On Free Water, Free Tuition, Free Healthcare, Bernie Sanders, and Rand Paul

Get a free E-book on Bernie Sanders here.

I was at an event last night and a speaker said something to the effect of "Only in America" -- or let's say under capitalism -- do they make you pay for something free like water, as she sipped her bottled water... 

… bottled water that has been contained with machinery, filtered, and bottled -- among a host of other things -- by human beings.

…bottled water that was at one time in a river, or lake, or mountain, or spring, or wherever they get water from (the beauty of the division of labor in free-market capitalism is that I don't have to know that stuff).

In part, she wanted specialized knowledge to be free.

Deer Park employees, among the many other water companies' employees, are people who wake up every day provide a vital product to the billions of people who chose not to be in the water business. Numbers of trucks which run on un-free gasoline deliver this vital source for life every single day to the market place.

Gone are the days of carrying a pail of water to the river, scooping up as much water as you can, and carrying it back to the hut village. Gone are the days of getting water from the well.

The water companies have gotten so good at this that they provide water in different sizes -- from little bottles that can fit in your palm, to bigger bottles that be put on water coolers; these bottles come in size swig, saturate, and submerge. Gone are the days of size pail and bucket.

They have gotten so good at it that water comes with flavor.

And yet they want this to be free.

Fine, I'll grant you, but only for the sake of the argument, that water is free. What I won't grant you is that the labor should be free. Further, I know that you won't either.

Much of that was my immediate thought but I didn't say anything. It wasn't the right forum. It would have taken the event over the allotted time. The only thing I thought in addition to that is that working for free involuntarily is what we used to call slavery. 

But I know what they mean: Whether it is free school or free water, advocates will say workers will get paid through taxes. But that only pushes the involuntary labor to the taxpayers.

Why should I involuntarily use my labor to pay for someone else's stuff?

That is an ethical problem for Democratic Socialists.

But I want to put another thorn in the side of Democratic Socialists.

Going back to the subject of water companies, why should someone like Coca-Cola, the Dasani water owners, be mandated by the government to operate a large part of their company for F-R-E-E.

Am I shifting definitions? Don't I know that Democratic Socialists would, through taxpayer dollars, pay a company to operate their water business.

Oh, so you want to get into subsidizing big businesses and corporations. Gee, I thought that was what you were protesting in the first place.

But let's take it one step further. Why should we think of only existing businesses as free providers of this vital product? Why not apply our thinking to future entrepreneurs? The little guy. Should the little guy provide this service F-R-E-E?

Should we subsidize the little guys future water business? Should he not operate by profit-and-loss to judge the success of his business?

Rand Paul had a similar experience.

He was asked a question about Bernie Sanders' solution to Social Security.

I like Rand Paul's answer. He admits up front that you are not going to like his solution. Furthermore, he gives the alternative: He can pretend like everything is okay and promise you everything you want and destroy the country in the process.

By destroying the country, he probably means destroying our dollar through hyperinflation. The Federal Reserve would have to create so much money that our dollar would become worthless.

Democratic socialists, like Bernie Sanders, would solidify our economic doom.

[Editor's Note: Regular readers of this blog should know that I was coming up with a "Why You Should Not Vote For Bernie Sanders" series. 

The reason I am doing this is because a number of my (young) friends are falling for the rhetoric and promise of Democratic Socialism. It (often rightly) rails against big business.  It (almost) never rails against the government framework which made big business possible. 

It is embodied in the persons of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, they're both wrong.

My posts will be informed by the Thomas Woods' new E-book Bernie Sanders is Wrong, other informed economic articles, and my personal reflection, as was the case with the first post above.

This is Part 1 of many…and I mean many.]

Think Obamacare, Think Trabant

The Obamacare rollout, with the dysfunctional "Healthcare.gov" as the star of the show, reminds me of another service a government tried to roll out in competition with the private sector: transportation.

Specifically, the 1975 Trabant.

No, I was not around back then and definitely not in Germany (nor have I been east of the Atlantic Ocean), but everything I've read about Obamacare reminds me of Communism's answer to the Volkswagen Beetle.

The car has been on numerous "all time worst lists." It was also created under a communist regime.

Like free healthcare in socialist countries, you couldn't outright buy a Trabant. You had to apply for one and get put on a wait list:

For all its shortcomings, the Trabant 601 became highly sought-after in Eastern Europe, and buying one (prospective owners did not order their new Trabant; they applied for it) involved joining a waiting list that could last up to 18 years.

Not all things related to the Trabant are bad. But neither are all things related to Obamacare. The bad, as always, outweighed the good. The Trabant has symbolic value. So will Obamacare.

