A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

Yesterday, California State Senator Mark Leno was on Stand UP! with Pete Dominick (Sirius 110 “POTUS”) educating people about SB 840 and what a “single-payer” health insurance system is all about. For a country as large as the US, and states as large as California, this is definitely a more efficient approach to the “universal” healthcare ideal than creating a new healthcare system completely owned and operated by the government.

Leno explained that the single-payer health insurance system replaces many different health insurance providers with a single government insurance provider. This preserves the ability for individuals to choose their private care providers based on location, reputation, cost, or any other factors important in making that very personal decision. In short, single-payer health insurance is a compromise solution with the “universal” healthcare ideal at its heart.

Leno did not indicate how the government would determine how much coverage one would receive, or whether it would establish rewards or limitations for individuals that choose certain doctors or practices. Also, after the bankruptcy after only a few months for a “universal” children’s healthcare plan in Hawaii, I’d like to see how a single-payer system will keep itself from going bankrupt while keeping its promises of “universal” access to the citizens of California.

I was tempted to call in to the show when Leno insisted that the single-payer health insurance is “not socialized medicine.” I wanted to ask exactly how “socialized health insurance” was going to be any less likely than private insurers to deny claims and limit payouts? Perhaps it is because rather than deciding who gets insured and who gets paid for claims based on a business decision, it becomes a political decision instead.

Citizens of California would get coverage for what the California legislature thought should be covered. Keep Democrats in office for more family planning coverage? Keep Republicans in office to extend Veteran benefits? See where this is going?

Should political entities be allowed to make these decisions? Without competition in the health insurance market, how is the government to be trusted to stick to a budget, hire a competent staff, operate efficiently, and be willing to say “no” instead of trying to please everyone?

It sounds more to me that Leno and other political entities simply want a sideways solution to help perpetuate the claim that healthcare can be “universal.” I am sure there are perfectly valid reasons, backed by the heart-wrenching stories of kids sick or dying because they supposedly don’t have adequate health coverage. However, the bottom line here is that while we have a right to “life,” we do not have a right to receive health care or health insurance whether or not we can afford it. It is a hard, cruel truth to swallow when we watch individuals suffer from various illnesses… but there’s no such thing as “free” healthcare.

So what’s the “solution” to the supposed “healthcare problem” if not a government solution? Well, what the “universal healthcare” advocates aren’t telling you may hold the key:

1. The reason we need health insurance is because healthcare itself is expensive.

2. The reason healthcare is expensive is because the government is already too involved in the system (both providers and pharmaceutical entities) with its many laws, restrictions, regulations, license costs/requirements, taxes, fees, and malpractice lawsuit allowances.

If we have any public health issues for true contagious epidemics, on the scale of malaria in some African countries, then perhaps there is a role for government to step in to provide temporary aid. However, when it comes down to the health of the individual, and the degree to which that individual seeks and receives treatment is the responsibility of the individual and those investing in the health of that individual (family, employer, etc.).

There is no evidence that the problems created primarily by federal and state government interference can be solved by further interference. However, as a final word, I will say that if a state is going to experiment in the area of socialized medicine, I would prefer they look at the single-payer insurance route than creating an entire state healthcare system.

I would be interested in hearing your comments and intelligent debate about single-payer health insurance… please feel free to post a reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALc0wVFfIKs
One would think that after presenting all the *facts* before them about marjiuana against all the *myths* that have infiltrated US culture over the last several decades, people might actually stop the illegal arguments such as those the former DEA agent is making in this CNBC interview. I would like to thank the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) for participating in discussions like this and helping to educate the public on the truth about marijuana.

Naturally, when I hear about new public projects in the City of Raleigh, I am skeptical about the need to use public (tax) funds for that purpose. Some of the questions I usually ask are:
* How much tax money will be spent up front?
* How much tax money is required for ongoing expenses (such as maintenance and staffing)?
* Where do these numbers come from (such as urban development studies and financial impact studies)?

With that in mind, one of the things that has concerned me about the “Dix 306″ movement is the possible misrepresentation of the goals and potential value of their so-called “world-class park” to the citizens of Raleigh. This prompted me to dive into Dix306.org and the public records for the non-profit organization Friends of Dorothea Dix Park (FDDP) to learn more about the organization and compare that against what we know and don’t know about the people who stand to gain from this park development project.

If you have one of those “DIX 306″ signs in your yard, and you have not taken the time to consider all of the facts behind the Friends of Dorothea Dix Park, I encourage you to read my series of posts on this topic:

What Would Dorothea Do?

In other upcoming posts, I will…
* Summarize the details of the Friends of Dix Park White Paper, including the projected costs, the use of tax-increment financing to fund the project, and the entities who stand to profit from this plan
* Review the 2006 and 2007 tax forms for the FDDP to see how the organization is running itself and who is getting paid
* Examine the list of executive director, officers, and board members to see how many would be impacted by the proposed TIF
* Study the property values of the individuals affected by the proposed TIF and compare those to the income levels of those who live on those properties
* Interview various individuals involved in, supporting, and opposing the Dix 306 plan, and post some of the transcripts of those interviews
* Compare other proposed plans’ projected costs and claimed benefits against those proposed by the FDDP

If you have any information or tips that you think may help, feel free to post a comment here and I will follow up. (My email is not working properly at the moment, and I’m still investigating that issue.)

After an investigative journalism training this past week, I have been inspired to blog more. Having used Twitter personally for a while for keeping up with friends and various news resources, I decided to create a Twitter account to correspond with this blog:
http://twitter.com/goliberty

In the coming weeks, look for more frequent blog updates here, too, as well as more updates to the main goliberty.net site.

In case anyone wondered if there was something Republicans and Democrats could truly believe in, here’s even more evidence that they are willing to band together against other political parties. I think people are going to see a lot of this happening nationwide during this new election cycle:

New Libertarian Party City-Councilor stripped of committee seats (Indianapolis, IN)

Without comments from those in the Executive Session responsible for stripping Coleman of his seniority and committee seats, it is difficult to say for certain that this motivation was an effort to enforce a two-party duopoly. However, taking the facts stated from the side of the LPMC and Coleman, and the nature in which this action was taken, it definitely seems a strong possibility. Consequently, it is important to draw attention to these possible abuses of power and encourage people to question the actions of government officials that appear to stifle the voices of an electorate.

As a prospective city councilor for Raleigh, I have to wonder how my affiliation would impact how much I am allowed to contribute to council business. Though I have met many in North Carolina that are supportive of libertarians’ rights to be counted, those who have the ability to get elected and obtain power are often those willing to stifle any voices that present a threat to that power.