The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), more popularly known as Obamacare, passed the Senate on Christmas Eve of 2009, passed the House on March 21, 2010, and was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. It was one of the most controversial and partisan pieces of legislation in history, with no Republican in either house of Congress voting in favor of the 2407-page bill (H.R. 3590 [PDF]).

The onerous provisions of the PPACA include an expansion of Medicaid eligibility, the prohibition of annual and lifetime coverage caps, the elimination of co-payments and deductibles for selected health-insurance benefits, guaranteed issue of insurance policies without regard to preexisting conditions, federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, employer mandates, more arcane insurance regulations, an increase in the Medicare tax on the “rich,” and a tax on indoor tanning services. Perhaps the most egregious part of Obamacare is the “individual mandate” that every American not covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or health insurance must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

Within hours of the passage of Obamacare, the attorney general of Florida, Bill McCollum, and the attorneys general of twelve other states (Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington), filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor, and their respective department secretaries, Kathleen Sebelius, Timothy Geithner, and Hilda L. Solis, challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

The lawsuit was later joined by the attorneys general of thirteen other states (Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), the National Federation of Independent Business, and two individuals, Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg.

On January 31, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola struck down the Obamacare mandate, declaring, “The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional” (PDF). He said further,

The defendants’ argument that people without health insurance are actively engaged in interstate commerce based on the purported “unique” features of the much broader health care market is neither factually convincing nor legally supportable.

Because I find both the “uniqueness” and “economic decision” arguments unpersuasive, I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.

And because Judge Vinson reasoned that “the Constitutionality of the individual mandate is the crux of this entire case,” and “because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable,” he also ruled that “the entire Act must be declared void.”

The judge then ruled on March 3 that he would honor the Obama administration’s request that his ruling be stayed while the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, reviewed the case. He also expressed interest in the Supreme Court hearing the case because “the sooner this issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be.”

After an official appeal by the government on March 8, the Atlanta appellate court, by a 2–1 vote on August 12, affirmed the judgment of Judge Vinson in a 207-page opinion that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but rejected his argument that the mandate was not severable from the rest of the PPACA, thus rendering the rest of Obamacare “legally operative” (PDF).

On September 28, the state plaintiffs (PDF), the National Federation of Independent Business (PDF), and the Obama administration (PDF) each filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Obama administration also issued a statement through Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president and deputy senior advisor, affirming the constitutionality of the PPACA and expressing confidence that the Supreme Court will agree.

But Florida et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services et al. is not the only lawsuit against Obamacare. Since the PPACA was passed, there have been twenty-five other court challenges to the new health care law.

Besides the Florida case, there are two other cases where the individual mandate of Obamacare was declared unconstitutional.

In Virginia v. Sebelius, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down the individual-mandate provision of the law on December 13, 2010. Said Judge Henry Hudson, “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.” But the government appealed the decision in the 4th circuit court of appeals, in Richmond, which ruled unanimously on September 8, 2011, that the district-court judgment be vacated and the case remanded back to that court to be dismissed “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” because the plaintiff lacks standing.

In Goudy-Bachman v. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled on September 13, 2011, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Judge Christopher Connor wrote that allowing the individual mandate to stand “would effectively sanction Congress’s exercise of police power under the auspices of the Commerce Clause, jeopardizing the integrity of our dual sovereignty structure.”

In six other cases, the constitutionality of Obamacare was upheld. Three of them were also heard at the appeals court level.

In Liberty University v. Geithner, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed the case on November 30, 2010. On appeal, the fourth circuit court of appeals, by a vote of 2–1 on September 8, 2011, vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case back to that court to be dismissed “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” because the individual mandate is a tax that cannot be challenged in court until it is collected, which will not be until 2014.

In Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case on October 7, 2010. On appeal, the sixth circuit court of appeals ruled, by a vote of 2–1 on June 29, 2011, that Congress has a “rational basis” to impose the individual mandate, and the court upheld the constitutionality of the PPACA.

In Seven-Sky & American Center for Law and Justice v. Holder, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case on February 22, 2011. The decision of the D.C. circuit court of appeals is pending.

Nine other cases were dismissed by district courts for lack of standing or procedural problems. One of these cases, New Jersey Physicians v. Obama, was also heard by the third circuit court of appeals, which upheld the district court ruling. Two of the nine cases, Baldwin & Pacific Justice Institute v. Sebelius and Kinder v. Geithner, are pending at the appeals-court level.

Eight cases are still pending at the district-court level.

All these cases basically come down to the question of the “individual mandate” versus the “commerce clause.” In general, liberal judges appointed by Democratic presidents view the mandate as constitutional, while conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents view the mandate as unconstitutional. Both groups err, but in different respects.

The commerce clause is the most abused part of the Constitution. It has been used by the federal government to increase its power over the states and their citizens and to decrease the power of the states and their citizens. It has been used to force farmers to destroy crops and pay a fine for growing “too much” wheat (Wickard v. Filburn). It has also been used to criminalize marijuana for medical use even where states approve its use (Gonzales v. Raich). All the commerce clause says is that Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

During the health-care debates back in 2009, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNS News where the Constitution authorizes Congress to order Americans to purchase health insurance. Her response was simply, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” She answered no further, and took another question. Her press secretary then said that asking Pelosi where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a “serious question.”