As Wikipedia puts it, "the Trabant is often cited as an example of the disadvantages of centralized planning; on the other hand, it is also regarded with derisive affection as a symbol of the failed former East Germany and of the fall of communism (in former West Germany, as many East Germans streamed into West Berlin and West Germany in their Trabants after the opening of the Berlin Wall in 1989). 

The open-source entry continues: "It was in production without any significant changes for nearly 30 years, with 3,096,099 Trabants produced in total."

Talk about a lack of innovation.

 Here is what a Time writer wrote about the Trabant in Time's 50 Worst Cars of All Time feature:

This is the car that gave Communism a bad name. Powered by a two-stroke pollution generator that maxed out at an ear-splitting 18 hp, the Trabant was a hollow lie of a car constructed of recycled worthlessness (actually, the body was made of a fiberglass-like Duroplast, reinforced with recycled fibers like cotton and wood). A virtual antique when it was designed in the 1950s, the Trabant was East Germany's answer to the VW Beetle — a "people's car," as if the people didn't have enough to worry about. Trabants smoked like an Iraqi oil fire, when they ran at all, and often lacked even the most basic of amenities, like brake lights or turn signals. But history has been kind to the Trabi. Thousands of East Germans drove their Trabants over the border when the Wall fell, which made it a kind of automotive liberator. Once across the border, the none-too-sentimental Ostdeutschlanders immediately abandoned their cars. Ich bin Junk!

A Conservative Icon Wrote This? F.A. Hayek on Compulsory Health Care

Sounding like Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama wrapped in one, the conservative--not libertarian--intellectual Friedrich Hayek pretty much defends the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's signature legislative "achievement" in the realm of health.

Via GaryNorth.com:

"There is little doubt that the growth of health insurance is a desirable development. And perhaps there is also a case for making it compulsory since many who could thus provide for themselves might otherwise become a public charge. But there are strong arguments against a single scheme for state insurance; there seems to be an overwhelming case against a free health service for all." -- F. A. Hayek.

Hayek wrote this on page 298 of his magnum opus, The Constitution of Liberty (1960). We could put this another way.

This isn't about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it's about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

These words may sound familiar. They are from President Obama's 2009 speech calling on Congress to pass ObamaCare.

And this little nugget from North (not Hayek) here:

HAYEK WAS A CONSERVATIVE, NOT A LIBERTARIAN

Hayek was much closer to conservatives than to libertarians. He was much closer to Russell Kirk than he was to Murray Rothbard. Neither Kirk nor Hayek believed in economic law. They both rejected the idea on the same basis, namely, their commitment to some form of social evolution. Each of them would come down on the side of free-market institutions, for they did not trust the operations of state bureaucracies, but always on the basis of a pragmatic argument that society had chosen these free market institutions voluntarily. Then the question arises: "How can we stop the state from invading and capturing the institutions of society?" Or this: "How can we stop the politicizing of social institutions by the state?" Hayek had no philosophical answer, and neither did Kirk.

 F.A. Hayek: Obamacare's Defender || GaryNorth

Priceless Author Asks Why People Aren't Signing Up for Medicaid

John Goodman on the disconnect in the health care reform discussion:

Consider this:

· About one in every four individuals who are eligible for Medicaid in this country has not bothered to enroll.
· About one in five employees who are offered employer-provided health insurance turns it down; among workers under 30 years of age, the refusal rate is almost one in three.

Think about that for a moment.

Millions of people are turning down (Medicaid) health insurance, even though it’s free! Millions of others are turning down their employers’ offers. Since employees pay about 27% of the cost of their health insurance, on the average, millions of workers are passing up the opportunity to buy health insurance for 27 cents on the dollar.

You almost never read statistics like these in the mainstream media. Why? Because they completely undermine health policy orthodoxy: the belief that health insurance (even Medicaid) is economically very valuable, that it improves health and saves lives, and that the main reason why people don’t have it is that they can’t afford it.

Welcome to the huge disconnect in health reform.

Why The White House is Panicking About Obamacare || Forbes

An Excerpt from Thomas Sowell: The Economics of Medical Care

The Economics of Medical Care || Thomas Sowell

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 11

A new study says that oral sex (fellatio) cures pregnant women's morning sickness, CBS DC reports.

The CBO released a report saying that 30 million Americans will still be without health insurance by 2020, CNSNews.com reports.

Papa John's CEO John Schnatter said that as a result of the Affordable Care Act the company will have to raise prices, POLITCO reports.

A new study by economists say that healthcare costs can be curbed best by a market approach, Kaiser Health News reports.

