A Voluntary FDA would lower health care costs and give us access to better service and products. For argument and research sake, I really recommend everyone watch Stossel and see how the FDA Kills far more than it saves.
The best point made is when a new drug is approved and everyone celebrates how it will save 50,000 people a year. That means that for the 15 years of testing, it killed 750,000 by not being available.
The FDA should be voluntary just like Underwriters Laboratories or UL. Who are they? Look at nearly every single thing you plug in to the wall that is more than just a wire. That charger is UL tested. Everyone does it even though it is completely voluntary.
If the FDA were voluntary, anyone wanting only FDA approved would have that option. It would be the Gold Standard of approvals. If you are willing to go without the FDA it is your choice, some will some will not. By having different voluntary levels of accreditation would allow us to judge how thoroughly tested it has been. Liberals read this and say, “I would be smart enough to make a good decision but others are not”.
Matt
http://talkofliberty.com
It is time we finally have a discussion about getting rid of minimum wage laws. With each increase in minimum wage, it is becoming harder and harder for small businesses to start up and grow, and is creating a generation of kids with no work history.
Minimum wage laws are a jewel of the left and labor unions. To the average person it seems like a decent idea, force employers to pay at least $7.85 per hour. That number only represents $16,328 a year. Surely anyone working deserves at a minimum a living wage. I used to think this myself, until I dug deeper and realized how minimum wage hurts our country and does nothing for those it intends to help.
The first glaring reason to abolish the Minimum Wage Law is because most people do not earn minimum wage. In 2005, only 1.5% of people worked for minimum wage. This is a very small group. This means that 98.5% already earn more money than minimum wage. The market decides what people are able to justify for income, and most people have skills which warrant far more.
So now doubters are saying, you just do not care about that 1.5% percent that would get a raise. This is actually not true. First of all, a large portion of that percentage is paid minimum wage because they receive extra money through tips. They are bartenders, barbers, waiters, and waitresses. These individuals earn far more than minimum wage, yet are paid cash so they show up as being affected.
Also in those numbers of minimum wage were over half of them are young workers under 25. The most important thing for a young person is getting experience. They understand that putting in a tough year of low paying work will lead to better opportunities. The higher minimum wage laws have created spoiled zombies out of our younger generation. Most teenagers will go until after college ever having any sort of real job. Unemployment at the younger ages is a huge problem, abolishing the minimum wage law would allow for more of our entry level workers gain those important skills.
This leaves the final group that actually gets paid minimum wage. I know, what about them. Well I say they already benefit other ways. If you make minimum wage, most likely you are on government housing, food stamps, Medicaid, fuel assistance and all the other government goodies. My point is if this is the group you are worried about, you shouldn’t. That is the point of this countries welfare system. This is where the Liberals want to have their cake and eat it to. Get rid of welfare and its massive costs if you want higher wage laws, get rid of welfare.
This would be a boon to small business since they would be able to hire low cost workers to help them grow from a very small company into a much larger one. They need to be able to lower the start up costs of opening a new location. By abolishing the wage laws, we will take the pressure off of small business. Make it easier and cheaper to hire. And lastly, give our young a chance to get those skills.
Matt
http://talkofliberty.com
There is a war of ideas going on right now. The GOP is working to reinvent itself into the hero of smaller government and appeal to the TEA PARTY movement for less government. Many leaders and important figures of the Republican Party have downplayed the important message of Libertarians. Those who try to smear the message of a Libertarian always have the role of government to a Libertarian all wrong. Let’s address this today.
Do Libertarians want zero government?
This is the biggest misconception people who have not educated themselves on Libertarian values label the party with, however it is completely false. Those people have confused Anarchist with Libertarian; however this is why they have separate names. Libertarians do not believe in Anarchy or no government, we believe in limited government. Limited means government’s role should be, protecting individual’s property. In the eyes of a Libertarian, that property extends much further than just my home. My property is my body, my labor, my car, anything I have ownership of is my property. When I put in 60 hours a week to better my life, that paycheck is my property.
Libertarians are not foolish enough to think bad guys do not exist. I believe they do, and that is why we have a strong judicial system where those who commit a crime are to be punished. This is exactly what government is intended for. If a country wishes to invade us, clearly we would need a strong national defense to repel them. This translates to all levels down to the local level. Local government is best for protecting its local citizens from local threats like thieves, rapist, and murderers.
When a contract is created, we believe that contract represents both parties claim to property rights. If a contract is not being honored, government should enforce that contract in order to keep both parties accountable, again a very reasonable expectation of government.
We believe in smaller government for most other things. Almost any other function of government should be considered for privatization. I recently heard of the Yellow Page test. If there are three or more companies offering a service, government should not be in that business. I will post more on how I privatization of services should be embraced, but that is for another day. Until then, if you are a true Republican, then you are a Libertarian.