Pelosi’s office has issued a statement on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform” in which she does answer the question:

The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the health care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.

In the early history of the American republic, as Judge Vinson points out in his decision striking down Obamacare, “The word ‘commerce’ was understood to encompass trade, and the intercourse, traffic, or exchange of goods; in short, ‘the activities of buying and selling that come after production and before the goods come to rest’” (PDF). Not manufacturing, not mining, not agriculture, not insurance, not medical care.

Nowhere, as Judge Vinson further points out, “in Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist” is the term “commerce” “ever used to refer unambiguously to activity beyond trade or exchange.” Any member of the federal judiciary should be familiar with this.

Obamacare is unconstitutional because health care and health insurance are not commerce, are not interstate commerce, and are not relevant to the commerce clause.

According to Madison — the father of the Constitution — the commerce clause

grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, as Judge Vinson summarized from U.S. v. Lopez (1995), has “identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power”:

First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

But even under the widest possible interpretation of the commerce clause, the individual mandate is still unconstitutional. In the PPACA, Congress has assumed the power to create commerce by forcing individuals to purchase health insurance and to regulate inactivity by penalizing individuals for not doing so. Obamacare moves the country closer to a single-payer system; that is, socialized medicine, something that Democrats in Congress have sought to institute since the presidency of Harry Truman.

When the Supreme Court decides to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, it will have to decide two questions: whether the individual mandate is constitutional, and whether it is severable from the rest of the health care law.

There is something far more important, however, that the Supreme Court will not be deciding: whether Congress has the authority to legislate concerning health care in the first place.

Nancy Pelosi’s aforementioned “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform” says

Reform opponents continue to spread myths about components of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, including the nonsensical claim that the federal government has no constitutionally valid role in reforming our health care system — apparently ignoring the validity of Medicare and other popular federal health reforms.

The federal judges who found the individual mandate unconstitutional actually agree with Pelosi on this point. Here is Judge Vinson in his original decision that declared Obamacare unconstitutional:

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here. (PDF)

And here are Judges Joel Dubina and Frank Hull of the 11th circuit court of appeals in Atlanta, stating that although the individual mandate is unconstitutional, Congress still has broad power to legislate concerning health care:

We conclude that the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power. This conclusion is limited in scope. The power that Congress has wielded via the Commerce Clause for the life of this country remains undiminished. Congress may regulate commercial actors. It may forbid certain commercial activity. It may enact hundreds of new laws and federally-funded programs, as it has elected to do in this massive 975-page Act. But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die. (PDF)

As demonstrated at length throughout our opinion, Congress has broad power to deal with the problems of the uninsured, and it wielded that power pervasively in this comprehensive and sweeping Act. As to the individual mandate provision, however, Congress exceeded its enumerated commerce power.

Because the belief that government should intervene in some way into health care is so pervasive and systemic, the question of whether Congress has the authority to legislate concerning health care was not and will not be considered by any federal court. And that is unfortunate, because strict constitutionalists recognize that the Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have anything to do with health care or health insurance.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to provide a health-care safety net, a prescription drug plan, vaccinations, medical treatment, or health insurance subsidies.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care or insurance, to eliminate co-payments and deductibles, or to guarantee issue of insurance policies without regard to preexisting conditions.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to fund clinical trials, laboratories, community health centers, medical research, or family planning.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to mandate medical licensing or force hospitals to treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, or HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to have agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the federal government to regulate hospitals, nursing homes, the health-insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, organ sales or donations, medical devices, medical schools, physicians, dentists, nurses, midwives, psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacists, or practitioners of holistic, chiropractic, homeopathic, nutritional, or other forms of alternative medicine.

Libertarians, of course, also recognize that not only are these things unconstitutional, they are beyond the purpose and scope of a government limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property.

The Supreme Court may overturn the individual mandate or the whole of Obamacare, but neither of those actions will restore a free market in health care.

Originally published at The Future of Freedom Foundation on October 11, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Supreme Court and Obamacare

One area I don’t fully understand is the medical-industrial complex. I don’t get to visit hospitals very often, but when I do, I get the same sense of awe and wonder and I just can’t help but marvel at the wonders of the marketplace. Yes, I realize that the medical industry isn’t exactly as “free market” as, say, the technology industry. But that doesn’t preclude a strong market component in the production of devices and substances in the industry. Somebody long before our visit to the hospital saw a problem that needed to be solved. They took huge risks of capital in order to help save lives or to make our lives generally less problematic.

This is no small matter. I have a pitiful amount of knowledge about the production of the equipment that fills the rooms and corridors of our hospitals and operating rooms. What I do know, however, is that incredible risk was taken for something for which there was no guarantee: success. With only profit and loss as the barometer in the marketplace, some forged ahead. There were undoubtedly many failures along the way, yet some of the best equipment and substances emerged for our well-being. Their purveyors weren’t necessarily even interested in medical devices in the first place. All it took was the skills to make really awesome  microchips or perhaps the talent to manage a company of high-functioning people to create software that made procedures more efficient.

Leonard Read’s classic story, I, Pencil comes to mind. Millions of people, in small but important ways, contributed willingly to a process that saves lives (or produces pencils). Of course, some of them were intelligent people who were able to connect the dots and work purposefully toward solving a medical problem or need. But they represent the small percentage of those producers. By and large those who cooperated in the process weren’t boasting to their families at dinner about how they contributed to society’s health needs.