Samaritan Ministries recently posted links contained in their August Newsletter, including a commentary from Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute on understanding the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act.

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 7

Editor's Note: The Goins Report did not publish a Weekly Health Review last week and resumes publication this week.

Health Care Miscellany

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) published a series of videos discussing the health care law and the Supreme Court's decision.

Ohio, New York, and Caifornia lawmakers are pushing for a ban on smoking in public on college campuses, the Associated Press reports.

The mother of all Big Macs is being sold at the 2012 Olympic Games, the Associated Press reports.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued guidelines on obesity, the Associated Press reports.

Free aids tests at Drug stores planned by CDC, the Associated Press reports.

The President left out vital information about the highest risk group when touting National HIV Testing day, CNSNews.com reports.

A young Italian mother postpones cancer treatment to save the life of her child, LifeSiteNews.com reports.

The Health Care Law is Upheld

The Hill newspaper notes that the ruling allowed Justice Roberts to avoid repercussions that both sides -- liberals and conservatives -- feared, namely, striking down the law and expanding Congress's powers. It also noted that the five SCOTUS Justices were the first in the country to side with the Obama administrations tax argument.

Politico notes that Thursday's decision settles the constitutional question of whether the government can force people to buy health insurance or not.

Bloomberg notes that companies, medical device makers, and wealthy investors face $813 billion dollars in taxes over 10 years, with the largest fees taken next year in 2013. It also notes that if the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012, wealthy taxpayers' now-15 percent top rate on long-term capital gains and dividends would reach 20 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively.

A council of churches hails the Supreme Courts decision to uphold the 2010 Healthcare law as Constitutional, the blog Juicy Ecumenism reports.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law makes President Obama a "monumental liar," CNSNews.com reports.

Health reform means new taxes, new fees, and new penalties, CNN Money reports.

After SCOTUS upholding of PPACA, a conservative lawyer says that Obama's vision of "fundamentally" transforming America was fulfilled, CNSNews.com reports.

Free Download: What Has Government Done To Our Healthcare?

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 6

Rep. Bachmann says that issue in HHS contraceptives mandate debate is whether government can stand in the place of God, CNSNews.com reports.

Politico explains the three scenarios for the president when the Supreme Court rules on the health care law.

HHS Secretary Sebelius says that 11,000 new beneficiaries are added to Medicare daily, CNSNews.com reports.

Democrats dismiss Republican investigation showing White House officials sought to steer the content special interest groups pro-health care law advertisements, Reuters reports.

FLASHBACK: Presidential Candidate Ron Paul says that he would preserve government entitlements while transitioning Americans to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), CBS News reports.

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 5

46-year-old man cured of AIDS, ABC News reports.

A liberal Massachusetts democrat is worried about tainted seafood caught in San Diego, The Hill reports.

The White House threatens to veto Republican bill that will lower taxes on medical manufacturers, the Associated Press reports.

Students face premium increases or no coverage at all in the coming 2012-2013 academic school year, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The Health and Human Services secretary touts ACA's benefits to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, The Hill reports.

A new smart drug targets cancerous cells and spares healthy ones, the Associated Press reports.

Gonorrhea is becoming more resistant to drugs, experts say, the Associated Press reports.

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 4

Editor's Note: The Goins Report did not publish a "Weekly Health Review" last week.

A patient found out late that her $6,707 CT scan would have cost $1,054 without insurance, the LA Times reports.

Doctors say kids eating detergent packs on the rise, the Associated Press reports.

Study says living together before marriage is not a good predictor of divorce as it used to be, the Associated Press reports.

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 3

"Uninsurables" fate pinned on Supreme Court decisions, the Associated Press reports.

A new Dept. of Agriculture study says that healthy foods can cost less than foods high in fat, sugar and salts, the Associated Press reports.

Stanford University scientists created a light-powered retinal implant, BBC News reports.

FLASHBACK: The health care law includes a provision tracking gold transactions, Washington's Blog reports.

Many businesses already offer health benefits to same-sex couples, Kaiser Health News reports.

FLASHBACK: CBO says health care law could result in 20 million people losing their coverage, The Hill reports.

Weekly Health Review, Vol. 2

The chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society says that future health care costs will cause the economy to collapse, Kaiser Health News reports.

Lifestyle changes, such as eating whole foods versus processed ones, can prevent and reverse chronic diseases, Daily RX reports.

Market-based reforms long touted by conservatives and libertarians could lower U.S. health care costs, The Hill reports (thanks via The Galen Institute.)

