daily (8/01/07) reports that coverage would be extended “to include those who can afford private insurance for their children”, as well as “children of illegal aliens…which would extend coverage to 70 percent of America’s children “ (emphasis added).
What one must understand is that socialism is being introduced into this country by the almost imperceptable process of incrementalism. The small, original CHIP “poison pill” is following the same growth path as other Federal social programs, with the same incidious results of increasing the cost to families outside of the program via higher taxes and the increased cost of private insurance due to the inevitable price spiral that results from any “free” government service. (Never mind that SCHIPs will be “paid for” by increased cigarette taxes, so that only evil smokers will pay. Smoking has been declining for decades in America, and it is dishonest and fraudulent to base an expanding federal program on a declining revenue base. The “cost” of the program will eventually have to be borne by all other taxpayers and parents. Besides, smokers are using a legal product and shouldn’t be singled out for special punishment to camouflage the politicians true intentions”.) The increasing burden on the private sector whose taxes pay for the Federal welfare-state programs pushes more and more people out of the private market and eventually into the government-run system. Like the circular wave pattern of a stone dropped in a pond, and helped along by employers all-too-eager to pass along to the government the ever-rising cost of their employee coverage, SCHIPs is set up precisely to take advantage of this process, steadily expanding as the private market shrinks.
There are a number of reasons why the advance of socialist despotism can procede despite the fact that there is no appetite for it among most people in this country. For one thing, the tactics used by the socialists represent a kind of package deal that makes it very hard for modern politicians and most Americans to oppose. In the case of SCHIPs, the program’s proponents equate the desireable goal of getting all children covered by health insurance with the creation of coercive government actions that violate individual rights. Should one protest by questioning why some parents should be able to impose the cost of their obligations to their children on other people; or to rebel against the state’s intrusion into and usurpation of the parent’s right to make the health care decisions for their children; or to oppose the unfairness of forcing parents who have provided their own children with coverage (or people with no children) to pay higher taxes for other’s children, he is immediately smeared as being “anti-children”.
In a culture where a selfless concern for others is considered a virtue and selfishness is automatically evil, this blatant appeal to emotion over reason is enough to silence most of the opposition. After all, what is concern for justice, individual rights, and the dangers of an expanding predatory state in the face of the charge that “you don’t care about the children!”? To stand up against such a charge requires a vigorous, principled commitment to defend one’s own right to decide if, when, and how one will offer help to others, and to reject the socialists’ claim that, in essence, compassion and charity grow out of the barrel of a gun. The issue, Ayn Rand writes, is not “whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar….The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime…. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. (Philosophy, Who Needs It, page 61)”.
And this is the crux of the matter. This “popular” bill is supported by a majority of Americans because of their inability to see the forest for the trees. It is Americans’ sense of compassion and generosity that is being turned against them and is being used by the socialists to sacrifice their freedom (and, for that matter, the future freedom of the children they claim to care about). The failure of Americans to understand the broad principles and long-term consequences involved here (the “forest”) is making the advance of socialism possible. It’s not whether children should or should not have health insurance. This battle is rather a small part of a much bigger war- between whether an individual’s life belongs to himself or to the state; i.e., between individualism and collectivism.
The consequences of ignoring the “forest” can be seen in the disgraceful performance of the alleged enemies of socialism, with at least 17 Republicans, including top GOP senators Charles Grassley and Orin Hatch (who said, incredibly, “It’s difficult for me to understand how anyone wouldn’t want to do this.” N.J.S.L. 8/02/07) joining the Democrats in passing this bill by a veto-proof margin of 68-32. (To be fair, the House GOP took a stronger stand against this legislation, with the final vote being a much closer 225-204 in favor, making it likely that a Bush veto can be sustained.)
The most deplorable, and dismaying, aspect was the action taken by the organizations representing the people who would be socialized medicine's greatest victims, the doctors. Both the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics are supporting SCHIP. Undoubtedly, there are doctors within these groups who oppose this legislation, but they are apparently in the minority. In any event, if the doctors, who should be at the forefront of the battle against socialized medicine, are actually siding with the statists, then our health care freedom may be all but doomed. Whatever short term gain the AMA and the AAP think they will achieve by making this deal with the devil, they have in essence sold out the rest of America, and their own professional futures, by failing to vigorously defend their own independence and rights.
