Blog
De Facto Censorship
In a recent letter to its customers, Medicare provider Humana urged its customers to contact their elected officials and express their worries about the fact that the most recent healthcare bill would eliminate important services currently available to seniors under the Medicaid Advantage program. Humana also created a website and a toll-free number to call so that its customers could let their voices be heard in an easier, more effective, fashion. As of last week, however, that website and toll-free number are no longer operative.
The reason is not that Humana achieved its aims, or that it willfully closed the website and toll-free number because it changed its mind. Humana shut down its operations because the United States government instructed it, by threat of legal punishment, to do so.
Senator Max Baucus set the wheels in motion a few weeks ago by urging a federal investigation of Humana by The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Baucus, author of the current healthcare bill, had learned about the letter Humana had sent to its customers. He disagreed with the letter’s claim that his proposed gradual removal of over $100b to Medicare really constituted a “cut to services.” But rather than offering arguments against Humana’s claims, the Senator responded by immediately prompting the CMS to conduct an investigation into Humana’s campaign.
In a memo sent to Humana, the government orders the company to stop sending the letter. The memo ends with the chilling warning that “we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions.” Humana got the message, stopped sending the letters, and shut down its website and toll free number.
What exactly was Humana’s crime? According to the government, it was that Humana’s claim that seniors’ services may be cut is “misleading and confusing,” and potentially against marketing regulations. The government did not allege fraud—it had no grounds to—but tried to hinge its argument on a legal technicality. Yet it did not initiate similar investigations or gag orders against other companies who support the bill. Humana’s crime was not anything procedural—it was the content of its letter. Humana's letter argued against the government party line.
The gag order against Humana is a clear violation of freedom of speech. It is a quintessential instance of government using its power to silence a private party that happens to disagree with the official state position. How is it that the government is able to execute such a blatant violation of basic free speech rights?
It is because the government picked an easy target. Humana is a corporation and a healthcare provider. Senator Baucus knows that businesses, especially corporations, are vulnerable–not many people are willing to publicly defend a for-profit institution. He knew that Humana could (and indeed it has) be intimidated into silence. By his actions, he has effectively killed two birds with one stone: he has demonstrated to Humana and other healthcare providers that he and other legislators hold power over their ability to speak while silencing opposition to his plan at the same time.
The Federal Government’s muzzling of Humana goes far deeper than any disagreement about which arguments happen to be right in the case of any one piece of legislature. By using regulatory threats to gag Humana, Senator Baucus has taken a major step towards establishing the principle that the government has the ability to control what can and cannot be said by Americans and their companies. Imagine the government ordering Apple to stop running commercials critical of PCs, because the information could be “misleading and confusing.” Then, imagine the utter horror Iranian citizens experienced during their recent election–where they were shot at, gassed, and beaten for disagreeing with their government’s conclusion. However different the scope of the government’s abuse of power, both involve the violation of the same principle: freedom of speech. Both are an expression of tyranny. Our government would do neither today. But in silencing Humana, it has demonstrated that it may do anything in the future.
Once the principle of free speech has been conceded, once it is believed that the owners of Humana do not have the right to speak out against the government, there is nothing to stop more encroachment by the government on all areas of speech. Anyone who disagrees with the government’s position on the economy, on science, on foreign policy can be similarly threatened (And indeed, Bank of America was threatened a few months ago). If the government’s silencing of Humana stands without being challenged, we will have taken another step away from freedom of speech and towards a world in which unpopular opinions are met with force.
Mandatory Insurance, Shoddy Results
In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick praises his state’s health care program as the right model for the entire nation to adopt. In 2006, Massachusetts passed a health care reform law that required all of its citizens to purchase health insurance. The state set up an agency to regulate the kinds of policies people could purchase from private insurers and to offer subsidized coverage to those residents who could not afford private insurance.
Patrick boasts that as a result over 97% of state residents are now covered. He claims that, “Our residents now have better access to preventive care in lower cost primary-care settings. Employers have expanded coverage for workers, not retreated as some feared. Families are less likely to be forced into bankruptcy by medical costs.”
But there is one aspect of health care that is conspicuously missing from this list- the actual quality of care residents of Massachusetts are receiving.