The FDA approved of a first of its kind surgical tool that can be put together and taken apart inside the body during surgery, an FDA press release announces.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine says that President Obama should "watch what we eats in public," The Hill newspaper reports.

An epidemic of whooping cough has been declared in Washington state, the Associated Press reports (thanks CNSNews.com). 

Baby born with "virtually no intestines" dies, the Associated Press reports (thanks FoxNews.com).

FDA is weighing the risks and benefits of the first rapid response HIV test, the Associated Press reports (thanks to the Washington Post).

Data: Only 13 percent of "the poor" couldn't obtain medical care due to cost

(GoinsReport) - A 2011 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation shows that the picture of poverty in the United States isn't what it is painted to be by anti-poverty advocates, including access to healthcare.

Among the Census Bureau data compiled by the Heritage Foundation, the data on healthcare access shows that only 13 percent of poor households couldn't afford healthcare.

According to the report: "Although it is widely supposed that the poor cannot obtain medical care, only 13 percent of poor households report that a family member needed to go to the doctor or hospital at some point in the prior year but was unable to do so because the family could not afford the cost."

What makes a poor household varies by the family’s size.

In 2010, a family of four is considered a poor household if its counted cash income is less than $22,314 a year; a family of three, $17,374.

The counted cash income does not include the numerous cash benefits provided by the Federal government.

According to the Heritage report, which uses data from the Census Bureau’s annual poverty report, 46.2 million Americans were poor in 2010.

The Census Bureau told GoinsReport.com that what counts as unaffordable medical care varies.

Doctors Remember What Newt Gingrich (and GOP) did in 1996

Writes Jane M. Orient, M.D.:

Newt Gingrich and other Republicans promise to repeal ObamaCare, but doctors remember what they did in 1996. Just after they “defeated” ClintonCare, they changed its name and enacted the very worst parts of it.

She continues:

Republicans evidently don’t read the bills either. They appeared to be shocked when I called this addendum to their attention, and its remarkable similarity to parts of the Clinton plan. In fact, parts were practically a verbatim “cut and paste.”

And again:

Gingrich is a long-time advocate of “health information technology” (HIT). American medicine makes use of computerization in many ways, but Gingrich thinks it lags far behind Wal-Mart, and that a massive electronic changeover would greatly reduce costs and improve quality. Many physicians urge caution, as HIT has serious potential hazards for patient safety as well as privacy. Gingrich and many others appear to want to impose rapid implementation of government-dictated technology from the top down, without waiting for the free market to pick the winners and losers.

Exclusive Video: Ron Paul speaking at Congressional Health Care Caucus (Nov. 2011)

Exclusive!!!

Video: Senator Obama vs. President Obama

Had he stuck to some of his positions, the president would have appealed to more constitutionalists and maybe even libertarians. What a shame.

Video: Top 3 Health Care Policy Proposals

State-Mandated Health Care Unconstitutional, But What about Car-Insurance?

The recent declaration of Obamacare, specifically the section that mandates the uninsured to buy health insurance, unconstitutional is a victory for liberty and a reason for celebration.

But one thing I never understood, and I haven't understood this since I was sixteen and one month, was why I have to purchase state-mandated car insurance.

What if I can't afford to drive and pay for insurance and pay for gas that is continually going up in price? How does one save when a teenager?

Having a car assumes someone has saved enough for car payments and gas to use the contraption. That is understood. But this law has the potential to kill savings, if it has not already done so, and is a way to force young people, even the responsible ones, to quit driving all together. At least that's what I think.

Can someone please tell me the difference between state-mandated health insurance and state-mandated car insurance? Somebody? Anybody?

I must look deeper into the history and reasoning behind state-mandated car insurance.

Sneaky: The Obamacare Provision Regulating Gold

This could be the shortest blog post ever, asking only one question: Why is there a provision on regulating gold in a health care bill?

But I will further express my anguish over these new details about the Obamacare bill being brought to light.

Thomas Sowell's recent article alerted me to this provision:

One of the many slick tricks of the Obama administration was to insert a provision in the massive Obamacare legislation regulating people who sell gold. This had nothing to do with medical care but everything to do with sneaking in an extension of the government's power over gold, in a bill too big for most people to read.

I never understood politicians who slip in these unrelated provisions into a much larger bill that is likely to get passed.

One can be for Obamacare--not me personally--but against the regulation of gold and be put in a very tight situation: "Do I go against the bill because of the gold provision? Or do I go for the Obamacare bill and cramp the liberties of gold owners?"

Seriously, it was a massive bill that no one read - and now that its details are coming to light people are going to see how slick and insidious the left can be.

What happened to the old left? The one that didn't encroach people's liberties.