In addition to advancing their drive toward socialized medicine, there is an ominous parallel between the SCHIP issue and Hillary Clinton’s pre-school bill. In my post of 7/29/07, I said “ She has brazenly declared that the primary responsibility for the education of American children rests with the state, not the parents”. If you want to see an example of the power of ideas in action, and how the identification of basic principles can provide you with a bridge of understanding between seemingly unrelated issues, this is one. Whereby Clinton’s pre-school bill would drive a further wedge between parents and their children on education, SCHIPs drives a wedge between parents and their children on health care. The state will have Soviet-style control over the content and method of your childrens’ health care, as it has control over the content, method and curriculum of your childrens’ education, if their agenda is allowed to be carried out to its logical conclusion.
An example of how the left’s health care agenda is being advanced through the state’s hammerlock on this country’s schools, I offer this bit of information from a report by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons;
"As Task Force documents showed, 'Kids First is really a precursor to the new system.' It could be implemented through Medicaid or another plan. The Task Force advocated school-based health services, built upon 'the highly successful models sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.' The school- based clinics are a 'point of access to comprehensive systems.' About 60% of children who receive services from a school-based clinic located near a health center eventually become health- center users.
The latest pilot program is now underway in Pennsylvania- without so much as a by-your-leave from the legislature. Involved officials have been less than cooperative when legislators try to find out what is going on.
'The more questions we ask, the harder it is to get information,' stated Rep. Sam Rohrer.
HillaryCare is coming in as an educational program. The Department of Education is receiving 'free money' by billing Medicaid directly for 'mental health' services provided in a school setting. Eligibility for Medicaid has been extended to any child who is 'learning disabled,' including anyone who does not meet the goals of 'Outcome-Based Education.' " (emphasis added)
This is why the left is so violently opposed to any attempt to undermine the government’s monopoly on education. This, not some well-intentioned desire to “save” the public schools or to guarantee a quality education for the children. The public school system is a political institution that is being used to advance, on many fronts, the political agenda of the Left (and in some cases, the Right as well).
The steady drift toward statism in this country is and has for decades been carried on one small step at a time. Terrified of being exposed as the authoritarians that they are, the socialists hide behind compassionate-sounding slogans to appeal to peoples’ emotions, while loudly proclaiming their support for free enterprise “There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets”, blustered Hillary Clinton, as reported by Bruce Bartlet. (N.J.S.L. 8/14/07)
They know that socialism would never be accepted by the American people if presented openly and boldly, at least not yet. Their brazen attempt to impose socialized medicine in 1993 (“Hillarycare”) collapsed because most people saw it for what it was. So they fell back on their long-time strategy of creating “poison-pill” programs that expand incrementally over time.
One may suggest that I am being overly dramatic in my assessment of the dangers posed by the SCHIP legislation. For years I have believed that a little statism or socialism couldn’t do much harm. After all, this is America where freedom and Capitalism reign. But events of recent years have demonstrated to me that Ayn Rand was right. Principles matter. “There can be no compromise”, she writes, “ between freedom and government controls; to accept ‘just a few controls’ is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government’s unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement… There can be no compromise on moral principles” (The Virtue of Selfishness, pages 79&81). If you look around at the slow but persistent erosion of control over our lives, not just in health care and education but on free speech (campaign finance reform), property rights (eminent domain), and a whole host of areas right down to what kinds of ingredients can be used in restaurant foods and wondered at the seemingly unstoppable trend toward even more loss of personal freedom, then perhaps you should give serious consideration to the above quotation
I have come to believe firmly that to stop and reverse the trend toward statism, it is vitally important to recognize that the battle cannot be fought on the enemy’s ground. To oppose this SCHIP expansion while upholding the validity of the original program (as do President Bush, the “free market” Galen institute, among others), is to concede defeat. The GOP, which created SCHIP, has all but collapsed as a meaningful force against the socialist advance, and is now reduced to quibbling merely over the size of the glass of poison America must swallow.
Health care has become, to borrow a phrase, the central front in the war between freedom and statism. Socialism’s advance, after having stalled following the rise of Reagan, is now experiencing renewed vigor in America. But, fueled only by appeals to emotion and resting on a foundation of widespread evasion, it is advancing in an intellectual vacuum left by the implosion of the Bush-led Republican Party that has abandoned it’s Goldwater-Reagan principles of defending the individual against the state, and thus has become a lapdog for the resurgent Left.
