Once again, statist thugs grind on the Achilles’ heel of America’s founding charter - the Interstate Commerce Clause.

“Those who go without health insurance “substantially affect interstate commerce” by shifting health care costs to others, “increasing financial risks to households and medical providers,” causing bankruptcies, increasing insurance premiums and raising administrative expenses, according to the legal filing. [emphasis mine]”

In other words, “Since we’ve decided that healthcare is a right, and care providers are morally obligated to serve the needs of others, the government has the moral authority to force everyone into the system to control costs.”

Which leads to the question which can only be met with snarling condemnation – How could those who go without insurance inflict such an impact on the market if all individuals were merely responsible for only their own care?

Answer: they couldn’t! Their decisions regarding healthcare would essentially affect only themselves. If men weren’t forced to serve others financially, no other man would have to pay for the bad decisions of another.

This notion, of course, is unimaginable to a pragmatic collectivist, who only see this as a case where “just a little more” government control is needed “just to keep things in line” – which is exactly what Medicare proponents claimed 50 years ago when the obliteration of American medicine began.
Like all cases of market intervention and regulation, we see that “just a little” has now escalated to the full socialization of an industry. Such is the recursive nature of economic meddling, which as logic, history and economics indicate, can only result in higher prices, lower quality, and more regulation to come.

The statist argument is that:

1) Because we have (unjust) laws *forcing* healthcare providers to render services to everyone (regardless of their ability to pay) and 2) because we’ve established a welfare state which enslaves productive citizens across 50 states to cover the financial burdens of others, then 3) in order to maintain interstate commerce by controlling costs, government needs to A) force healthcare providers to charge all customers the same rate (as opposed to letting them recoup some of their losses from serving Medicare and Medicaid “customers” by charging self-sufficient customers a higher rate) and B) prohibit consumers from choosing any avenues of care which might enable their escape from, or expose the folly of, the whole system – in other words, one leash requires one neck.

Thus here we see the left’s favorite and most powerful legal wild-card at play - regulation under interstate commerce is virtually unstoppable.

If men are indoctrinated from birth with the morality of altruism, chained to one another in a way that each man’s burden is the responsibility of others, and can live in one of 50 different states, then yes… every breath a man makes will affect interstate commerce.

America has signed a blank check on government tyranny that is beyond containment.

Imprisoned over orchids…

The subtitle of the article above laments the festering state of American jurisprudence stemming from lack of an objective standard of law.

Needed: A ‘clean line’ to determine lawfulness

That ‘clean line’ to determine lawfulness is individual rights. Objective law is based on a standard to punish and preclude forceful encroachment of individual rights (life, liberty, and property). If that standard is abandoned, there is no logical limit to what can be criminalized - the result is mob rule.

A mob fueled by pragmatism can rationalize prosecution for just about anything.

I found noteworthy this passage from Leonard Peikoff’s chapter ‘Medicine: The Death of a Profession’ in The Voice Of Reason:

“The DRG administrator will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don’t—and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO, favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can’t afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won’t authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital—and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can’t get a specialist’s advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn’t even take this patient, he’s so sick—after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges…”

Meanwhile, the patient (maybe you or your loved one) dies…

This hypothetical, but factually warranted, scenario was from a lecture given back in 1985, so imagine if we adjust the cognitive and ethical nightmare presented above to accommodate an additional 25 years of cancerous government involvement. Consider how much worse it will be when the few remaining slivers of freedom are completely ground into the muck of full government control.

Keep in mind the scenario portrayed above, along with the highlighted acronyms, when you next hear some righteous idiot condemn the “free” health care market.

In a free market of healthcare, the only relevant decisions are amongst the physician and the patient to determine the most appropriate course of action available in accordance with the rational judgment and financial means of both parties. Freedom, efficiency, objectivity and justice are the guiding principles one needs when his life is on the line, not subjective deliberation, bureaucratic pandering, systemic injustice and economic dysfunction.