In reality, mandatory insurance and the subsidies that fund it have left the state’s health care system a wreck. As Dr. Paul Hsieh notes in his article “Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America,”
As a result of rising costs and falling revenues, access to medical care [in Massachusetts] has dwindled for many patients. Fewer doctors are willing to take on new patients for fear of losing even more money. Lee Sampson, a 47-year old medical transcriptionist, had to call fifty doctors’ offices before she could find one that would take her as a new patient. Tamar Lewis, a 24-year old hair stylist, called more than two dozen primary care doctors for a checkup. All of them turned her down, leaving her with no choice but to rely on the community free clinic. Patients face long waits for basic medical care—in some cases more than a year for a routine physical exam. These long waits are not due to a shortage of doctors. As the New England Journal of Medicine notes, Massachusetts “has the highest physician-to-population ratio of any state, in primary care as well as overall.” The waits are due to a government policy that discourages physicians from seeing patients—a policy under which seeing patients can mean that physicians lose rather than make money.
So when the governor touts that residents have “better access to preventive care,” what he really means is that, yes, everyone will see a primary care physician, but a year after they actually want to.
But why is this happening? Why is it not possible to mandate that everyone have insurance and still enjoy quality health care?
Dr. Hsieh answers,
The Massachusetts plan has failed for two related reasons: First, it ignores the fact that health insurance is a commodity (in the broadest sense of that term: a good or service created by businessmen for trade in the marketplace); and second, it violates individual rights. As with any other commodity, health insurance cannot be created by a government mandate. Just as the government does not and cannot create shoes by mandating “foot coverage,” so it cannot create health insurance by mandating such coverage.
In other words, mandating coverage does not equal actual care.
The Massachusetts model is very similar to the plans being proposed by Congress today, which include requirements that everyone purchase insurance, establish a government authority to provide health insurance at taxpayer expense, and dictate which kinds of insurance policies individuals can buy. When Patrick encourages policy makers in Washington to adopt his state’s health care system, he encourages them to subject their constituents to the same consequences the residents of Massachusetts are experiencing, only this time on a national scale.
Read the rest of Dr. Hsieh’s article at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp.
Correcting the Concession of Labor Day
On September 7th Americans observed the holiday known as Labor Day. Many of them, not knowing its origins, enjoyed a day, ironically, without labor. Yet the question of why Labor Day exists and what it celebrates should be answered by the virtue of its continued celebration.
Labor Day was created in 1894 by President Grover Cleveland as a compromise to end the tension caused by the 1894 Pullman Palace Car Company Strike. Employees of the company went on strike over wage cuts and an increased work day. This strike grew to the point where strikebreakers were attacked in order to force the company to meet its employees’ demands. The United States Government then dispatched the US Military and Marshals, who killed 13 strikers in the attempt to restore order after strikers ignored a federal injunction instructing them to end the violence that already caused $340,000 worth of damage. The President, fearing further conflict, decided to grant a concession to the strikers who he identified “labor,” meaning anyone who works for an employer. Not wishing to align himself with Communists and Socialists who celebrate their own labor day, otherwise known as May Day, the President choose a different date for his Labor Day: the first Monday of September.
Thus, this seemingly innocent holiday was an example of a failure of the United States Government to properly defend its citizens – in this case businessmen – from the use of force, and its willingness to compromise with those who would use force to get what they want.
The same compromise is occurring today, though without the stark reminder of violence that accompanied the Pullman strike. As Washington continues to push for more and more power over our lives, we hear constantly of the need to compromise. But compromise is not proper when our freedom and rights are at stake.
As Ayn Rand wrote:
“It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one’s product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one’s demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one’s product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other…There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.”
Labor Day, however, can be more significant than its original purpose of appeasement to coercion. It can be an opportunity to educate people that there is in fact no conflict between the rights of employers and employees. Employers are free to seek employees to create and sell their products; employees, in turn, are free to seek employers that meet their criteria. As in any other relationship, employment should be free from coercion by either party.
The 1894 Pullman Strike and the resulting Labor Day holiday gave credence to the harmful idea that employers and employees are in a constant struggle to exploit one another. But labor is properly viewed as a great value shared by both employers and employees, since neither would be able to exist without the other. It would be fitting on the next Labor Day to put aside the incorrect notion of conflict between these two groups and instead thank each other for making possible a productive life.
The Fall 2009 Edition of The Undercurrent is Now Available as a PDF!