Despite the marvels of the marketplace advancement in health industry, there are two morally attractive but wholly dubious arguments regarding health care that we ought to guard against. The first is that health care is too important to be left up to the free market. Seriously? Take a stroll down the hallways of a local hospital and try to convince yourself that all this stuff can be produced through central planning, even if only for a single industry. If universal health care were indeed possible, its advocates take for granted that the marketplace itself provided the myriad luxuries provided in the medical industry. Universal health care is a direct result of the wealth created by the entrepreneurial spirit in the medical industry. Nobody was crying for “universal health care” 500 years ago.

A second but related complaint is that some people shouldn’t get rich off of other people’s ailments. Never mind the obviousness that whatever wealth is acquired it is in the solving of those ailments! What troubles the anti-market health care enthusiast can be sufficiently blamed on the word “care” in “health care.” The additional word introduces concepts such as intentionality or purposefulness or planning. The patient (who is a type of consumer, by definition, regardless of our sentimental objections to the term) must be cared for by her doctors and nurses. Yet if we consider the economics of the doctor-patient relationship, we realize that the success of the doctor depends on the quality of care they provide, both medically and emotionally. It’s an enormous asset to have a genuinely caring physician. What’s more important is competence and honesty, something a market is equipped to facilitate.

But should we even care whether the producers in the medical industry (or any other industry for that matter) are driven by rampant greed or Christian-like charity and good intentions for humanity? While it’s nice to think that laborers in factories, the CEOs of companies, and all who cooperated to bring those final goods into service are caring individuals, I’m personally more interested in the outcome: quality equipment and substances that do not fail. If the CEO of a company who can save lives is a greedy corporatist is inconsequential to whether my life is saved. The equipment must work.

To be sure, if somebody is getting wealthy because other people are being duped, defrauded, or misled, of course we take great issue with that (in any industry). But if you ask any woman about to deliver a baby if she cares that the inventors or producers of an epidural are wealthy, I doubt you’ll hear her disdain for such people.

It can’t be mistaken that there are truly caring entrepreneurs who want to discover and create solutions that save people’s lives. For that we must be grateful, and they can never receive enough praise. They saw a need and—regardless of motive—are working toward a solution. But we should neither forget nor discount the progress that occurs in the marketplace because any incentive whatsoever has helped produce a quality and desirable outcome.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Progress of Greed

Christians and non-Christians alike have long debated the question, “What is the proper role of government?” Everyone has their own opinion, and Christians have varying interpretations of Scripture to support their viewpoints. Anarchists on the one hand say that God is the king of all, and so no human king (or state) can claim authority over another human being. Statists on the other hand defend government as specially “ordained” by God in the same way as the church or family, and thus have divine purposes for their existence. Most Christians fall somewhere in between with a nuanced position.

Charles Gutenson’s new book, Christians and the Common Good, seeks to ask perhaps a better question: “How does God intend for us to live together?” The author believes this question is broader than the narrow one about the role of government because it sets the stage for answers regarding our Christian witness, our relationships with others, and our participation in God’s intention for the world. How we answer this question has ramifications for more than just our personal beliefs about politics. It defines who we are as human beings and as a society.

Gutenson aims to clean up the sloppy biblical interpretation habits most Christians have when reading the Bible so that they can see how the Bible has much more to say about our public life than many Christians assume. The key to this understanding is to read what the Bible has to say about the character and nature of God while noticing that throughout the Scriptures God has intended for people to live out the application of God’s character.

Gutenson argues for three steps for us to discern what God intends for society: (1) examine the manner in which we read and understand Scripture, (2) maintain focus on the Scriptures as the foremost about who God is and what God is like, and (3) determine the implications of the divine nature so we can discern how to live together to God’s satisfaction. The rest of the book flows from these three steps, ending with some practical suggestions for public policy for those in the United States (though the suggestions could be similarly applied elsewhere). Preparing readers for what might seem radical, he reminds us that “a major reason for the increasing irrelevance of the church for today’s culture is the inability both to envision and to demand an alternative way of being in the world” (pg 18). Gutenson also warns us of the temptation for political power in both the left and the right. Both sides of the political aisle have grabbed power at the expense of others or have conflated the purpose of the Kingdom with the purpose of political entities.

On Reading Scripture

One of the biggest advantages of this book is Gutenson’s treatment of how we ought to read the Bible. Most Christians are conditioned to ignore the context of passages or trained to “mine Scripture” for little golden nuggets of truth to apply to our lives. What’s important, says Gutenson, is that we be trained to “appropriate the Bible holistically” (pg 27). Instead of focusing on more narrow definitions regarding salvation, Gutenson believes we have been led away from political concerns. When salvation is only about the individual, public concerns get pushed to the margins or are considered optional for followers of Jesus, when Jesus himself advocated strongly for those at the margins of society.

Gutenson uses a few examples of how many people have proof-texted the Bible and used it as evidence for their own political opinions. He explains how Romans 13 needs to be read in light of Romans 12, which explains how God expects humans to live together. While avoiding advocating that governments enforce Romans 12, he does explain that whatever form government takes it must serve God’s agenda. He also examines the oft-cited passage Luke 20:20-25 where Jesus says to “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and give unto God that which is God’s.” Gutenson rightly points out that nothing in this passage indicates that Jesus intended to guide us on how Christians should view public institutions. As a general rule, Gutenson warns us that we must “be cautious about concluding too much by reading more into the story than it will bear” (pg 33).