Our country is the final stages of a tremendous mistake - one that will have adverse effects on every person you know. Acting as if human lives are disposable and that economic laws are pliable, so many are willing to give in to consensus and experiment with Government run health care. It can’t hurt to try right?

This is a deadly pragmatic notion that must be rejected. Not even a single right or life is properly available for sacrificial experimentation. Even if dissecting one human being would save the lives of billions, doing so is immoral. If one man’s rights are violated, so all men have suffered injustice.

For America to endure we must return to nothing less than a free-market in health care.

Politicians are masters at muddying the water in order to aid their efforts. The more they obfuscate and complicate the issue, the more likely citizens are to give-up and give in to what appears to be the superior insights and motives of our leaders. Throw in some hollow rhetoric and spike the potion with the moral tint of altruism and consensus will stomp over an endless sea of corpses. However, If one peers through all the emotional fog, the entire conversation is revealed to be senseless. To make the case much clearer, I’ll frame the principles in an analogous market less prone to emotional fraying.

This not-so-hypothetical market is comprised of a fictitious entity called “Technicare” - a taxpayer funded program to assist a segment of the population with their electrical appliance needs - and a retailer, in this example I chose Wal-Mart, arguably the most highly qualified bastion of efficiency and value.

Like all cases of market dysfunction throughout history, the cause is unnatural economic forces. Essentially, the only force capable of wide scale economic influence is Government. Economics is an elegantly simple system governed by principles that endure time and scale. Producers produce goods that consumers consume according to the standards and prices that both parties agree on voluntarily. That’s it. These fundamentals are absolute and unforgiving, and when any component of the preceding summary is acted against, the market becomes dysfunctional. If producers ability to produce is either enhanced or hampered, if consumers ability to consume is enhanced or hampered, or if the voluntary prerogatives of either are restricted to any extent, the result is some degree of market dysfunction.

Our Heath Care market is one that’s clobbered with regulatory assault from every angle. Each of the components prescribed above are unnaturally manipulated by Government. Government meddling inevitably serves to reduce competition, and decrease purchasing power, the two elements that form the lifeblood of a growing and prosperous economic system.

There are far too many instances to cover exhaustively, but fortunately a principled examination of only a few will clearly illustrate the negative impact that is universally achieved by market intervention. We’ll start by considering an element that achieves tremendous competitive detriment and has no logical justification - The Certificate of Need.

From the NCSL site:

Certificate of Need (C.O.N.) programs are aimed at restraining health care facility costs and allowing coordinated planning of new services and construction. Laws authorizing such programs are one mechanism by which state governments seek to reduce overall health and medical costs.

The basic assumption underlying CON regulation is that excess capacity (in the form of facility overbuilding) directly results in health care price inflation. When a hospital cannot fill its beds, fixed costs must be met through higher charges for the beds that are used. Bigger institutions have bigger costs, so CON supporters say it makes sense to limit facilities to building only enough capacity to meet actual needs.

Profit is determined by the difference in revenue from a unit of work in relation to the unit’s associated costs. Profit increases by either charging a higher price per unit to consumers or establishing a lower cost per unit for producers - by higher prices or by lower costs. Competition amongst market players urges them to offer services at the lowest possible price, thus their opportunity to increase profit will be naturally determined by their ability to operate at the lowest possible cost, as opposed to selling at a higher, less competitive price. Competition is a necessity.

By hindering the competitive aspect of the market, the CON hurdle is actually prone to a rise in costs precisely because mitigates (or eliminates) external pressure to compete on price. Additionally, the process is tedious, timely and expensive. For productive endeavors, time is money, and this process equates to an atrociously misdirected waste of capital.

The other fallacy used to justify this process is that investors would risk such vast amounts of money as typically involved without doing the proper market research to justify the expense. Like in so many other cases, and for obvious reasons, bureaucrats just can’t grasp the concept of personal responsibility. Unlike moochers wasting handout money, when an individual is spending his own earned resources, he’d best be, and typically is, mindful of how he does so. Successful investors seeking a profitable avenue for their capital do not need parental guidance.