Beneath the cultural surface, however, are the rumblings of a new intellectual movement that recognizes that the struggle against Socialism can only be fought, and won, on the philosophical battlefield: that it is a moral fight based on the principle of the supremacy of the individual’s, and every individual’s, right to his own life and liberty; which means, in this context, to be free from the imposition by force of any requirement or obligation to satisfy the needs of others. To paraphrase the above-stated quotation- The issue is not whether you should or should not assist others in getting their children insured. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving that assistance. The issue is whether the health insurance needs of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence.
It is impossible to determine or predict if and when our country (and consequently, the world) will collapse into despotism: whether it will be this generation or the next, or not at all. The intellectual/philosophical underpinnings for a second enlightenment are gathering. But the current trends are ominous. And, as Ronald Reagan has said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction”. It is only through a principled rejection of the altruist-collectivist premise of the individual’s subordination to the group (i.e., the state), and the embrace of the principle of individualism, i.e., of each person’s right to self-determination and the pursuit of his own happiness free from the forceable interference by others, that our freedom can be saved.
And the counterattack must begin, here and now and in the name of individual rights, with the demand that the SCHIP expansion bill be defeated, and the original program be killed through non-renewal. (As of this writing, different versions have passed Congress and are currently being reconciled in a House-Senate conference committee). The intellectual vacuum can and must be filled by the rise of a principled opposition resting on a foundation of moral certainty, because only a movement armed with the right philosophical ammunition can reverse the disastrous trends currently under way in America.
I will close out this essay with yet another observation from Ayn Rand, a philosopher whose perspective is that of the broad intallectual trends of history spanning centuries. These words were written 46 years ago, and they remain as a warning to anyone who still clings to the illusion that socialist despotism can be averted without a full rejection of its collectivist premise and simultaneous embrace of its ideological opposite, individualism. In these 46 years, we have seen the collapse of American Liberalism, the Conservative Movement which led to the Reagan Revolution, and the rise of the Republican Party to virtual national majority status from 1994-2006. Yet in this period we have seen the size, scope, and intrusiveness of government at all levels expand exponentially, conclusively demonstrating the power of ideas left fundamentally unchallenged by better
ideas.
I quote from For The New Intellectual, page 46;
"If America perishes, it will perish by intellectual default. There is no diabolical conspiracy to destroy it: no conspiracy could be big enough or strong enough...There is no national movement for socialism or dictatorship in America, no 'man on horseback' or popular demagogue, nothing but fumbling compromisers and frightened opportunists. Yet we are moving toward full, totalitarian socialism...moved by nothing but the sluggish inertia of unfocussed minds."
Post Reference 7
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Excerpts 3
"SACRAMENTO - The prognosis for universal health care in California is grim this year, and experts say a failure could set back similar efforts nationwide for years to come."
"But support for his ideas has slipped as the debate has bogged down. In December, the nonpartisan Field Poll found it was favored by 52 percent of voters. By August, that had fallen to 33 percent; that is about equal to the number who said they supported a single-payer system run by the government."
A glimmer of hope for freedom-lovers on the health care front? Yes and no.
Note that the opposition, as least according to this article from the Associated Press, is focused on specific concretes of Liberal Democratic (excuse me, Republican) governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's scheme to impose socialized medicine on California. The doctors and unions say it would cost too much for the "working poor"; the Republicans say it would be too expensive; and the Democrats say it is not expensive enough.
What's missing in this debate is any mention of individual rights, the proper role of government, or any serious proposal to role back the tax and regulatory policies that are strangling our health care industry. There don't seem to be any actual opponents to the Governor's plan, just some quibbling over the sundry details, as if the debate over socialized medicine is over, and freedom has lost. But despite the seeming (again, according to the AP) lack of any coherent opposition, public support for Schwarzenegger's plan has plummeted.
And therein may lie some reason for optimism. When confronted explicitly with a chance at the ballot box to implement socialized medicine, Americans have always rejected it overwhelmingly, as in Maine and Oregon early in this decade. Hillary Clinton's attempted government takeover of medicine in 1993 not only failed, but led to the Republicans' landslide takeover of congress a year later. Only in Massachusetts did it "succeed", where another Liberal Democratic (excuse me, Republican) governor, Mitt Romney, snuck his plan through under the guise of "free market choice".