Matt
http://talkofliberty.com
The devastating effects of Health Reform are just becoming more and more clear. As companies are able to review how this will impact them, a very common theme is recurring again and again. Basically an Employer who is not offering health insurance to its employee (singular) will be fined $2,000 dollars per employee (singular).
Considering how most families (plural) are on a company’s insurance plan where they work, the likely cost to a company is far greater than $2,000 dollars. Let’s say a family of four gets their full insurance policy from an employer. If the cost of the premium is $3,000 per person, or $12,000 per family, companies will gladly opt out and pay the $2,000 dollar penalty, saving them $10,000.
Even if the cost to the company to insure the person is a mere $3,000 for an entire family it would still be cheaper to drop them and they save $1,000. Even better is that when they drop them, there are no preexisting conditions, and they must be accepted no matter what to an insurance plan. One more piece of evidence this will happen is that a family of four making less than $80,000 will get the insurance subsidized by the government if their employer doesn’t offer insurance.
I will predict that a cascade of employers dropping insurance plans will come. Look for the first few to do it and be crucified in the news, but after the initial stigma wears off, all the other companies will follow suit. It will be a matter of time, before there is no such thing as Employer Based Health Insurance.
The reason I say this may be a mixed blessing is in the worst way, it will make what I have been calling for come true. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it will end the employer based insurance coverage. This part is a good thing, but the way it is set up and the incentives used, is the worst way to get there. I have my own insurance, and plan on paying for it, because I am afraid of a mass exodus to sign up for individual plans. Companies may not be allowed to deny coverage, but as far as I see, the application period to get that coverage will be indefinite.
In taking the suggestion of a fellow freedom loving blogger, Dr. Orphe Pierre Divounguy who commented on the Laffer Curve, I will take another look at it. I suggest everyone take a look at his blog as well.
The Cato Institute made some great videos regarding the Laffer Curve I have posted below, which I also recommend you check out.
To keep it simple I will use the analogy of a deadbeat son working for a family run company. The government in this story is the dead beat, and the family run company is America.
A family run business is very successful and operates at an extremely efficient level. This means that they are very profitable and are able to reinvest into the company to grow it. They have extra money each month to spend on advertising and are able to hire the best people. Currently the deadbeat son of the owner who doesn’t work for the company, therefore there isn’t any dead weight on the payroll. This is what zero taxes on the Laffer Curve represents, in this state, the company reinvests and grows at a very fast pace.
The family decides to hire the deadbeat, but they decide to give him 1% of the company’s profit. Because the company is so profitable, the missing money is not noticed, and are able to keep running quite efficiently, the non deadbeats may need to work a little harder to make up the extra 1%.
The deadbeat explains he needs more money and takes on a few new roles, which he really is not good at and the company would be better off hiring someone else, but he is dads son, therefore should be paid more and gets a 20% raise. Because he is such a deadbeat, he makes 20 times more percentage wise, but because money is being diverted from profitable centers such as advertising or hiring good people, the company is less profitable overall, so he makes more money overall, but the company is making less. This is why on the Laffer Curve, increases in taxes are not dollar for dollar more money.
The owner of the company dies and the deadbeat inherits the company. The deadbeat decides he should be paid 50% of all the profit. The deadbeat parasite begins leaching so much money out of the company, they stop advertising, and begin to hold off on spending more money on hiring, overall this makes the profit begin to fall. There is immense harm being put onto the company and makes it far higher to reinvest money into operations. Because profit is down, the deadbeat actually makes less than when he was taking 20%.
Finally the deadbeat decides to take 100% of all profit from the company because his bills are just so high and he needs more money. Rather than cut his expenses, he pillages more. All the workers who are left decide it is best to quit working and work for other companies which offer far more growth. This means the company dies, and the deadbeat makes no money.
This is the Laffer Curve in practice. The government consumes wealth, it does not create wealth. The government does not make anything and has nothing but for what it takes. The Laffer Curve is a tool for politicians to figure out how much blood they can suck out of its people before it begins to kill its host.
There are some legit reasons for government and spending, but every dollar taken kills its host by that much. Strong growth of the economy can out grow what is sucked out until you hit a tipping point.
Join the forum discussion on this post
This new health care bill which has passed does not help reform any of the issues regarding cost. Though I am a Libertarian idealist, I can think of ways which provide state support for those who may need financial assistance. I understand in the ideal world, all government programs ultimately hurt individuals and I associate the programs that are intended to help those in need as reason those same people are in need. The reason is the cost. Government is a terrible system of allocating resources. Here is my Libertarian fix to this health care reform I hope those running for election in November will consider and try and implement.