We're proud to announce that the Fall 2009 Edition of The Undercurrent is available as a PDF! You can preview the paper by clicking here. Make sure to read the Staff Editorial for an explanation of the unifying theme for the articles in this issue. We've also included a special contact page with information on how to get in touch with campus and community clubs throughout the country.
Remember that tomorrow, Sunday, September 20th is the last day to order this exciting edition! You can order copies by visiting the order page at http://www.the-undercurrent.com/order or by e-mailing your name, address, and number of copies you'd like to contact@the-undercurrent.com.
A Tribute to Dr. Norman Borlaug and Man's Capacity to Shape Nature
September 12th should be a global day of mourning. For that is the day that one of mankind’s greatest heroes and benefactors passed away, though barely a whisper of his passing has been heard since the weekend. Each one of us who is glad to be alive should find a way to commemorate the life of Dr. Norman Borlaug, who died Saturday at the age of 95. Dr. Borlaug is the father of the Green Revolution. “Green” here refers not to the environmental movement, but instead to the overflowing cereal crops that swept the world in the 1960s. While environmentalists warned of impending doom from worldwide starvation, Dr. Borlaug silently worked to develop high-yield, short-strawed, disease-resistant wheat through his research of genetics, plant breeding, and soil science. And in doing so, he has saved hundreds of millions worldwide from starvation over the years.
Despite Dr. Borlaug’s monumental success, environmentalists never supported his work. Why? Because Borlaug’s entire career was predicated on the idea that mankind can—and should—find ways to modify and engineer the materials present in nature to our advantage. While environmentalists may seem to be in favor of making the Earth a better place to live, they consistently advocate against things that improve our welfare. They support limiting the freedom of individuals and companies in countless ways, including how we use our land and energy, and even whether scientists like Dr. Borlaug should be allowed to develop and grow “unnatural” plants with life-saving potential. In short, they insist that man be forced to adapt to nature. But whether it be diseases prevented by vaccines, blackouts solved by atomic power, or food shortages solved by genetically modified food, time and again we have been shown that man survives—not by adapting himself to nature—but by adapting nature to himself.
Dr. Borlaug’s life’s work is a shining example of this principle.
Click here to read one of the few other tributes written about Dr. Borlaug’s life over the last few days.
Misleading Facts in the Health Care Debate
President Obama and those who espouse his proposals for health care reform often present seemingly compelling arguments for why the government should dig its fangs deeper into medicine. They argue that the quality of care in America is far below that of Canada and Britain, and that citizens of those nations live longer precisely because their governments have socialized medicine. They insist that administrative costs of private insurance are much higher than the administrative costs of Medicare and Medicaid and as a result private insurance is unaffordable. They note that Americans spend more of their GDP on health care than any other nation. For all these reasons and more, they argue, we need to “crack down” on the insurance companies, create a public insurance program which offers coverage to everyone, and mandate which treatments Americans can and cannot undergo.
Richard Ralston, Executive Director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, debunks all these myths. In a recent article, Ralston addresses 39 common fallacies Obama and those who support his policies continue to use in order to confuse and mislead people about the true problem in health care today: government control.
Ralston writes:
1. "The quality of health care in America is ranked lower than 36 other countries."
When you hear this, always ask, "Ranked by whom and how?" In 2000 United Nations bureaucrats at the World Health Organization sent a survey to "officials and experts" selected by the U.N. Why should we be surprised to learn that government "officials and experts" in France thought that their government-run health care system was the best in the world? The scoring of these surveys also made them meaningless. For example, 25 percent of the scoring was weighted based on the assessment of how "fair" the financing was in each country. For "fair," read socialist—the list was largely a ranking of how socialist each country's system is.
9. "Government controls will lower the cost of insurance premiums to what we can afford."
When you hear this, ask why the government requires those who struggle to afford insurance to pay taxes on the money they use to pay for it. Ask why the government mandates that insurance cover treatments advocated by special-interest lobbies even when people do not want the coverage. Ask why state governments refuse to allow competition—and lower premiums—from insurers in other states. Government controls are now making insurance more expensive. Affordable insurance is hard to find because it is forbidden by law.
Read about the rest of the fallacies at http://www.afcm.org/fallacies.html.
A Girl Distributes The Undercurrent at a Charlotte Tea Party!
Watch this short video of a girl distributing the Summer 2009 Edition of The Undercurrent at a Charlotte Tea Party!