What California, and America, are ripe for (and deserve) is a principled and moral campaign against socialized medicine coupled with a comprehensive plan of action to restore a free market in health care; i.e., one in which every individual is free to make his own decisions on health care, with his own money, free from state
interference. Any politician willing to mount such a campaign will, I believe, find wide support as he will be stepping into an intellectual vacuum (in the political realm).
This may be the true lesson behind the poll results reported in this article.
"But support for his ideas has slipped as the debate has bogged down. In December, the nonpartisan Field Poll found it was favored by 52 percent of voters. By August, that had fallen to 33 percent; that is about equal to the number who said they supported a single-payer system run by the government."
A glimmer of hope for freedom-lovers on the health care front? Yes and no.
Note that the opposition, as least according to this article from the Associated Press, is focused on specific concretes of Liberal Democratic (excuse me, Republican) governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's scheme to impose socialized medicine on California. The doctors and unions say it would cost too much for the "working poor"; the Republicans say it would be too expensive; and the Democrats say it is not expensive enough.
What's missing in this debate is any mention of individual rights, the proper role of government, or any serious proposal to role back the tax and regulatory policies that are strangling our health care industry. There don't seem to be any actual opponents to the Governor's plan, just some quibbling over the sundry details, as if the debate over socialized medicine is over, and freedom has lost. But despite the seeming (again, according to the AP) lack of any coherent opposition, public support for Schwarzenegger's plan has plummeted.
And therein may lie some reason for optimism. When confronted explicitly with a chance at the ballot box to implement socialized medicine, Americans have always rejected it overwhelmingly, as in Maine and Oregon early in this decade. Hillary Clinton's attempted government takeover of medicine in 1993 not only failed, but led to the Republicans' landslide takeover of congress a year later. Only in Massachusetts did it "succeed", where another Liberal Democratic (excuse me, Republican) governor, Mitt Romney, snuck his plan through under the guise of "free market choice".
What California, and America, are ripe for (and deserve) is a principled and moral campaign against socialized medicine coupled with a comprehensive plan of action to restore a free market in health care; i.e., one in which every individual is free to make his own decisions on health care, with his own money, free from state
interference. Any politician willing to mount such a campaign will, I believe, find wide support as he will be stepping into an intellectual vacuum (in the political realm).
This may be the true lesson behind the poll results reported in this article.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Response to A.P. Article
The Associated Press reported that the New Jersey Economic Development Authority would now accept stock in lieu of cash payments due on loans made to private companies, ostensibly to set up or expand operations in the state. Archive Systems Inc. became the first company to participate in this program, with a payment of $250,000 worth of stock.
Many states and cities follow this contradictory approach. Having spent six years under Governors McGreevy and Corzine slamming business with higher taxes and increased regulations creating a hostile business environment, the state turns around and dishes out taxpayer-subsidized loans to attract the business it drove away or discouraged to begin with.
But that's not the worst of it. The loans must inevitably go primarily to the worst types of businessman; i.e., those with political connections, or those who don't qualify for private bank loans or can't attract private investors. "Rick Kushel, CEO and chairman of Archive Systems", the A.P. reports, "said the program allowed the company to gain access to money it otherwise wouldn't have had." (emphasis added) Is it any wonder that the state is having a hard time getting repaid?
So our state has managed to create a lose-lose-lose situation. We first drove away or discouraged independant, self supporting enterprises, then attracted favor-seekers who can't pay their bills, and now, in apparent desperation, we make them in effect wards of the state by accepting worthless stock in hopes they can somehow turn themselves around.
There is a danger in this. Stated Kushel, "We think it's a great opportunity to have the state as a supporter". To "have the state as a supporter" means that Archive will now be backed by the taxing (i.e., coercive) power of the state. To understand fully the nature of this danger, the principle one must grasp is that, in any society, the government is the only entity that can legally use force against that nation's citizens.