If we take Scripture seriously while allowing for differences between our culture and culture described in the Scriptures, Gutenson believes we can avoid some common errors. When applying Scripture, we must consider the following questions:

• What is the underlying problem or opportunity that God is dealing with in giving this command to the people of that particular time?
• Do similar problems or opportunities face us in our contemporary setting?
• What role might public policies and institutions play in helping to resolve these problems or taking advantage of these opportunities?

Gutenson starts with the nature of God as indicative of how we ought to live together. The Trinitarian belief that God is three persons in one is probably the most dominant characteristic of God’s nature because it reveals the God who interacts with creation. God’s self-giving love embodies interdependence among the members of the trinity, specifically in God’s sending of the Son to heal the broken relationship between the world and God. The incarnation shows us what God is like, and reveals to us “how humanity, as God intended it, is to be and act” (pg 64). It is through Jesus that we see what God has intended for us as human beings, both personally and socially.

Biblical Vignettes

After spending nearly 80 pages exploring how we should read the Scriptures and laying some guidelines for how we discern implications for our public lives today, Gutenson comes to the biblical passages he feels gives us vignettes into the overarching narrative of Scripture. Gutenson explains God’s vision for humanity by touring the Bible from the beginning.

A few snippets:

• Exodus 20 is a set of instructions for how our lives are to be lived together in a way that pleases God. Leviticus 19 shows God’s demands that neither rich nor poor get preferential legal treatment; all are to be treated “equally under the law.”
• In Deuteronomy 15 God promises that there will be nobody in need among Israel when they have obeyed God’s intentions for living together.
• Isaiah 10 warns us that lawmakers have a strong temptation to use their powers to slant the playing field, robbing the poor of their rights. It is an explicit recognition that institutional evil can be built into the laws governing a particular society.
• Jeremiah 29 demonstrates the beginnings of God’s initiative for Israel to be a blessing to its former enemies by permitting it to intermarry with foreigners.
• Ezekiel 16 reminds us that a special revelation from God (like Israel had) is not required for God to hold societies accountable to their obligation to hear the cry of the needy.
• The entire book of Amos reminds us that “to be quiet in the midst of perverse societal structures is to effectively participate in the exploitation of those on the margins” (pg 102).

In the New Testament, Gutenson tours Matthew 5-7, 25, and 26, explaining to us that Jesus lives out God’s intention for us but also speaks out about what God’s expectations are. A classic text regarding the poor, Matthew 26, is discussed briefly. For those most inclined to believe that Jesus wasn’t interested in relieving the plight of the poor since they will “always be with us” (which is in a sense an everlasting statistical fact), Jesus intended to communicate that his followers are and would be the types of people who would always be among the poor, serving them and advocating for them.

When Gutenson comes to the apostolic letters, he gives special attention to 2 Corinthians 8:12-15, which says in part, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” This passage, Gutenson believes, implies that God intends for economic life to be structured so that wealth disparity does not grow too large. He then uses the book of James to demonstrate the link between faith and works, and more specifically, the tendency of rich people to feel threatened by those who are poor. Gutenson follows up with other passages, but these are sufficient to show where he is going.

His conclusions? Humans must be imitators of God, live in ways that embody self-giving love, and take seriously our obligation to use our resources for the benefit of others. He also concludes that governments are ordained by God, society can be judged by how well it cares for its most marginal members, and God intends for human economies to be structured so that there will be no poor.

With the exception of some of his conclusions, Christians sympathetic to the libertarian viewpoint will have minor quibbles with Gutenson, perhaps disagreeing on some details (Gutenson believes we are a liberal democracy) or on the interpretation of “ordained by God.” What cannot be denied is that the one story of God as revealed in the Scriptures has plenty to say about our public life together, and is not simply a book about individual salvation or eternal destinies.

Gutenson is right that God wants us to live together peacefully, in harmony, and in mutual interdependence. Gutenson does not, however, get into detail about the relationship between governments and society. We have the luxury in 21st century Western culture to assume that governments carry out the will of the people, and thus the question about living together in society is inextricably linked to the state that governs us. But it has not always been so throughout history. God’s intention for humanity may indeed be living together as Gutenson demonstrates. But it is neither explicit nor implied in Scripture that governments must be the mechanism by which people are encouraged to live this way.

Human Governance and Public Policy

Gutenson will have a bit of difficulty convincing libertarian Christians with his suggestions for public policy. He calls them suggestions in order to be careful to not prescribe exact policies as “the right ones” and because his purpose is to foster discussion on what it means to live out God’s desires for human relationships.

What will trouble many readers not automatically sympathetic to his political viewpoints is his belief that our governing structure is a “liberal democracy.” Last I checked, the founders of the United States established (for better or worse) a constitutional republic so that the United States would be a nation of laws governed by a document designed to protect people from tyranny and establish a “general welfare” with specific descriptions on how to do so (whether they were successful or not is another serious question). Remarkably, Gutenson doesn’t discuss at all how the Constitution of the United States relates to how we live together under God’s intentions. Ignoring the most obvious point about how our society is arranged cannot be a mistake. Gutenson, who clearly has spent much energy into the intersection of faith and politics, likely ignored the Constitution intentionally because most progressives would love to disabuse us of the notion of a constitutional republic.