The ultimate goal of any government program should be to lower the amount of individuals using assistance not grow it. With that goal in mind, first we need to look at where we are in order to create a plan of where we are going.
In scouring the internet to figure out the average cost of a Medicaid recipient since this is how the most of those not covered will be covered under this healthcare reform. This report gives us a quick idea of what the average cost per Medicaid recipient is. Keep in mind most doctors are now not even accepting new Medicaid patients even with the average cost being $10,918 per year in Arizona.
Rather than spending $10,918 per person on a plan that then requires the individual to not pay any money out of pocket, we can simply issue a voucher to that individual for that amount, deposited directly into an HSA. The Health Savings Account should be able to be used to pay any medical expenses including premiums as well as deductibles and medications. So now that we are depositing this money into a savings account, let’s now look at what a non government option would look like for individuals.
Using www.ehealthinsurance.com I simply did a quick look for insurance plans for someone who I consider expensive. So I could make this very difficult I used a female who is 55 years old living in Arizona. We can find the highest deductable where we can get the most bang for the buck if you will. This would be the United Health One Plan 100 policy. The choosing the highest deductible that this person could use the voucher with this plan makes the deductible $7,500 per year and has a monthly cost of only $156 dollars.. What this means is that after $7,500 is spent, the insurance company will pay for 100% of all medical expenses beyond that amount. This plan also covers prescription drugs in it as well. It would be important, that any money saved and not spent after one year from the HSA would be allowed to be withdrawn by the individual as earned income or rolled into an IRA. This way it is their money if they do not waste it rather than use it or lose it.
Ok so here is how it will work. Individual would be given the voucher for $10,918 instead of being forced to take an expensive government plan. This private insurance plan will only cost $1,872 per year. Subtract that cost from the voucher cost and the difference; $9,046 would be deposited into the individuals HSA.
Over the course of an entire year, under the policy above the most an individual could have to pay if they are sick would be the deductable of $7,500 leaving $1,546 left over to start since this is above what 100% coverage with all co-pays and deductable covered. I just saved America $1,546 per person already.
What is better about this plan is how it would empower individuals to save. The individual will be rewarded for living a healthy lifestyle. Those who smoke, eat unhealthy foods, and do not work out, are also those who need medical care more often. This means they will use their deductable money for health care. Those who live a healthier lifestyle will be rewarded financially. Consider if a married couple is actually healthy and just need their regular checkups. They may only spend $500 dollars for the year on medical expenses total. This would actually reward them for being healthy with over $15,000 dollars in additional income for the year.
Anyone wanting a free power chair will think twice about the cost since it will come out of their HSA savings and they will receive that much left in income at the end of the year. This plan would also lower lawsuit issues with doctors since individuals will decide for themselves if they should use their savings for medical tests. Doctors and patients will make decisions together rather than insurance companies or bureaucrats. If an individual decides not to get a treatment, they own that decision; therefore they will not likely sue the doctor since they made the decision themselves. This is who should decide if a service should be rendered or not.
In the bigger picture having a voucher will freeze the growth of medical costs. Clearly in this plan there is plenty of money to be saved. Giving the poor and needy vouchers rather than a plan they do not control savings leads to over use. They will think twice before going to an ER rather than waiting until the next morning to see their doctor. This will begin to turn this massive ship around. We need to control health care costs.
As a libertarian, I can support this because I have realized the transition is more important than an all or nothing battle. This model makes it easier to scale back the amount of subsidies i.e. vouchers are given based on need. If someone makes enough money, it would be reasonable to see the voucher amount decreased accordingly. The ultimate goal of this would be to get all individuals to the point of prosperity where they do not need subsidies. Attaching the welfare checks into the subsidies like this would be far more beneficial to society by rewarding healthy behavior.
This is a scalable plan that gets a handle on costs and will help unleash the free markets for health care. This will be good for individuals.
Matt
I have been watching the country get driven into socialism and crushed further into debt. So now on TV they (conservatives) are saying it is going to be up to the Republicans to get voted in and save us all from socialism this November. My question is what has a Republican done to shrink government? I do not believe in Republicans anymore, they have failed me.
In my life I have seen bigger government and more spending each every step of the way with Republicans. You have Republicans like Scott Brown who votes for jobs bills spending more Keynesian spending that has never worked in history. How will Republicans cut spending and balance the budget?
Republicans still believe in the Laffer Curve from the Reagan days. The biggest misconception with the Laffer Curve is not that lower taxes are better, instead the Laffer Curve is a tool to figure out what the maximum tax rate the government can get away with. Common sense says a tax rate of 0 would be best economically. Yes I understand we do need government and military, but the point is we need a smaller government not the largest one we can get away with.