So consider what it will now mean for Archive's competitors. Rather than compete on a level playing field, the competitor will face a company whose "supporter" has the power of taxation, regulation, audits, prosecution, inspection, etc. This opens up the potential for all kinds of mischief (tax audits, "investigations", etc.) initiated by Archive's "supporter" (the state) against the competitor. In an economic downturn, the competitor may face tight credit conditions in the private market, possibly leading to a capital shortage, while Archive can enjoy a stream of liquidity courtesy of a state agency (the New Jersey Economic Development Authority) because, says EDA's Technologies Director Kathleen Coviello, "We want to make sure that the funding is there to support these entities".(emphasis added)
At this point I want to state strongly and unequivocally that my intention here is NOT to accuse anyone of any wrong-doing. I have no reason to believe that Ms. Coviello and the E.D.A., or Mr. Kushel and Archive are anything but honorable and well-intentioned. Rather, I am using the Archive-EDA stock arrangement to demonstrate what I believe to be the unfairness and potentially dangerous course the state has taken in enabling private companies to in effect tap into the taxing and regulatory powers of the state.
Government has a long history, at both the state and federal levels, of engaging in credit activities with private business, in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, subsidized loans, etc. (whether a government should engage in these activities is another issue). As a creditor, the state has no direct control over the business to whom it loans money. By accepting stock rather than cash as repaymant, the state is acquiring an ownership stake in a private company. This is an ominous turn of events.
To understand why, one must grasp the crucial distinction between government and private activity. As stated earlier, the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force. The private market is governed solely by the principle of voluntary association free from force or the threat of force. That is why it is called a free market. By taking an ownership position in a private company, the state is introducing force into the private market which, by it’s very nature,it must be free of. Since “[m]oney earned from investments…will go toward…expanding EDA programs”, there are apparently going to be more of these kinds of deals. This must necessarily lead to a crowding out of independent businesses in favor of state owned or controlled enterprises.
This smacks of “state capitalism”; i.e., fascism, or government control of the means of production. The EDA program is a direct threat to the free market and thus to individual liberty, because to be free, in essence, means to be free from force or the threat of force. In the 1930s, the FDR administration and Congress, in setting up the Social Security program, mandated that tax revenues coming into the program could only be invested in government bonds and not private company stocks or bonds, precisely because they recognized the threat that state ownership of private enterprise posed to liberty. The same logic should apply here.
The government already has too much control over the economy. The EDA program represents another step toward statism. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority should be banned from accepting anything but cash in repayment for it’s loans. Instead, New Jersey should make the state’s business climate more conducive to private investment, risk-taking, and production by lowering taxes, regulations, and other impediments.
Zemack
Many states and cities follow this contradictory approach. Having spent six years under Governors McGreevy and Corzine slamming business with higher taxes and increased regulations creating a hostile business environment, the state turns around and dishes out taxpayer-subsidized loans to attract the business it drove away or discouraged to begin with.
But that's not the worst of it. The loans must inevitably go primarily to the worst types of businessman; i.e., those with political connections, or those who don't qualify for private bank loans or can't attract private investors. "Rick Kushel, CEO and chairman of Archive Systems", the A.P. reports, "said the program allowed the company to gain access to money it otherwise wouldn't have had." (emphasis added) Is it any wonder that the state is having a hard time getting repaid?
So our state has managed to create a lose-lose-lose situation. We first drove away or discouraged independant, self supporting enterprises, then attracted favor-seekers who can't pay their bills, and now, in apparent desperation, we make them in effect wards of the state by accepting worthless stock in hopes they can somehow turn themselves around.
There is a danger in this. Stated Kushel, "We think it's a great opportunity to have the state as a supporter". To "have the state as a supporter" means that Archive will now be backed by the taxing (i.e., coercive) power of the state. To understand fully the nature of this danger, the principle one must grasp is that, in any society, the government is the only entity that can legally use force against that nation's citizens.
So consider what it will now mean for Archive's competitors. Rather than compete on a level playing field, the competitor will face a company whose "supporter" has the power of taxation, regulation, audits, prosecution, inspection, etc. This opens up the potential for all kinds of mischief (tax audits, "investigations", etc.) initiated by Archive's "supporter" (the state) against the competitor. In an economic downturn, the competitor may face tight credit conditions in the private market, possibly leading to a capital shortage, while Archive can enjoy a stream of liquidity courtesy of a state agency (the New Jersey Economic Development Authority) because, says EDA's Technologies Director Kathleen Coviello, "We want to make sure that the funding is there to support these entities".(emphasis added)
At this point I want to state strongly and unequivocally that my intention here is NOT to accuse anyone of any wrong-doing. I have no reason to believe that Ms. Coviello and the E.D.A., or Mr. Kushel and Archive are anything but honorable and well-intentioned. Rather, I am using the Archive-EDA stock arrangement to demonstrate what I believe to be the unfairness and potentially dangerous course the state has taken in enabling private companies to in effect tap into the taxing and regulatory powers of the state.