A second troubling aspect of the book is his explicit statements that God’s intentions for government are outcome related. Art Carden has pointed out that “the important question in social science is not really evaluating the moral quality of the outcome, but evaluating the institutions that produce the outcome.” Gutenson does state, thankfully, “that when the powers fail to serve [a kingdom agenda], they become demonic and serve to be destructive of the very things they were created to serve” (pg 128). Yet while Gutenson makes no mention of the United States straying far from its constitution, many are calling it back to that “governing authority” (to cite Romans 13). Even if the Constitution isn’t one’s cup of tea, it doesn’t take too much examination to realize that the Federal Government of the United States has become an institution delivering far more evil than it does good. It should be critiqued and abandoned for social institutions that actually accomplish the agenda God has for the world. Putting faith in government only exacerbates social injustices when the institution itself is corrupt and unredeemable.

Gutenson warms my heart with statements like this about the voice the Church must have in society: “The role of the church is to just be the church, but in so doing the church should both embody and speak critique to the powers that have been corrupted and no longer serve a kingdom agenda” (pg 143). That is why I’m a libertarian! Jesus confronted the empire, showed an alternate way of living together, and demonstrated self-giving love. Implicit in the proclamation “Jesus is Lord” is the claim, “Caesar is NOT!”

Gutenson’s least-convincing chapter is the last. While not completely void of good suggestions, in it he proposes different policies that are supposed to encourage human beings to live together in a way God intends.

While the purpose of this review isn’t to rebut every suggestion made by Gutenson, it is important to realize that the most specific public policy suggestions explored below are ones based merely on good intentions. But policies cannot be backed by mere intentions. Not only must they actually work, they must also achieve their outcomes ethically. Some of Gutenson’s suggestions neither achieve their intended outcome nor demonstrate God’s intention for human beings. In some cases they run contrary to God’s intentions.

The progressive income tax, according to Gutenson, helps to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few and aims to ensure that taxes don’t prevent access to essential goods and services that the poor among us rely upon. Yet there is no explanation as to how a progressive income tax per se is what ensures such outcomes. The ethics of an income tax on the fruits of one’s labor is questionable, yet even if it were morally permissible, there is no reason to believe that living in mutual interdependent self-giving love requires more confiscation by the state from those who have been successful at producing goods for society. A flat tax can be considered “progressive” because the wealthy pay more because they produce more and make higher profits.

Social Security and Medicare are the sacred cows of the progressive movement. Gutenson cites Social Security’s “remarkable success” in “lifting the elderly out of poverty” (pg 155). Outcomes are dominant in this line of thinking. Little regard is given to the insolvency of both programs while the ethics involved in acquiring the money to redistribute are ignored. Whether we think taxation or redistribution is theft or not, Social Security is a legally authorized Ponzi scheme continued only by pandering to the fears of the people who have become dependent upon it. While the intention is for us to live together in a community of self-giving love, the result has been a society divided by the ones who feel unjustly “taken from” and those who feel entitled to something that is not their own.

Most importantly Social Security is nothing but a veneer of God’s desires for society when at its core it is neither social nor secure. If Christians are serious about ways that we can be mutually interdependent and live in a society that God intends for us, we ought to seek opportunities for such an outcome in ways that bring people closer together rather than allow or cause them to drift apart. The taxes I pay for Social Security do nothing to bring me closer to the elderly folks I’m supposedly helping. If anything it gives me more incentive to not have to care about them!

Minimum wage laws are probably the clearest example of a policy backed by good intentions that does precisely the opposite of that which it intends (even the original intentions of minimum wage laws are suspect). Christian economist Art Carden recently cited a study that shows that minimum wages laws disproportionately burdens young African Americans with unemployment. Carden writes of the minimum wage:

“I oppose minimum wages for a couple of reasons.  First and most obviously, they hurt the poor.  Second, the minimum wage is one of the most visible ways that the anti-economic way of thinking manifests itself in the policy arena.  If we are going to make policy that privileges the wants and needs of the least of these among us, then the minimum wage has to go.”

Carden provides his own sources for his claims here, here, here, and here, and endorses another here. If one is interested in social justice rather than social control, this is a good article.

Access to health care, it is proposed, should be available to all human beings regardless of their ability to pay for the services needed. Gutenson starts this section with “It is hard to imagine that God’s intentions that all should flourish could be satisfied without health care access” (pg 159). Perhaps this is so, and since there is no explicit mention of health care services in the Bible, it isn’t completely out of the picture that God’s intentions are for people to be living healthy lives. We must seriously consider this as part of God’s desire for society.

Yet access to health care, as Gutenson explains (and nobody denies), is expensive. Insurance companies deny claims based on “preexisting conditions.” The uninsured are charged higher rates at the doctor despite being unable to afford insurance. Whatever the injustices of the health care system, Gutenson fails to address the reasons behind why such injustices are prevalent. Regulation after regulation bars competition into just about every field of medicine from nursing to pharmaceuticals. Competition is virtually nonexistent, so prices do not fall. Government grants monopoly privileges to pharmaceutical companies through patents that last for years, while the FDA literally prevents experimental life-saving drugs to enter the market.