Are Republicans willing to balance the budget in 2012 if they win the majority back? Are they willing to cut the military spending in half? Can a single Republican tell me how they will balance the budget and or what they would be willing to cut? I have not found a single one who can. Republicans may be a big winner in November, but unless we get leaders like Governor Chris Christie who is taking the Unions head on and slashing spending, we will continue down the road to serfdom.
I saw Sean Hannity stumped when asked what would he cut from the budget, yet he is the first to say he hates deficits. I am skeptical the Republicans will practice what they preach.
So health care reform has basically passed through the final turn and is making its way across the finish line. I have seen many sides to the debate and there are a few things I have observed. I watch those on the left asking why anyone could possible be opposed to this legislation? Here are the top 3 reasons this reform is so loved on the left. On the surface they all seem like good ideas, with the swipe of the magic legislative wand, all these issues will be fixed. Not really, here is why.
- No preexisting conditions.
- Coverage until age 26 on parents plan
- Prevents major price increases.
The three different issues that are being addressed are all intertwined. To keep this short and simple explaining number three, preventing major price increases is really just another way of saying price controls. The bottom lines with price controls are they create shortages. If insurance companies do not have any pricing power to bring in more money, they will not be able to pay more for needed services. This means rationing of care. It will happen; anyone can reason that if there isn’t enough money to pay for the expenses, limits on spending must happen. Who decides where money is better spent, that will now be someone in Washington. Good bad or ugly, without being able to raise premiums means there is not an unlimited supply of money for services. Prices will continue to shoot through the roof because of the crown jewel of this reform bill, preexisting conditions.
Our incredible intelligent law makers figured out they simply needed to write a law saying no more preexisting conditions, and that will solve all of our insurance problems as a nation. It all sounds great, why didn’t they do this a long time ago, because it just isn’t that simple. The reason it isn’t simple is because the mish mash of insurance companies and how we get coverage. Our current system is a patchwork of coverage inter tangled through ridiculous regulations.
Consider the first crazy way we get insurance…….. from our employer. It is ridiculous since if you lose or quit your job, you lose your insurance. Why would anyone purchase based on an employer? We do because of taxes and other regulations requiring companies to provide it. Next it is even more complicated with the ridiculous idea that we can’t shop across state lines. This means if your employer is in NY, then your insurance plan has to be purchased by your company in NY. If you live in a different office of the company located in a different state, you still have NY insurance. If you lose your job, by law you must give up your coverage since you are out of state and shopping across state lines is illegal.
The problem with a preexisting condition is when someone with it, has not been paying into an insurance pool. There are many reasons why this happens. Because most insurance policies are attached to the job, as soon as someone gets very sick, they will likely have to resign losing their current insurance policy, now with the new law, they will simply buy in to a new plan. The problem is that the old insurance company got all the profit while the new company will get all the expenses.
A likely outcome of this new law is the disappearance of individual policies. Why would an insurance company cover individuals now since the only people who will be seeking insurance not from an employer will be a sick person? With no fear of losing insurance from your employer, people will become sick and quit their job to take time off to focus on their health and becoming healthier, this sounds good, but will lead them to an individual policy. Again it will be a new policy that must cover them regardless of history or cost.
Eventually this will break down the system. Any smart insurance company will exit this dangerous pool of customers. That will start forcing over people to the state rolls. This will lead to a complete breakdown of the insurance industry, and eventually everyone will find themselves on a single payer insurance pool. That is the final outcome with regulations that are too onerous. It will distort the insurance market place until it breaks.
The final proof this new plan addresses none of the problems and leads to more of the above, being 26 and still needing to be on your mothers insurance. This is the case again because we have employer driven insurance coverage. If individuals bought their own insurance policy from the start, they would never need to be on moms insurance.
The reason this even needed to be included is because of how foolish our system is. A person has their family’s policy. The new health care reform will now force coverage on moms insurance until the age of 26 instead of just 18. That sounds great, but just pushes back the same problem; they will have to change insurance companies. It doesn’t address the real issue, the fact we change insurance companies way too much for easily fixed reasons.
This is my case for why health care reform will fail. It fails to address the fundamental issues plaguing our health care system. It will continue to raise the costs and will eventually run out of money.
Matt
http:.//talkofliberty.com
There are many popular people calling for patriots across this country to go to Washington this weekend to show them their constituents are watching. This would be an amazing thing to see millions of freedom loving people in Washington for the signing of this Health Care takeover. I hope for a peaceful show of force of the masses. Americans do not want this take over.
Will they sign it with Millions of Patriots standing outside?
Are you joining the party in Washington this weekend?