Government has a long history, at both the state and federal levels, of engaging in credit activities with private business, in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, subsidized loans, etc. (whether a government should engage in these activities is another issue). As a creditor, the state has no direct control over the business to whom it loans money. By accepting stock rather than cash as repaymant, the state is acquiring an ownership stake in a private company. This is an ominous turn of events.
To understand why, one must grasp the crucial distinction between government and private activity. As stated earlier, the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force. The private market is governed solely by the principle of voluntary association free from force or the threat of force. That is why it is called a free market. By taking an ownership position in a private company, the state is introducing force into the private market which, by it’s very nature,it must be free of. Since “[m]oney earned from investments…will go toward…expanding EDA programs”, there are apparently going to be more of these kinds of deals. This must necessarily lead to a crowding out of independent businesses in favor of state owned or controlled enterprises.
This smacks of “state capitalism”; i.e., fascism, or government control of the means of production. The EDA program is a direct threat to the free market and thus to individual liberty, because to be free, in essence, means to be free from force or the threat of force. In the 1930s, the FDR administration and Congress, in setting up the Social Security program, mandated that tax revenues coming into the program could only be invested in government bonds and not private company stocks or bonds, precisely because they recognized the threat that state ownership of private enterprise posed to liberty. The same logic should apply here.
The government already has too much control over the economy. The EDA program represents another step toward statism. The New Jersey Economic Development Authority should be banned from accepting anything but cash in repayment for it’s loans. Instead, New Jersey should make the state’s business climate more conducive to private investment, risk-taking, and production by lowering taxes, regulations, and other impediments.
Zemack
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Life and Liberty vs the FDA
Even by today's standards of bizarre judicial rulings, this recent federal appeals court ruling is truly shocking.
"In a 8-2 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled terminally ill patients do not have a constitutional right to have access to life- saving drugs that have passed only limited safety trials and have not been approved for marketing.
'We conclude there is no fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition of access to experimental drugs for the terminally ill,' Judge Thomas Griffith wrote for the majority." ( emphasis added)
There is "no fundamental right" of a private American citizen to take whatever actions he deems necessary, short of violating the rights of others, to further his own life and well-being? What constitution is Judge Griffith and the court majority looking at? Is not the right to Life and Liberty "deeply rooted in this nations history"?. Does not the phrase "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" in the Declaration of Independence constitute the very foundational principle upon which the American constitution in based?
The ruling overturned a previous court decision which upheld a dying patient’s “fundamental right to potentially life-saving medicine” because “[t]he decision threatened to shake the foundations of the FDA's regulatory authority, with the agency arguing such a right would create unacceptable risks for patients[?] and undermine the clinical trial system” (emphasis added). Translation: the bureaucratic power of government officials takes precedence over the rights and lives of private citizens.
What we are seeing is a concrete example of the nature of collectivism (the supremacy of the group over the individual) and it’s moral foundation, altruism (which upholds individual self-sacrifice for the sake of others as a person’s highest virtue), in action. Of what importance are the rights of a few terminally ill patients and their selfish desire to live, asks this court and the FDA, compared to the needs of “society”, as determined by federal regulators?
The government’s primary function is to protect the rights of it’s citizens, not to engage in the sacrifice of some for the benefit of others. Liberty includes the right to engage in the free and uncoerced trade of goods and services. A patient has the right to take on the risks of experimental drugs. A pharmaceutical company has the right to sell or give the medicine to the patient (as well as to deny it to the patient if, for example, doing so would jeopardize it’s clinical trials by shrinking the pool of potential volunteers) on it’s sole discretion. The government's role should only be to ensure that the medicines potential effects are not misrepresented (which is fraud), and that the patient (or his designated representative) is completely well informed.
This atrocious ruling is a violation of individual rights and of the government’s proper function and should be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
(For more on this case, see The Deadly FDA.)