The government has distorted the health care industry in so many ways, it is no wonder that prices have soared while in industries like technology where there is virtually nonexistent intervention and regulations prices plummet. If we are to imagine a way to live as God intends, a state solution is the last mechanism that will actually accomplish this.

Estate and inheritance taxes are often justified by Christians as a modern-day application of the Years of Release and Years of Jubilee from the Old Testament. God’s intention is that there not be a permanently dispossessed class of people while the vast accumulation of wealth stays in the hands of a few. Gutenson claims there is nothing inherent about this particular application of those principles in the estate and inheritance taxes, but he misses the point of contention among those who disagree. First, the presumption that without such laws wealth continues to accumulate into the hands of the few is unfounded. Second, most anti-estate tax folks are against it for moral reasons. Third, it is an economically destructive tax that confiscates the fruits of those who have been productive and distributes it to a political class that has no incentive to allocate the capital or resources wisely, efficiently, or in a way God intends.

Another unintended consequence of the inheritance tax is that it unjustly removes capital and sometimes labor from the economy when the stewards of such wealth intend for it to be used for Kingdom purposes. In my corner of the world many entrepreneurs are using their capital to benefit the Kingdom of God around the globe. Not only do these businessmen have to waste energy prior to their death avoiding Uncle Sam from taking God’s money for another kingdom, after their death their wealth cannot be used for the Kingdom purposes God has intended for these entrepreneurs to carry out. The very people who intend to live out their own obligation to use their resources for the benefit of others are robbed from the opportunity to do so by those who have no intention nor incentive to use those resources wisely.

Monopolies are a favorite target of interventionists, and it’s ironic that Gutenson argues for legislation against monopolization of markets when the very reasons monopolies exist is government protection of business interests at the expense of others. What Gutenson claims is “undue market power” must be examined in light of the federal government’s granting of monopoly privileges. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws claim to prevent Big Business from harming “the little guy,” but they do nothing of the sort. The source of everlasting monopolies is government protection.

Even more ironic is that Gutenson seems to have no problem with an institution (government) that has a monopoly on the use of force to accomplish the ends by which he claims ought to be God’s intention for us as human beings. I’m anti-monopoly, too; but I apply this to governments as well.

Concluding Thoughts

I have focused plenty on some of the problematic suggestions Gutenson gives near the end of his book. I expected this before reading it, but what I didn’t expect was to nearly wholeheartedly endorse his guidelines for how we enter the biblical text and apply to our personal and public lives. Gutenson gently yet persuasively challenges the reader’s assumptions about Scripture in a writing style superior to most progressive Christian authors I’ve read. Most impressive is his clear and succinct way of exploring how Christians ought to engage culture and think about public life without using rhetoric filled with ideological passion that detracts from what he is saying. Gutenson aligns with God’s intentions for humanity and has done us a favor by exploring the relevant passages in Scripture that deal with God’s intention for humanity.

As I’ve suggested throughout this review, Gutenson fails to address some critical questions about the nature of states and the relationship between society and government. It is not a natural conclusion that “we” are the government, and thus whatever the government does it is acting on behalf of the people. To take seriously what God intends for our public life means we must define and understand what “we” means, whether or not that entails political action, and what (if any) relationship that has with the state. Gutenson doesn’t address these important questions, which may be disappointing for a libertarian reader.

Christians and the Common Good is an outstanding introduction to understanding the intentions of God through the narrative of Scripture. It gloriously dismisses faulty interpretive habits while challenging the assumptions about particular passages or precepts found in the Scriptures. When it comes to the biblical journey, Gutenson has written a wonderful book. But if we are to follow Gutenson’s own standard— “the best policies are ones that are consistent with the life of faith, satisfy God’s intentions, and actually work” (pg 146)—careful economic and historical examination will lead us to reject many of his policy suggestions.

Gutenson writes early in the book that Christians have become irrelevant to the culture because they’ve been unable to envision an alternative way of being in the world. Indeed, this is why the Christian anarchist might suggest that Gutenson reconsider his own theology of the state and society. John Maynard Keynes said, “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”

Imagining a world wholly different from our own indeed takes a radical vision. But advocating state-based solutions to social problems is neither imaginative nor radical.

Please consider buying Christians and the Common Good at Amazon.com and LCC will then get a small kick-back from the sale. Remember, LCC receives a small percentage of any shopping you do at Amazon when you go through an LCC link. Help keep LCC growing and growing; your support is much appreciated!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“Christians and the Common Good” Book Review

“Progress” is an abused word these days, especially by bureaucrats and the special interest groups that cater to them. Yet such groups, in the name of progress and social justice, support government intervention through intervention in the market, minimum or living wages, and universal healthcare. We find neither progress nor justice in government actions that advance one group at the expense of another. Don’t get us wrong: we are for progress — for economic growth, wealth creation, and the elimination of poverty — but we understand that progress grows from voluntary interactions and respect of individual rights. That which violates the rights of individuals cannot be progress.