Let’s consider this absurdity in our fictitious market:

• How would the “Certificate of Need” process and burden, including all the inherent political wrangling, affect an aspiring Wal-Mart store?
• Would the associated cost cause their prices to increase or decrease?
• Would that money be more appropriately invested in real estate, infrastructure and inventory, or as the cost of asking permission to do business when and where they see fit?
• On what logical grounds should they have to ask permission?
• By what right could some authoritative body decline their request?
• By what right does anyone or any entity have such authority in a country founded on individual rights?
• Whose right to what would be in jeopardy of encroachment by a lack of oversight for this new entity?

Consider Technicare’s impact throughout the rest of Wal-mart’s business model:

• Once the tedious CON process is complete and business is booming, how would Wal-Mart compensate for selling televisions to Technicare customers for an amount that’s significantly reduced - possibly below cost?
• Would these customers tend to spend more or less if given a Technicare credit card for which they have no financial responsibility?
• How would this consumption impact the individuals who are liable for the Technicare expenditures?
• How about if Technicare was granted the authority to determine what Wal-Mart could charge non-Technicare customers for televisions, how would this affect these customers if the pricing was at or below cost?
• By what right should Technicare posses such authority?

If Technicare was expanded to include storage media:

• Would this amplify or negate the existing affects of the program on Wal-Mart?
• How about if the storage media market was regulated by Technicare’s parent company GovCo. so that the media could be adequately tested, which led to drastically increased research manufacturing and legal costs and the time to market for a new product was a number of years. Would this impact the cost of storage media for all consumers?
• What if Wal-Mart was also regulated on how much they could charge Technicare customers for storage media?
• What if they had to sell below cost? What would this do to the costs of storage media for non-Technicare customers?

If Wal-Mart were forced by law to give away products at no charge:

• How would the rest of their business model be impacted?
• Would they continue operating at a loss?
• Would this raise or lower costs to the remainder of their customer base?

If Wal-Mart’s prices increased drastically over time due to the mandates of Technicare:

• How would the “Certificate of Need” process and burden, including all the inherent political wrangling, affect an aspiring competitor?
• Would it make market entry easier or more difficult?
• Would this affect lead Wal-Mart to be more or less responsive to its customers?
• Would such market-entry overhead inspire entrepreneurial interest?

Given the above scenario and the obvious answers and established patterns:

• On why logical grounds would some suggest granting Technicare/GovCo drastically increased, if not exhaustive, control of Wal-Mart operations, accounting and pricing?
• What would the expected results entail?
• As non-Technicare customers lose purchasing power as a result from both having to fund Technicare and having to endure higher prices as a result of Technicare, what changes would be more likely to repair the situation?
• What if Technicare decides to restrict all customers from shopping anywhere besides this new WalTech-GovCo?
• By what right could they?
• Wouldn’t this be a coercive monopoly?
• What would that mean?

With “solutions” like these, who needs problems? Is this issue really as complex as so portrayed by the media and politicians?

Socialization proponents consistently offer supposed aspects of the health care market that exempt it from economic laws due to some disadvantage faced by consumers. Regardless of the specifics, for each such claim we should ask “Why is this, and what are the repercussions?”

My point in general is that the “whys” are far more important than their corresponding repercussions. If a patient has a rash it could be a sign of a number of things, such as poison ivy, a food allergy, an infectious disease like measles, or a skin infection. Treating the symptoms without accurately identifying the cause could leave the patient worse off. Making assumptions on faulty or unrefined premises is a recipe for failure.

I’ve yet to hear a valid claim of “market-dysfunction” (if you will) that is actually more in substance than an acknowledgment of reality, e.g., individuals have varying financial means, or an example of a symptom caused by an existing economically unnatural force in the system, e.g., how Medicare rates affect private insurance premiums.