Zemack
"In a 8-2 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled terminally ill patients do not have a constitutional right to have access to life- saving drugs that have passed only limited safety trials and have not been approved for marketing.
'We conclude there is no fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition of access to experimental drugs for the terminally ill,' Judge Thomas Griffith wrote for the majority." ( emphasis added)
There is "no fundamental right" of a private American citizen to take whatever actions he deems necessary, short of violating the rights of others, to further his own life and well-being? What constitution is Judge Griffith and the court majority looking at? Is not the right to Life and Liberty "deeply rooted in this nations history"?. Does not the phrase "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men" in the Declaration of Independence constitute the very foundational principle upon which the American constitution in based?
The ruling overturned a previous court decision which upheld a dying patient’s “fundamental right to potentially life-saving medicine” because “[t]he decision threatened to shake the foundations of the FDA's regulatory authority, with the agency arguing such a right would create unacceptable risks for patients[?] and undermine the clinical trial system” (emphasis added). Translation: the bureaucratic power of government officials takes precedence over the rights and lives of private citizens.
What we are seeing is a concrete example of the nature of collectivism (the supremacy of the group over the individual) and it’s moral foundation, altruism (which upholds individual self-sacrifice for the sake of others as a person’s highest virtue), in action. Of what importance are the rights of a few terminally ill patients and their selfish desire to live, asks this court and the FDA, compared to the needs of “society”, as determined by federal regulators?
The government’s primary function is to protect the rights of it’s citizens, not to engage in the sacrifice of some for the benefit of others. Liberty includes the right to engage in the free and uncoerced trade of goods and services. A patient has the right to take on the risks of experimental drugs. A pharmaceutical company has the right to sell or give the medicine to the patient (as well as to deny it to the patient if, for example, doing so would jeopardize it’s clinical trials by shrinking the pool of potential volunteers) on it’s sole discretion. The government's role should only be to ensure that the medicines potential effects are not misrepresented (which is fraud), and that the patient (or his designated representative) is completely well informed.
This atrocious ruling is a violation of individual rights and of the government’s proper function and should be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
(For more on this case, see The Deadly FDA.)
Zemack
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Excerpts 2
"America is right to seek a model for delivering good health care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close to home — in the other four-fifths or so of our economy. From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription."
The July 27, 2007 Op-Ed in Investors Business Daily
The July 27, 2007 Op-Ed in Investors Business Daily
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Excerpts 1
"Environmental extremists see DDT in a different light. Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, said, 'In Guyana, within almost two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time, the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.' Jeff Hoffman, environmental attorney, wrote on grist.org, 'Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria. More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life? . . . I don't see any respect for mosquitos in these posts.' Berlau's book cites many other examples of contempt for human life by environmentalists and how they've made politicians their useful idiots."
From the essay "Deadly Environmentalists" by Walter E. Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University.
"I see the third main threat to individual freedom in environmentalism."
"Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind their people and nature friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior, and our values."
"Their recommendations would take us back into the era of statism and restricted freedom."
From a speech
by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.
Never confuse Environmentalism with a cleaner environment, energy efficiency, or concern for humanity. It is a "religion" that places a higher value on "untouched" nature over man's well-being. Since man can only survive by adapting nature to suit
his own needs through technology and productive work, rather than adapting to nature as all other species must, environmentalism is an attack on man's very means of survival. "[Environmentalists] would shutter," to paraphrase a passage from Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED, " if they saw a [man] plucking the feathers from the wings of [a baby bird], then pushing him out of the nest to struggle for survival..." Yet that is what they intend for man. The environmental movement is an "anti-industrial revolution" (Rand) that is as much of a long term threat to civilization as Islamic
Totalitarianism.
From the essay "Deadly Environmentalists" by Walter E. Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University.
"I see the third main threat to individual freedom in environmentalism."
"Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind their people and nature friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior, and our values."
"Their recommendations would take us back into the era of statism and restricted freedom."
From a speech
by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.