Why we oppose “Progressives Against Progress:”

Opposition to free markets is the antithesis of progress. If one thing unites progressives it is their hatred for free markets. Yet it is free markets that can best provide for all the things progressives advocate — the elimination of poverty, quality education, a clean environment, etc. Blanket opposition to free markets is a strange idea indeed. What sense does it make to use the force of government to prevent willing buyers and sellers from engaging in transactions? This simple act, done with someone from across town or across the ocean, creates wealth. And done billions and billions of times, it’s what lifts whole societies from poverty. By turning to government, progressives not only ignore this engine of wealth creation but hinder it, as government must steal the wealth it redistributes from someone that has first created it. Progressives are correct in one related area — objecting to businesses obtaining special privileges from the government. But they are wrong in where they lay the blame. Rather than singling out these businesses, progressives should realize that these special favors were obtained only due to the large size and scope of the government. If progressives take issue with businesses using government to their advantage, perhaps they should reexamine their own tactics and realize that they engage in exactly the same thing — imposing their will on others through the government. Not too progressive.

Support of public education hinders progress and is immoral. As free markets have proven over and over again, when competition is introduced to any industry, consumers are met with more choices and higher quality, less expensive products and services. Education is no different. We all want the same thing — for our children to be educated — but what is the best way to go about making that happen? Progressives would have you believe that schools just need more funding. Perhaps they are unaware that the amount spent per pupil in the U.S. has risen over 300% in real dollars over the last three decades with no improvement in test scores. That may be because much of that increased funding has been siphoned off by the all-powerful National Education Association to create more administrative jobs, increase teacher pay based not on performance but seniority, and fight any bill that threatens their hold on government schools… schools which are sometimes so bad that many parents pay for their children’s education twice — once, when the government takes their money to support public schools, and again by paying for a private school to ensure their child actually receives a good education. Unfortunately, it’s often those children receiving the worst education — those in inner cities — that do not have the means to escape from government schools, which means that attempts by progressives to stop the introduction of competition into the education system actually harms those worst-off. That doesn’t seem like a good ideal to strive for.

The backing of social welfare programs is empirically and ethically wrong. Progressives support social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare out of concern for their fellow man. Apparently they don’t realize that that money was stolen from productive individuals by government actors who first take a cut for themselves. A less rights-violating and more efficient method of helping those in need would be for those willing to give of their money to do so. Do Progressives not trust in their fellow man enough to believe others wouldn’t be taken care of? Historical examples show that before government intervention, civil society functioned very well — striking a balance between providing assistance and ensuring that access to help was not abused. And militant support of Social Security and Medicare by progressives (programs that will together account for 71% of the federal budget by 2060) is not just alarming but dangerous. Moreover, entitlement programs invite moral hazards; those who don’t want to take care of themselves will simply find a way to make themselves look needy enough. Medicare fraud alone costs taxpayers an estimated $60 billion dollars! Or consider welfare recipients who have several aliases or claim to support numerous children. To be sure, most people abhor suffering and are willing to give to starving children or the local food pantry voluntarily. But no one has grown more benevolent, more virtuous or more charitable by having his hard-earned money redistributed by government.

Progressives oppose progress by demanding universal healthcare. Universal healthcare is based on the false claim that everyone has a right to healthcare. But saying I have a right to healthcare places a duty on others to provide it to me; it means I can force others to serve or pay for my medical needs. In contrast, saying I have a right not to be interfered with when I need medical help simply means that the government cannot prevent me from choosing whose medical services I purchase, or from obtaining medicines and treatments. As occurs in countries that have socialized healthcare, when the government pays for your healthcare, it will tell you what doctor you can go to, what treatments you can receive and what drugs you can buy. This is so because when a resource is “free,” people use it without regard to whether the resource will replenish, so government has to be in control over how it is dispersed, which leads to rationing, long waits, and premature deaths. Further, universal healthcare is not free — it’s paid for with your tax dollars. As with any other good or service, the quality of healthcare will decrease as its costs increase, due to a lack of competition. Progressives should consider just how terrible a job government has done administering other programs — the drug war, the military, the post office, Fannie Mae — and then re-think their stance on government-provided healthcare.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Progressives Against Progress

It’s going to be massive.

Estimates run that the one-hundred eleven new groups formed by the bill will need to employ on the order of 50,000 newbie bureaucrats. But whatever, this country is bankrupt and probably won’t be able to sustain this program for a couple of years. Start taking care of yourself better now so you don’t get smashed by statist health care later.

Read the huge list of new bureaucratic groups after the jump.

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. Public Health Insurance Option (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for Public Health Insurance Option (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for Public Health Insurance Option(Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services(Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Sect Health Insurance Option(Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demo program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. Identifiable office or program within CMS to provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibility (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. No Child Left Non-immunized Against Influenza demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Woman’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Woman’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Office of Woman’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Woman’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Woman’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Man’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

(HT FalkenBlog)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How Much Bureaucracy Did Congress Just Buy Us?