The former family of claims, in the context of “what should be done?” should properly be answered “whatever motivated individuals choose to do with their own resources.” The charge of “not providing unlimited free service to all who’d consume it” is no more valid a charge of dysfunction than criticizing a rock for not spurting pop-tarts on whim. Demanding a breach of reality in the form of non-causal action is irrational.

If the same question is posed in the context of the second category above, the answer should be “identify and remove the source of the issue.” - which arguably is in all cases, Government intervention.

Despite all the attempts to complicate this issue, it really is as simple as the answers above. Unless and until that is, as I mentioned previously, ulterior motives come into consideration. As soon as the rights of producers and consumers to contract freely are inhibited to any extent, the only possible result is a distortion in the market that will exponentially correlate to the extent of the inhibition.

Individuals thrive under, and have a right to, freedom. Innovation, value and efficiency are the result of freedom. Regulations, on the other hand, reduce freedom - which results in inefficiency, shortages, escalating prices and general stagnation. History illustrates this condition quite well.

Patients have the right to choose from whom, for what, and at what price they consume medical services. Likewise, providers have the right to choose from whom, for what, and at what price they provide their expertise.

This is the only moral and practical relationship between patients and providers.

A diligent consideration of any elements of the market that affect these mutual rights, including their cause, will very accurately highlight what needs to change for the market to operate normally. Increase freedom and all the positive dynamics of this and any other market will prevail.

Again, history unequivocally supports this fact.

To concretize - a free-market in health care, just like every other field throughout history - would result in the best service at the lowest price, according to the discretion of the consumers and producers involved.

There’s nothing unique about the health care market that should exempt it from basic economics. Providers gain expertise in medical services that individuals would consume based on supply and demand.

Only third-party involvement by force can disrupt economic laws and patterns. If one detects a flaw or undesirable pattern, prudence suggests one identify any source of unnatural tampering. Any market traits, e.g., “Forty-plus million uninsured”, could either be symptoms of an illegitimate disruption, or merely factual attributes representing reality. If one were to consider the statistic in slightly different terms, say “Forty-plus million individuals can’t own a 42 inch widescreen television”, then the issue becomes less clouded by by emotion. The facts illustrate that five years ago, indeed a large percentage of individuals couldn’t afford a 42″ television. However, the market (a relatively free one) has responded to demand and now a 42″ television is much more affordable. These principles work regardless if the market is for widgets, televisions, mobile phone service, wellness physicals or CT scans. Where the conversation veers drastically off course is when egalitarian politics come into play. If authentic rights are to be subsumed by artificial privileges, some external force must attempt to usurp economic reality. For every ‘yin’ of Government intervention, there’s a corresponding ‘yang’ of market disturbance. These ‘yangs’ reverberate through the system and their effects continue to amplify until very serious results surface. The system we have now is a result of 50+ years of intense ‘yin’ing. What, other than a tremendously distorted market, could we expect? And, exactly why would we propose more intervention as the solution?

So long as consumers are left free to consume (by their own means) and producers are left free to offer services (as they see fit), the market will perform and innovate like any other.

The government depriving people of opportunities and choice regarding their livelihood is not the solution to the problem of the government stifling competition with distorted economic forces. The solution is to get the government out of health care altogether.

Supplemental Ammunition:
I highly recommend Paul Hsieh’s work demolishing the case for socialized medicine:

FAQ On Free Market Health Insurance

Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care

Moral Health Care vs. Universal Health Care

Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America

All taxation is theft. Taking the property of one individual by initiated force, regardless of purpose, contradicts the fundamental role of Government by violating individual rights to property. Any and every tax expenditure is immoral and unjust.

That being said, some expenditures, however, are so blatantly inappropriate that they stand out as especially vile amongst a sea of evil. Below are only a few that demand our attention and were found in a matter of seconds @ Grants.gov.