Never confuse Environmentalism with a cleaner environment, energy efficiency, or concern for humanity. It is a "religion" that places a higher value on "untouched" nature over man's well-being. Since man can only survive by adapting nature to suit
his own needs through technology and productive work, rather than adapting to nature as all other species must, environmentalism is an attack on man's very means of survival. "[Environmentalists] would shutter," to paraphrase a passage from Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED, " if they saw a [man] plucking the feathers from the wings of [a baby bird], then pushing him out of the nest to struggle for survival..." Yet that is what they intend for man. The environmental movement is an "anti-industrial revolution" (Rand) that is as much of a long term threat to civilization as Islamic
Totalitarianism.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Comments on Wall Street Journal Editorial
The Journal is certainly correct in pointing out the runaway costs that are inevitable under any scheme that disconnects the buyer (the patient) from the seller (the health care provider).
But the real cost of socialized medicine is the loss of our freedom under what would be a veritable health care dictatorship, especially for the doctors and other health care providers who would have to work under direct state control. Since it is the payer of goods and services who ultimately sets the terms and conditions of any sale, the state, having outlawed the free market (i.e., the voluntary, uncoerced trade between free individuals), would in effect acquire dictatorial powers over the lives and careers of doctors, medical scientists, investors in new medical technologies, manufacturers of medical products, and the entire health care industry.
The individual, in turn, would be compelled to turn his money over to the state, in exchange for turning his freedom of judgement over to the state, a lose-lose proposition (despite those who seek something-for-nothing or to evade personal responsibility).
America should move in the opposite direction and end the third-party-payer system altogether. One way this could be accomplished, under our current tax regime, is to simply shift all tax benefits to the individual, who would be responsible for funding his tax-free account out of his own earnings, starting with the funds used by his employer to purchase his health insurance, which are part of his compensation. Each individual (or his employer) would be free to add additional money to his account, and to roll over from year to year any excess funds and build a nest egg for his future needs, such as retirement. A true free market in health insurance would be restored by eliminating all government coverage mandates and barriers to interstate insurance trade, with each individual tailoring his insurance policy based on his own choices, needs, and available policies as the insurance companies compete directly for his business. Of course, he would be free to pool some or all of his funds into group plans as well, if it suits his best interests.
This brief outline certainly does not address all of the relevant issues involved in restructuring our health care financing system (such as the role the government should play, the length and terms of the transition period, etc.), and I intend to write more on the subject in the future. But the principle of my proposal should be clear- that each person's right to chart his own course on health care, free from the coercive interference of others (i.e., the state), is paramount.
Government interference in the health care market has been growing for decades and has failed. A larger glass of the same poison won't do. As President Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem". It's time for government to get out of the way. It's time for individual health care freedom.
(For another perspective on this editorial, click here).
Mike Zemack
But the real cost of socialized medicine is the loss of our freedom under what would be a veritable health care dictatorship, especially for the doctors and other health care providers who would have to work under direct state control. Since it is the payer of goods and services who ultimately sets the terms and conditions of any sale, the state, having outlawed the free market (i.e., the voluntary, uncoerced trade between free individuals), would in effect acquire dictatorial powers over the lives and careers of doctors, medical scientists, investors in new medical technologies, manufacturers of medical products, and the entire health care industry.
The individual, in turn, would be compelled to turn his money over to the state, in exchange for turning his freedom of judgement over to the state, a lose-lose proposition (despite those who seek something-for-nothing or to evade personal responsibility).
America should move in the opposite direction and end the third-party-payer system altogether. One way this could be accomplished, under our current tax regime, is to simply shift all tax benefits to the individual, who would be responsible for funding his tax-free account out of his own earnings, starting with the funds used by his employer to purchase his health insurance, which are part of his compensation. Each individual (or his employer) would be free to add additional money to his account, and to roll over from year to year any excess funds and build a nest egg for his future needs, such as retirement. A true free market in health insurance would be restored by eliminating all government coverage mandates and barriers to interstate insurance trade, with each individual tailoring his insurance policy based on his own choices, needs, and available policies as the insurance companies compete directly for his business. Of course, he would be free to pool some or all of his funds into group plans as well, if it suits his best interests.
This brief outline certainly does not address all of the relevant issues involved in restructuring our health care financing system (such as the role the government should play, the length and terms of the transition period, etc.), and I intend to write more on the subject in the future. But the principle of my proposal should be clear- that each person's right to chart his own course on health care, free from the coercive interference of others (i.e., the state), is paramount.
Government interference in the health care market has been growing for decades and has failed. A larger glass of the same poison won't do. As President Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem". It's time for government to get out of the way. It's time for individual health care freedom.
(For another perspective on this editorial, click here).
Mike Zemack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)