So, what is the difference between gas stations and hospitals? More after the jump…

1. Prices – The most obvious difference is price.  Gas Stations have big signs advertising their prices so that you as a consumer can decide how much you are willing to pay without even slowing down along the highway.  There are federal regulations that prohibit hospitals from advertising and competing based on prices.
2. Upfront Estimates – When you need a mechanic to replace your head gasket, he will give you an upfront estimate of the price.  He will often give you a list of less expensive alternatives if they are available.  When you ask a surgeon to replace your heart, there are federal regulations and AMA rules that prevent the distribution of price estimates.
3. Competition – If someone wants to build a Gas Station across the street from a competing Gas Station, its quite alright.  If someone wants to build a hospital, they have to prove to the Federal Trade Commission that the hospital won’t lower prices in the community or cause undue competition.
4. Monopoly – In the early 20th century, the federal government broke up a monopoly on oil and gasoline distribution. [Not quite. The government actually paved the way for the current near-oligopoly through legislation and regulation. See comments below and Thomas DiLorenzo for more information.] In the mid-20th century, they created a monopoly on hospitals and doctors because the American Medical Association said there were too many doctors, too much competition, and doctor’s couldn’t earn enough money.
5. Do It Yourself – When you go to the Gas Station, you can pay someone to fix your car and fill up your tank, or you can buy what you need to do it yourself.  At a hospital or pharmacy, you can’t make any decisions on what medications you can take, dosage levels, or treatments.  You must have the "official" opinion of a state regulated doctor.
6. Choice – When shopping for mechanics, you can decide to hire your handy neighbor, or find someone with all the latest training and certifications.  When shopping for doctors, your only choice is regulated by the state.
7. Purchasing Power – When you buy gasoline, you are paying for the gasoline you actually purchase (and a little extra for the small amount of theft).  When you buy healthcare, your price includes a large government imposed subsidy for those who can’t afford it, thus making healthcare less affordable to more and more people each year.

So if you wanted to make healthcare cheaper what would you do? Impose more rules or less?  Allow competition or create a more restrictive monopoly?

Thanks to Robert Butler of the Libertarian Party of Texas for sending me this article.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

What’s the difference between a gas station and a hospital?

"This is what change looks like," Obama said later in televised remarks that stirred memories of his 2008 campaign promise of "change we can believe in."

"We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people."

Ron Paul would disagree. Watch this video from Fox Business Channel.

This is indeed a dark day for liberty.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

ObamaCare finishes what LBJ started

Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration:

1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Now wait a second, doesn’t this sound familiar? Hmm…

Top 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:

1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Wes Benedict, Libertarian Party Executive Director, commented:

"Republicans and Democrats keep expanding government and creating more and more problems. We’re encouraging as many Libertarians as possible to run for Congress in 2010. In Texas, the state with the earliest filing deadline, Libertarians have already filed for 31 of 32 Congressional seats."

Another article you might want to check out is by Mary Ruwart, one of my favorite libertarians — How Liberty Makes Health Care Virtually Universal.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Top 10 Disasters of the Obama Administration in 2009

“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”

~Niels Bohr

I know as well as anyone that the future is uncertain and that much has yet to transpire. But now that Obama is officially the 44th President of the United States, I will reveal my thoughts, much like Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, regarding what I think will happen in 2009 with Obama as President. For the most part, I expect more of the same. As we eagerly professed on campus today, there is little to no substantial difference in the policy of George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama.

1. Inflation will reach record levels not seen since the 1970s, at least 10%.

Bailouts will continue. Government debt will spiral out of control. The Federal Reserve will keep pumping money into the economy. Already we have seen upwards of seven trillion dollars promised as the result of bailouts and the Fed – over one-half of the annual GDP of the USA. How this can be expected not to result inflation is beyond comprehension. I also expect the price of gold to soar at to at least $1000/oz. However, I doubt inflation will reach Weimar levels, though I admit it is something that we should be wary of over the horizon.

2. Economic protectionism will begin to be legislated from Congress in the name of our “economic national security.”

Of course, we know that this is already happening, but I think that unless other currencies fall with respect to the dollar to the levels of five years ago or more we will see industry continue to exit America. And as they attempt to do so, they will be extremely penalized. This will contribute further to cost-of-living increases (as protectionism always does), hurting the poor the most and further influencing those of fewer means to cry out to the government for even more intervention.

3. Universal Health Care will become reality.

With both houses of Congress and the Presidency controlled by the same party and the inevitable inflation coming, I fully expect that Universal Health Care will finally be shoved down our throats. The cost of health care will rise even further, and care quality will drop just as it does in all medically-socialized countries.

4. The Patriot Act will not be repealed, and we will not see an end to illegal wiretapping.

Ultimately, this prediction comes back to the presidential powers that Il Duce Bush took to new heights in the last eight years. I do not expect that those powers will be given up by Obama. Consequently, the encroachments upon civil liberties will continue in all the ways we have experienced thus far and likely moreso.

5. More war. We will not exit Iraq, and interventions in Afghanistan and Pakistan will expand to greater extents than we have ever seen.

Every indicator points to an expansion of Middle East interventions. Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, “the surge is working” rhetoric, influence from the Israel lobby – it all screams “I’m going to continue the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, we ain’t leaving!” While this should thrill pro-war conservatives, it should make all those who oppose war – whether liberal, conservative or libertarian – nothing short of livid. Change? I think not. What’s more, expect the liberal media pundits to begin to shill for Obama’s further interventions, and for conservatives to say things like “finally things are going our way in the media coverage of the War on Terror.”

So that’s what I think we’ll see. I pray to God that I’m wrong about any of these at all. Never would I be so happy to be wrong, but I don’t see much coming out of the Obama administration that favors the cause of liberty.

We will revisit these predictions at the end of 2009, and see how it turned out. Stick with me, we’ll make it!

What are your predictions? What do you think will happen? Comment below and discuss…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

5 Predictions for 2009