Events like Tea Parties represent an excellent opportunity to spread rational ideas and positively influence the culture. Distributing The Undercurrent can be a fun group activity for you and your friends or a local club. You can even make flyers to insert into each copy of TU or stamp your contact information on each paper to generate interest in your club.
Don't forget--the newest issue of The Undercurrent is available for order only until September 20, 2009! The Fall Edition will feature articles on a wide range of fascinating topics, like Obama’s health care policy, ethical training in today’s MBA programs, downloading music illegally, and the historic expansion of government in America. Following the success of our special Summer Edition, we have high expectations for the first issue of the school year – but those expectations can only be realized with your help! Order your copies today by visiting http://the-undercurrent.com/order, or by e-mailing your name, address, and the number of copies you wish to purchase to contact@the-undercurrent.com.
Thanks to Andy at http://charlottecapitalist.blogspot.com for providing the video.
There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch Buffet
A recent article in the journal The Objective Standard argues that laws which force health insurers to cover individuals, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, are impractical and immoral. The author of the piece, Dr. Paul Hsieh, illustrates that such laws only serve to make insurance more expensive for everyone. And more importantly, he highlights that these laws are morally abhorrent, as they violate the rights of individuals to freely contract with whomever they choose on terms agreeable to all.
Dr. Hsieh writes:
“Suppose you ran a restaurant that offered an all-you-can-eat lunch buffet. For a modest price, customers could help themselves to as much as they wanted from a variety of your dishes. But you also set certain restrictions—for instance, customers were forbidden to share their food with other customers or take food off the premises (no “doggie bags”). Most people would find such rules completely reasonable.
Now suppose the government passed a law forbidding restaurants from setting such restrictions on buffet meals. What would happen? Your costs would skyrocket as customers shared buffet food with others who had purchased only a cup of coffee, and stuffed food into Tupperware containers to take home for dinner. Soon you would either have to raise the price of the buffet drastically or simply discontinue it.
Although most people would be outraged at a law forbidding restaurants from setting such rules for their buffets, some Republicans are proposing laws that would forbid health insurance companies from setting similar rules with respect to their offerings.”
To keep reading please click here.
Photo by Prince Roy, Flickr.com
What Free Market?
From the beginning, most commentators agreed that this recession was caused by a failure of the free market. But an important fact that seems to have been forgotten is that America is not a free market.
The government is active in every industry-from health care to the aeronautics industry-and in every aspect of the economy-from the price of labor to the money supply and interest rates. When one considers the Postal Service, Unified School Districts, the Agriculture Adjustment Acts, and hundreds of other laws and regulations that control and restrain the economy, it is just bizarre to call this level of government intervention in our economy a 'free market.'
It was the mixed economy-not the free market-that failed. Once we acknowledge this, we are left with two options: move further down the path of socialism or in the opposite direction towards freedom.
For more information on this topic, please check out Yaron Brook and Don Watkin's excellent article, "America's Unfree Market".
A fuller explanation of the meaning (and implied moral base) of Laissez-faire is available in Ayn Rand's timeless articles, "The Nature of Government" and "Man's Rights".
Thrifty Government?
In speeches and press releases, the president has claimed that by assuming greater control over the health care industry, the government will be able to reduce the amount of money Americans spend on health care—while simultaneously improving the quality of care they receive.
How do President Obama and the Democrats pushing for health care reform propose to accomplish this feat? One of the key elements of their plan is reducing wasteful spending. Obama insists that government can do a better job of reducing waste than individuals and businesses can when they make their own health care choices. In fact, the president has declared that he can save "$500 billion over 10 years" by "rooting out waste and fraud and promoting quality and accountability."
In a recent editorial, TU Guest Editor Amit Ghate challenges these claims at their root. Examining the issue in both economic and philosophic terms, he contrasts the nature of the decision-making process of individuals spending their own money to that of governments spending other people’s wealth. He writes, “When men are free to pursue their own values, they’re incentivized to act carefully. Notably, they evaluate their purchases to ensure that what they receive is worth more to them than what they give up — they profit from their exchanges.” He then goes on to show how radically this changes—in any area of the economy—when government usurps the individual’s ability to decide for himself what he values.
Order TU
Orders for the Fall 2010 edition are now closed.
Contact us to make a last-minute request.
Follow us
We're Writing About...
Distribute The Undercurrent
The last issue of The Undercurrent was distributed in the following locations:
Don't see your area on the map? Find out how you can distribute.
Read the Latest Print Issue
View all comments