You can search for hundreds of terms that will score an abundance of “opportunities”. Keep in mind that for each “opportunity” there are larges wads of looted wealth waiting to be handed out - most in the tens or hundreds of thousands, many in the tens or hundreds of millions. Keep these in mind as you, friends and family face the financial hurdles in the coming years - hurdles caused by Government intervention in the economy. The purpose of the intervention is to tap into your productivity precisely for the purposes of handing out money in order to buy votes and satiate altruistic political ambitions. Enjoy.

• We need the toads…

- A crumbling nation must maintain its priorities.

• 10 Million for Cambodian Education

- Since we’ve essentially given up on our own, $10,000,000 to another country…

• 30 Million for Tanzanian AIDS Counseling

- I’m so glad I could help out….

• 40 Million for Uganda’s ‘Right‘ to Essential Medicine

- I didn’t realize any supposed right of a Ugandan citizen (or any citizen to any thing for that matter) granted them access to a portion of my income…

These examples represent the filthy ends of the tentacles strangling America. How long can it go on like this?

There was a point in my life where her writing was almost therapeutic, but disgusted sympathy is the only response I can muster to this luke-warm call to arms by Peggy Noonan.

Like a basketball team which never identifies which goal to shoot for, or a football team who narrows it down to a only a few plays in the huddle, conservatives have no unified goals or principles. Philosophy drives ideas and any group based on an alleged ideology void of explicit principles will be ineffective. Noonan understands that unity within her party is non-existent and makes an attempt to define some basic tenets. Just like other pragmatists, the prescription is a call to abandon principles.

The poles that keep up the tent are the party’s essential beliefs. Republicans over the next few years should define what each of their tent poles stands for—a strong defense being an obvious pole, a less demanding and intrusive government being another, a natural affection and respect for tradition and for life being a third—and how many poles there are.

I can’t argue with the first, which is about the only position of the right that stands to reason. After the first, however, we get the same vague, implicit notions that the republicans have coasted on for decades.

Less demanding and intrusive? In what manner should we seek less demands and fewer intrusions? Should a proper government in a free society be demanding at all? Less intrusive? Should it be intrusive at all? In what way might it rightfully intrude?

Affection for tradition? To what aspects and to what extent? The American tradition imparts a shift to statism, should that pattern be upheld?

Respect for life? Absolutely, but in what sense? I can only guess this means violating the rights of women to their own lives by banning abortion.

In summary, here we see the same worn-out bromides that have defined the right for the last 50 years:

• The mixed economy is proper, so long as men can still produce.
• Uphold the status quo, whatever that might be.
• Tie it all up with theocratic underpinnings.

Noonan, like the troops she’s trying to rouse, shares the same moral base as the left - altruism. Hers is only decorated by trivial subtleties, tinted by religion, and hued by an implicit “common sense” provided by a foggy understanding of how freedom equals prosperity.

The ground is shifting. It’s hard to get your footing in an earthquake. As Republicans on the Hill try, they must also try to steady their party. It needs a greater sense of realism about its predicament. It needs less enforcement and more encouragement. It needs to inspire the young and the politically unformed not with bloodlust but with ideas.

Right, but which ideas? There’s not a single mention of the proper role of Government, individual rights, or any supposed alliance with the founding principles of this nation.

A great party allows everyone in, and allows prospective members to self-define. If they say they’re Republicans, they should be welcomed and helped to find a place where they fit. A great party has a lot of such places. A great party is expansive. A great party has [to] give. [emphasis and edits mine]

Abandon principles (which have yet to be defined), be flexible, give in, cooperate, compromise - the only thing that matters is what group one professes to belong to. So long as the jersey has an ‘R’ on it, they’re on the team!

By her prescription, not only will the conservatives remain pathetic in the defense of rights, freedom and Capitalism, they’ll continue to shift further towards the statism of the left - leaving America to choose only between two variants of the same collectivist nightmare.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent tribute to the superficial nature and impotence of the republican party.

My current job lends itself to substantial visibility into any congressional activity pertaining to health care. I see weekly summaries listing all medically related bills. The irrational nonsense they try to pull off is remarkable.

This one is especially evil - Section 3 (a-b):
S. 623

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS UNDER GROUP HEALTH PLANS.

(a) Application Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974-

(1) ELIMINATION OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS- Section 701 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181) is amended–

(A) by amending the heading to read as follows: ‘elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions’;

(B) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

(a) In General- A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, with respect to a participant or beneficiary–

‘(1) may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion; and

‘(2) in the case of a group health plan that offers medical care through health insurance coverage offered by a health maintenance organization, may not provide for an affiliation period with respect to coverage through the organization.’;

(C) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

‘(3) AFFILIATION PERIOD- The term ‘affiliation period’ means a period which, under the terms of the health insurance coverage offered by the health maintenance organization, must expire before the health insurance coverage becomes effective.’;

(D) by striking subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g); and

(E) by redesignating subsection (f) (relating to special enrollment periods) as subsection (c).

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The item in the table of contents of such Act relating to section 701 is amended to read as follows:

‘Sec. 701. Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions.’.

How compassionate! They want to to remove pre-existing condition exclusions for group insurance policies. Essentially, insurance companies will be required to cover you regardless of your health. If an insurer is required by force to cover any patient, they are essentially required to provide coverage that might be a guaranteed loss. Of course, they can’t operate at a loss, so they have to recoup the losses from some other avenue. That avenue is the other policy holders.

Just as the result of mandatory ER coverage increases costs, our insurance premiums will skyrocket if this repulsive bill passes. Of course the rise in costs will be attributed to “greedy” insurance companies and used to justify more regulation - typical regulatory recursion, i.e., controls breed controls.

Statists never quit and they’re attacking from every possible angle - a relentless army of irrationality. The attack in the field of medicine is especially deadly. FIRM is the organization offering the only rational mindset that will save American medicine from stagnant rot.

UPDATE: Apparently Insurance companies have see this mandate as inevitable and opted to leverage the statist force as an opportunity to cash-in. Such is the tactic of our valiant mixed-economy barons.

• Insurers offer to start charging healthy people more
• Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil

I come across so many good thoughts that need to be read by as many people as possible. I don’t have time to comment on all, so I’m starting a new hit-list of worthy reads.

• Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis - Striking at the root. If you only read one article this week, this month or this year, this should be it.
• Two More Massive Laws - More control, less freedom.
• How to Stop an Outrage - Every day I gain further knowledge of the extent to which government has invaded medicine - we’re in trouble.

Pragmatic economics is bleeding the life out of America. Collectivist politicians have virtually free-reign to unlimited investment backed by our future productivity.

The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.

New pledges from the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. include $1 trillion for the Public-Private Investment Program, designed to help investors buy distressed loans and other assets from U.S. banks. The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nation’s gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.

In their minds, there is no amount of looted wealth that is off the table. There is no political or economic effort for which they lack confidence in the American serf to cover by productive effort. If force is required, so be it.

Man’s nature requires him to think, act and maintain the results of doing so. Our tyrannical government knows too well that we only need a certain range of freedom to act within, and only to keep above a certain threshold of the productive results to ensure our likely compliance to their meddling.

As long as our leash is just long enough and they tactfully throttle or camouflage their looting, the majority of marching ants won’t revolt. So long as the majority complies, their party remains funded. Theirs is a game of control. Control the variables that influence man’s actions so that he’ll either fail to notice the attached IV, or he’ll be too busy gasping for air to remove it. The only thing that matters is that he stays alive and the blood keeps flowing.

The debt that the American government is flagrantly piling on our backs will most definitely require them to push the thresholds of statist regulations and taxation to the point where the rational segment of the population, the segment they need the most, will take reproachful offense.

When that revolt does take place, their only option will be to tighten the screws. The more they tighten, the more their house of cards will crumble. The final scene, as so brilliantly portrayed in the climax of Atlas Shrugged, will place them in a most precarious position. Their only remaining recourse to inspire productivity will be threat of death - with the ironic quagmire being obvious. Either way, the productivity fueling their existence will cease.